1983-03-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 22, 1983, consideration of Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Blenkarn (p. 24001).
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, while it takes some time to get organized on Monday morning, we are here to discuss Bill C-143, which is a Bill to give the Government more borrowing authority. It is not a pleasure to speak to this Bill. We are reminded once again that our national financial affairs are in a sorry state. Those who are supposedly in charge of the country and fiddling while Canada groans.
When I spoke on this Bill during another stage of its debate, I dealt with many of the problems that are becoming even more persistent and critical than they were at that time. Many of my colleagues have discussed other aspects of the Bill from their own perspective. We are now faced with another stage of debate on this Bill to grant additional borrowing powers to the Government for an exceptionally large amount of money which, I understand, is the largest amount to be asked for in our history.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House a statement made by the present President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) back on October 23, 1979. At that time he stated that the Government-speaking of the Progressive Conservative Government at the time-should move quickly to present its budget. He said that it should be a budget which contained measures of a focused and specific nature designed to help our economy become more productive and efficient and deal with our deficit in current accounts.
I suggest that that is a very significant statement. The Government at that time seemed to be very concerned about some of these problems, whereas the present Government seems to have allowed those issues and concerns to fade into the background rather than dealing with them specifically at a time when it has the opportunity to do so.
There are two specific areas of concern to which reference has been made. The first concern is that of productivity. When I spoke to this Bill on Tuesday, March 1, I made reference to this particular aspect of the problem. 1 believe it is absolutely essential that an emphasis on increased productivity be made a priority. If productivity cannot be increased in Canada, we will not be able to deal with other problems effectively and efficiently.
While there has been a great deal of discussion about Government policies and the allocation of funds to various programs, we must remember that the Government will only be able to do this through the redistribution of funds from the resources that are already available unless productivity is increased. Instead of raising the standard of living and increasing the viability of our economy, the funds will just be spread around a little more and will therefore reduce the average standard of living of the people of Canada. Therefore, I am afraid that the Government has done little, if anything, to achieve an improvement in the productivity of the country.
[DOT] (mo)
The second phase as set out by the Minister at that time addressed deficits. He said that the budget should contain measures to help our economy become "more efficient and to deal with our deficit in current account". The only way the Government is dealing with it is by increasing it. This is certainly not acceptable to the Canadian people at the present time. If the Government continues with its deficits, as it is doing, and if it increases taxation and all the ill-effects of such a program, then it will not improve the economy, as it must do.


Mr. Lang:: I rise on a point of order.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Increasing and continuing deficits-


Peter Joseph Lang: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Hon. Member unintentionally gave an erroneous figure to the House. The current account is presently in surplus by $2.7 billion and it is a record surplus.


Alexander Bell Patterson: If we take the average over the period of time, then we find that there is little hope or expectation on the part of the business community that we will see any definite improvement in the total situation. That is the point I am making.
If the Government continues with deficit financing as it has been doing, there will be an ever-increasing interest burden on the Canadian people. I will not take time today to place on the

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
record the comparable figures with respect to the interest that we are paying on the national debt, because they have been placed on the record a number of times.
One of the costs is the ever-increasing interest burden. Then there is the loss of flexibility because in many respects, the Government is pretty well boxed in and unable to respond to the various situations which arise.
The third cost arising from such a program involves private sector borrowings which are crowded out. I think there has been an attempt to indicate to the House that the Government believes that the private sector is the engine of growth. There is no need to re-emphasize the fact that we in this Party certainly agree. However, when the Government borrows to such a massive degree, it reduces the available capital. Therefore, the private sector is not able to borrow its money at reasonable rates. Of course, as a consequence we once again face an upward spiral in interest rates.
Then, of course, there is the loss of confidence on the part of the Canadian people. This is another serious ill effect as far as continuing deficit financing is concerned. An article in the Ottawa Citizen of February 21, 1983 states:
The more the federal Government is forced to spend in bad times, the longer better times will be delayed: the money needed to finance Government deficits will be found at the expense of the private sector, and the resulting competition for funds will drive up interest rates.
I should like to point out that some time ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a statement that a new morality must be established in dealing with international affairs. I suggest that there ought to be on the national level, as well. 1 would ask: Because a particular Party in the House has a majority, is it moral for it continually to overspend and then force Canadians to bear an ever-increasing burden of taxation to support unconscionable borrowings to finance the Government's profligate spending? I would answer no.
Secondly, is it moral to build up a staggering burden of debt for our children, our grandchildren and generations beyond that, which they will be called upon to bear, as well as financing the affairs of Government in the particular period in which they live? Again, I say no.
Therefore, as we consider this particular Bill today, I would take the same stand I took before, and that is that I believe that the Government has not established any credibility and does not deserve our authorizing borrowing authority for this amount.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there is no way, without inviting criticism, that any Member of this House of Commons could with clear conscience vote for this Bill at this moment in time.
Let me cite some of the reasons it is impossible for me to support this Bill. In view of the imbalanced expenditure which is, first, exercised in respect to the fisheries in the Province of New Brunswick, my criticism is not of the extent of the expenditure in other constituencies than my own. My criticism
is that my own constituency has been neglected in this expenditure, particularly in the small craft harbours structure. When we look at the Estimates that are presently before the Committees of this House and see that $5 million and $6 million projects have been undertaken on the northeast coast of New Brunswick, while there is not an expenditure of consequence, which will even be listed, on the Bay of Fundy shore of New Brunswick, I submit to you that the inferences are obvious and do not have to be specified in my remarks.
This is causing fishermen in my constituency to fish from moorings which are just not up to standard, which are damaging their boats and which are detrimental to the development or even the conduct of the existing business which takes place on a very significant scale among thousands of my constituents.
Secondly, in respect to the fishery, let me point out that regulations are changed without notice to the fishermen. The latest example is that lobster fishermen in my constituency had been authorized to set their traps and to fish between the traffic lanes of the deep sea traffic which goes in and out of the port of Saint John. The stipulations, when they were first given permission to fish there, were as follows: "Yes, you may fish there and, secondly, you are strictly at your own risk. The Department or the Government at large will take no responsibility for the safety of the people, the safety of the boat or the gear itself. But under those conditions you may fish between the shipping lanes in the Bay of Fundy as they lead to Saint John."
About ten days ago the Department of Fisheries, without any notice, after lobster gear had already been set, notified the fishermen that they must get out of that space between the traffic lanes in the Bay of Fundy. This brings on new and unnecessary hardships to the fishing industry of my area. And I am supposed to vote for that?
Let me also point out that surveillance by the Department of Fisheries is lax and incompetent. Last week, on one day, two large scallop draggers from the United States were fishing five miles within the recognized fishing line between Canada and the United States. If our surveillance is so bad that we cannot in fact apprehend boats which are five miles within Canadian waters, well outside the legal limits for any American ship, then there is something seriously wrong.
Let me indicate the consequence of such an infringment upon our rights. There is no fishery which is as profitable at this moment as the scallop fishery, and there is no area where better scallops exist than in these beds. We are allowing these scallops to be taken illegally, without any apprehension or any charges laid, day after day in the area of fishing as it relates to my constituency.
Not only are the regulations coming without notice and infringing upon the rights of our fishermen, but the regulations are not consistent, nor are they consistently applied.
Another item with respect to the fishery is that the Department of Transport has without notice chosen to widen one of the traffic lanes by one and one half miles. When you are
March 28, 1983

working from an island, with very little sea space in which to fish, and you lose a mile and a half of it without notice, you have certainly lost a lot of fishing opportunity. Those on the other side of this House want me to vote for a Bill to borrow more money to govern in that fashion? No way, Mr. Speaker.
I want to mention the potato industry. There is in process under the leadership of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) an effort to organize an eastern Canadian potato marketing agency. There are questions unanswered which must be answered. They are drawn from the examples which have been set by the Canadian Dairy Commission and by CEMA, the protector of the egg industry in Canada. What are those words that I have?
Under the Canadian Dairy Commission, there have been several instances of processors of cheese saying they could not get enough milk under this structure to produce their historic quantity of cheese, nor could they get enough milk to make cheese to supply the demand which they presently have. If that is the way quotas are to be allocated under a marketing system, it just will not work for the potato industry.
When we come to the egg industry, we find that there are those who have made an effort to export eggs from Canada. They have not even had consideration by the various provincial boards, nor by the national board, whether there is an opportunity for egg exports. There are on occasion surpluses of eggs in Canada. We should be ready to explore the export market. These surpluses of eggs are burdensome and costly to the producer and consumer alike. I do not want to see the same situation develop in the potato industry.
In the egg industry, there is a regulation whereby you can raise X number of hens which you may market outside the agency. If such a regulation is to be introduced into any eastern Canadian potato marketing board, there are questions we have to ask. What is the minimum number of acres of potatoes which can be produced without coming under the regulation of the quota? If there is such a regulation, how many members of how many families will be able to plant up to that amount of potatoes? I would assume for the moment that it might be five acres of potatoes that could be produced without regulation under such a marketing principle as CEMA or the way the dairy board presently functions. If that be the case, how many members of a large family will be able to produce potatoes on five acres and what impact will this have on the market?
The next question is, how can you regulate the production and marketing of any agricultural product when only God, who controls the weather, can tell you what your yield will be? You do not know that until you harvest because He does not tell you in advance. How are you going to handle the situation in which you have unusually good crops of any fruit or vegetable across Canada, particularly potatoes? How are you going to supply Canada in the years when you have an unusually poor crop across Canada? Production has been known to fluctuate by as much as 25 per cent in two years in Canada. That is the exception. It may be 25 per cent up or 25 per cent
Borrowing Authority
down from the historic rate of production, not necessarily because of more or less acres but because of weather conditions as they exist in the areas in which the product is produced.
We are now having meetings in Atlantic Canada trying to establish an eastern Canadian potato agency. I want the Minister of Agriculture to answer these questions. What is he putting forward besides propaganda for these people to work with in reality? What is he doing to them except constraining the payments which historically have been made to underpaid farmers for their production? All the Minister is doing is constraining those payments in order to compel hard-up farmers to join the eastern potato agency. How on the basis of the cheese factories and egg marketing can a processor of potatoes be assured of a given supply of potatoes for his business? How is he going to be able to support an export market which he may have developed and which may be, and probably is, a fluctuating market requiring different sizes of demand? He cannot know in April of any given year what he is going to require from the potato crop in his area 12, 13, 15 months down the road, which is the supply he must accommodate during his producing years.
How are we going to know if we have to abandon the seed export markets, which are also variable? How are we going to achieve a balance which will supply our table requirements? Are we going to ban imports into Canada entirely for the table market? If so, of course, we ban the opportunity to export from Canada. Without proper storage capabilities, how are we going to supply Canada 12 months a year?
I would like to ask something else, which I have repeatedly asked in the House because of my deep concern. What voice is Atlantic Canada going to have? Will it be a five-Province organization with a vote each, or will it be an organization which, in any other structure outside of Government, would grant to any area the number of votes which relates to their productivity? With respect to the stock they hold in the business, roughly 50 per cent of the area is supplied by New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Are they then to have roughly 50 per cent of the voting control? If they do not, New Brunswick and P.E.I. will be in serious shape.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, we have reached a deficit and borrowing crisis because this Government is labouring under the illusion which has pervaded western economic thought for the past 40 years; that is, that the demand for goods creates its own supply, that the demand for goods can be increased by increasing the purchasing power of individuals by deficit financing or money creation. As a result, the deficit today is equal to 28 per cent of all Government expenditure. For every four dollars which the Government spends, it must borrow one more dollar to finance that spending.
There are only two ways to finance this deficit, either by printing money and debasing the currency, which has currently

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
fallen to a base of 80 cents U.S., or by borrowing more money and thus ever increasing the deficit. This is a pattern which has been followed year after year, in good years and in bad years, this constant borrowing and escalation of the deficit. The interest burden on financing the deficit costs each individual- and that is just interest alone-$700 per year, or $16.7 billion. This constitutes in itself 4.8 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product.
It is interesting that in fact this interest burden is equal to the loss in GNP which we experienced during the last year. This effectively reduces private sector stimulation of the economy which is, of course, the engine of economic growth. It does this in three ways: first, it increases the tax burden for Canadians; second, it crowds out the private sector borrowing which is a proven job creater; and, third, productivity and growth are hampered by a crisis in confidence in the investment community instilled by the actions of a fiscally confused and irresponsible Government which continues to debase the Canadian currency through excessive Government borrowing.
Government borrowing for job creation is working effectively to ensure that real jobs, based on economic growth and increased productivity, are in fact being squeezed out, and will continue to be squeezed out as long as we keep this deficit process building, growing and increasing at such a ridiculous rate. As a result of this, the dollar falls, the cost of living goes up, interest rates continue to be high and job-creating capital investment seeks more friendly and lucrative atmospheres.
What is the way that Canada can redress this fiscally irresponsible philosophy? How can we bring economic prosperity and growth and, therefore, social justice to this land? Is the answer to be found in a Government which believes in a program of taxing and spending the country to the brink of bankruptcy? Is that the policy? I do not think so. Is the answer to borrow more and more to pay ever-increasing deficit payments on which you must keep borrowing again and again to pay in ever-increasing spirals? No, Mr. Speaker, these are not the answers. These are the policies of the Government, but they are not the answers to the economic crisis which is facing us today.
Creating jobs and ensuring humanitarian social assistance to those in need in these difficult recessionary economic times will occur if the Government concentrates on ensuring that real revenues rise. That is the only way it can happen. You cannot just keep borrowing; you have to create a climate of productivity, and from that tax revenues will flow to the Government. That is the way the problem has to be cured, rather than by borrowing and borrowing. The answer does lie in productivity and growth.
This country is a land of great human and natural resource potential. It can recover, but only if we reverse current Government economic trends. The way to do that is by changing the entire thought process, the mindset. What is important is not the creation of more money, but rather the creation of more real wealth. The essence of a sound, prosperous economy
is not the quantity of money but, rather, the quality of money; the purchasing power of the dollar is more important than the number of dollars you in fact have. So many of us have experienced that personally or through our constituents. They perhaps have or make a lot of money, but what does it buy for them? Virtually less and less each year.
The key to economic recovery and prosperity for Canadians is, therefore, not for this Government to borrow more and spend more, because the mindset of this Government is impoverished by the lethargic, self-serving, bureaucratic and unproductive growth that hampers the true growth of the Canadian individual. Instead of taxing and spending, we have to put more money into people's hands which they can spend on consumer products and create jobs to get the economy and the Canadian people working again. The wrong people are borrowing and spending; the wrong people are, directly and indirectly, saving and investing, and lending to, the wrong people in the wrong institutions. People are lending their money to financial institutions; the institutions then tend to lend it back to Government, and then Government tries to redistribute it to the people of Canada. That process has to be reversed. What has to be done is for the Government to create a climate of confidence so that the people who are putting their money into savings right now will have enough confidence in the private sector, the individual small-businessman, to put that money into his hands to create more real jobs, more growth and more productivity.
We hear a lot about the plight of farmers, Mr. Speaker. Well, that is a very real plight. We have had a special emergency debate on this subject. I think that was important and 1 support it. But what about the small-businessman who is in exactly the same position? Our institutions and Government in turn are taking the small business generators of real jobs, growth and productivity, and just pulling them under faster and faster through bankruptcy and receivership.
It is time to give small business a chance. They have been creating jobs for 20 years and it is time for the Government of Canada to encourage borrowing by those small businesses to help them survive the economic crunch. Just get them over the next six months and then we can tag on to the American recovery, which is where part of the answer to our own growth problems lies. But the Government will not create that needed climate of confidence by taking more and more out of the economy through increased borrowing. That is not going to work. It is not the right measure at this time.
The key to economic recovery and prosperity for Canadians is to increase productivity itself. I think if I just stood here and said that the key is to increase productivity itself, and repeated it 5,000 times, that might be the way to create the kind of mindset we have to create in the Government. Productivity will occur once we cut the Gordian knot of Government growth and private sector stagnation. Canada's Gross National Product has the potential to be the most impressive of the OECD nations, but we are outstripping them all only in our own dismal performance of being twenty-fourth out of 24
March 28, 1983

nations. The growth in our GNP is a grotesquely negative 5 per cent, a full 1.5 per cent less than the next worse nation.
I want to know how this additional borrowing of another $19 billion is going to improve our performance. 1 do not understand how it will and I have not been told by anyone on the Government side. These GNP figures mean jobs have been lost for Canadians as the unemployment lines swell to 1.6 million, or 12.4 per cent of the work force. In British Columbia the figure is even higher at 14.2 per cent, and that is the very lowest estimate rather than the reality. The number of people looking for work is much, much higher.
These people, Mr. Speaker, must be given work so that they can fulfil themselves as individuals and help this nation prosper and grow. The American economy is starting to recover; 1983 will be a year of economic success due to lower tax rates, interest rates and energy prices. Canada has the opportunity to ride this wave of prosperity but instead the Government is borrowing its way into penury and poverty. The Government is flirting with the danger of structural deficits which will be endemic to our economic system and mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren. We can prevent this. We can bring prosperity and growth, jobs and economic renewal to this land by going back to the basics. This Bill is a further step away from sound economic policy and a better way of life for all Canadians, and on that basis I am unable to support it or the philosophy which has placed this unfortunate tragedy on Canadians.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have always listened intently to the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman). Sometimes I hear things I like to hear, sometimes things I disagree with, but one way or another I always react. I must say to him as one who has spoken very loudly and clearly in support of Reaganomics that the world recession we are in-and it is a world recession, not a Canadian recession-can be blamed in large part on the policies of the U.S. Government, particularly those of the Reagan Government and its failure to get interest rates down at the rate I think they should come down.
I must say that the tax cuts the U.S. Government brought in have a very large bearing on the U.S. deficit. Studies that I have seen, particularly one done by a group at the University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analysis, indicate that our deficit is a recession deficit and that if the recession had not happened-in other words, if we could go back to 1979 when we had a reasonable growth picture-we would actually have a small surplus this year. The U.S. Government figures are quite different. The tax cuts and very large defence expenditures increase have created a situation where they would have a deficit in the order of $90 billion to $100 billion in any given year.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Which is less than Canada's, on a proportionate basis.


Paul Edmund McRae: That second figure was produced by the congressional budget office. We should understand that three
Borrowing Authority
out of every four dollars of increase in our deficit is caused by declining revenues, not by heavy expenditures. This is a debate that I always have with the Hon. Member and I hope we are approaching it in a genuine manner. I would advocate an increase in surplus over a short period of time in order to create employment and to stimulate the economy which, in the long run, should reduce the deficit. Some economists-and Informetrica is one-have conducted studies which indicate that the deficit will be reduced this year by about $5 billion because the economy is beginning to show some degree of improvement. I do not think stimulation will hurt the economy but, rather, will do some good.
I am also concerned about the fact that we have a long-term unemployment problem which must be faced. Even if the deficit were brought back to zero this year by a large growth factor, most economists tell us that 11 or 12 per cent of the population would still be unemployed, more or less on a permanent basis. The real problem is how to change that to not more than perhaps 6 or 7 per cent unemployment, taking into account those people who move between one job and another. With the present unemployment rate of 12 or 13 per cent, which we are told could continue for an indefinite period, we know that a large percentage of the population is not plugged in to the labour market. That means that basically they are not part of our society. The real problem is not the case of someone who is laid off for a few months, collects Unemployment Insurance benefits, then finds a job and is back in the labour force but, rather, those people who are not able to plug in to the labour market and who may be deprived of being part of the mainstream of Canadian life for most of their lives.
When we talk of unemployment we must take into account the young people in the 17 to 25 age bracket where the unemployment rate is about 30 or 35 per cent. We are talking about the young people coming on the labour market who do not find jobs and thus do not become part of the mainstream of society.
This is the real damage that is being done by the monetarists who claim that the economy must be slowed down to prevent inflation and all this unemployment. I have no problem with their concern about inflation. It is the cause of high interest rates and it creates all kinds of serious problems. However, there are other ways to eliminate inflation. One method is through the control mechanism. Another is to let the dollar float downward if necessary in order to keep interest rates down.
The problem that must be faced right away in this country is the large number of people who cannot find jobs. In my community of Thunder Bay the unemployment rate has been between 15 and 18 per cent for the last four or five months. It is rather difficult to interpret the figures because samples are very small, but a large number of people in the community just cannot find work at all. There is some hope that the housing
24194

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
market will take up and 200 or 300 apartment units will be built this year; but we must find some meaningful work for the large number of young people coming on to the labour market.
An example of what we might consider, although not the only one, is short-term public works, projects. We do not want to build a long-term structural deficit into our system but rather to infuse the economy fairly quickly and get a lot of things done.
In northern Ontario, New Brunswick, some parts of Nova Scotia, parts of the Prairies and certainly in British Columbia, forestry is a key industry. Foreign sales produce revenues of $22 billion to $23 billion per year, so there is no question that it is an industry that is vital to the country. During the last 30 or 40 years, however, our forests have been seriously abused. In northwestern Ontario large tracts of forest land are no longer productive. They have been cut over and have not been reforested in an intelligent way. This is a labour-intensive industry, Mr. Speaker, and sylviculture and refurbishing our resources in northern Ontario would require a tremendous amount of labour. We should begin projects like this immediately in order to restore confidence in the young people who form 17 or 18 per cent of the population and who are not able to plug in to the mainstream of our society.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, thanks to the amendment put forward by the Conservative Party, this is the second time I have had the opportunity to make an intervention on Bill C-143. When I first addressed the Bill I spoke about the unemployment problem and the transition the country is going through, from the traditional industrial base that we have known for the last hundred years to the informational or high-tech aspect of our society.
Today I want to refer to one particular industry in order to give some idea of how short-sighted and wrong the present fiscal and monetary policies of the Government are with respect to borrowing. I refer to the farm implement industry which affects my riding, among others. Agricultural machinery used to be built not only in Brantford but in Chatham, Hamilton, Winnipeg and other centres in the country, so this is not a problem of central Canada but a nation-wide problem. Of course, the parts industry is also affected.
In 1982, the last year for which we have figures, we had a net deficit in agricultural implements of $985.4 million, just short of $1 billion. This is an absolute disgrace, Mr. Speaker. In 1981 the deficit was almost $2 billion, but the reduction is due to the fact that farmers do not have enough money to buy farm machinery. The roughly $1 billion which is represented here represents about 10,000 jobs in the agri-industry that should have been created in Canada but were not, even in a severe depression year, such as in 1982.
We often talk about the auto pact and its deficiencies. Generally speaking, over the years Canada has been a net loser in the auto pact as you can see if you go back to the mid-1960s, Mr. Speaker. We are also net losers year over year in farm implement manufacturing. I do not know why. We have a long record of making farm implements in this country. We
can go back to the early days of the Masseys, the Fergusons, the Harrises and the famous Cockshutt family from Brantford. We have made very fine implements and yet we have a net deficit in this industry. Last year we lost 10,000 jobs. When we talk about unemployment and the loss of 10,000 jobs or 20,000 jobs, it really does not mean an awful lot unless you relate those numbers to a certain community. Let me take Brantford as an example. We have had on balance for the past two years, at any given time, except perhaps the spring of 1982 and the spring of 1981, some 5,000 agricultural implement employees out of work. That situation affects approximately 15,000 to
20.000	people in a community whose total population is 75,000 and is an absolute economic disaster. It is also a social disaster in many respects as well. The Government's policies allowed
10.000	jobs in that farm implement industry to be exported out of the country because of our net deficit of approximately $1 billion, but we could have handled easily half of the lost 10,000 jobs in Brantford with 5,000 on lay-off. That may be an oversimplification of the situation, but in terms of figures half of those 10,000 unemployed could have found work in the City of Brantford.
While we have 5,000 people on chronic, long-term unemployment, we have another very interesting situation developing. Again I am referring to my own constituency of Brantford which has two major industries, Massey-Ferguson and White Farm Implements. If those two industries were in financially better shape they would be using the time of the recession and their capital resources to tranfer into the high-tech field. Perhaps they could go into high-tech assembly, robotronics or micro-processing. There is no doubt in my mind that if either one or both of those industries survive, that is precisely what they will be doing in the next four or five years. It is estimated not only in farm machinery manufacturing but in all major manufacturing that at least 40 per cent of all assemblers now on lay-off will suffer permanent lay-off. In Brantford, 40 per cent represents about 2,000 workers.
Let us look at some other figures. For 1983-1984 the federal Government has budgeted $5.2 billion for research and development, most of which will be in high-tech. As I said when I spoke a couple of weeks ago on this same Bill, only $230 million has been budgeted for the skills programs, which in a sort of way addresses itself to the need for retraining in high-tech.
I will give you some specific examples, Mr. Speaker. If you are laid off at Massey-Ferguson today, whether you are an assembler, a mechanic or whatever, you may qualify first for a skills orientation program. If you are still on Unemployment Insurance, that Unemployment Insurance does not run out before the ILAP designation on July 27 and you find a seat at Mohawk College, you can remain on Unemployment Insurance at $200 a week. If you are married and have a couple of kids, you can probably just get by on that $200 a week. However, should you not be able to find a seat at Mohawk College at the Braneida campus or in Hamilton before July 27-and in all likelihood you will not because every seat is taken
March 28, 1983

for the next six months-and your Unemployment Insurance runs out, when you do get placed in a skills program for upgrading and high-tech training, your income while on that program drops to a maximum of $104 a week for a married man with two children. That is how seriously the Government is taking the situation in my constituency of Brantford, which has an ILAP designation.
On the industrial side, things have been very successful. Some $13 million of federal funding has been allocated, with $37 million from the private sector to relocate or expand in Brantford, for a total of $50 million, which amount could possibly double between now and when the ILAP designation runs out on July 27. However, on the labour adjustment side we have fewer than 200 employees on long-term lay-off who are able to take advantage, or who can literally afford to take advantage, of the skills upgrading program or the program to introduce laid off assemblers to the new industrialism of the micro-chip.
The other major problem of trying to retrain foundry workers and assemblers at Massey-Ferguson, White Farm or other industries in Brantford-apart from the fact that there are not enough seats at Mohawk College, either at the Branei-da campus in Hamilton or in Brantford-is that those retraining facilities are woefully inadequate. The staff, the counsellors and the teachers are doing everything they can to accommodate the need, but we just have not been spending the money on plant expansion in high-tech training facilities, not only in southern Ontario, where most of the manufacturing takes place, but also across Canada.
I would like to see even more money, if necessary borrowed, invested in high-tech retraining in all industries, not just farm implements. When the recession is over perhaps we can have jobs for at least most, if not all, instead of having a community of permanently laid off people amounting to between 12 per cent and 15 per cent of the labour force.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), I find this is the second time that I have had the privilege of talking to this piece of legislation. I am thankful certainly to Members of the PC Party who moved an amendment allowing us to continue on with this very important discussion. I hope in some small way, at least, we will be able to impress upon Members of the Government the need to change in terms of asking for such a tremendous amount of money, as represented in this particular Bill under debate.
The Hon. Member for Brant touched upon a very important area on which I will elaborate. I am speaking of the whole question of the farm machinery industry and the effect the recession has had, coupled with short-term Government policies, on that very important Canadian industry. This industry has a direct bearing on the part of the country from where I come, that of western Canada and a farm-oriented kind of riding. The Hon. Member talked about the economic hardship which farm machinery manufacturers face.
Borrowing Authority
In my part of the country we do not see that economic hardship to the same extent, but we certainly see the effects of it. Over the past few years we have seen the closing down of many farm machinery dealerships. Farm machinery generally is not selling well because of the recession, low grain prices, low agricultural prices, and the uncertainty created by the Government in the over-all economic climate.
It is refreshing to see the other side of the question, which concerns the machinery manufacturer and the plant workers who are affected as much as the machinery dealers in western Canada who are going out of business and the farmers who cannot afford the buy that new machinery which they so desperately need in the next year.
Members are not so much concerned with the borrowing requirements in this Bill, which are substantial and, in fact, the largest in the history of the country, as with the arrogance shown by the Government in asking for this amount of money without giving us any reason for its expenditure of that amount. Any reasonable, thinking Member of Parliament cannot accept that request without knowing where the money will be spent.
A very good analogy to use in this case would be to consider what would happen if a small-businessman, farmer or housewife were to go to a bank and ask for $100,000. The bank manager would probably give that individual the $100,000 provided he received a guarantee on how the money would be paid back and whether the individual had any assets. Since Canada has enough assets with respect to borrowing the amount of money we are concerned with in this legislation, that part of the analogy is irrelevant; but if the person borrowing the money from the bank, Credit Union or Caisse Populate totally refused to explain or vaguely explained how the money was to be spent, on what it would be spent and how it will be paid back, I do not believe that many managers of a financial institution would accept that type of request.
Similarly, as responsible Members of Parliament who are elected from all across the country to scrutinize as much as possible how the taxpayers' money is spent, we should be given some indication how it will be spent. We must remember that this money does not belong to the Government but to the taxpayers. The Government does not have any money other than what it receives from the taxpayers.
The Government has indicated that it intends to bring down its budget toward the end of April. This Bill will have been passed by that time. It is improper for the Liberal Government to proceed in this way, and that is why it has received strong opposition not only from the Opposition Party but across the country.
The effects of this legislation have left Canadians with a sense of uncertainty. They are as uncertain as we in the House about the direction in which this Government is heading. In fact, many people across the country are even more uncertain at this time-they are desperate. The Hon. Member for Brant told us of some of his constituents who are desperate at this

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
time due to the Goverment's lack of direction or lack of assistance.
This desperation can be seen throughout the entire Canadian economy, but I would like to deal with that desperation as it affects agriculture. The agricultural community is in very serious difficulty at the present time. I would like to talk briefly about a Bill that was introduced by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) which attempts to deal with that situation. The Hon. Member was making an honest attempt to address the issue that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and, I assume, Members of the Treasury benches of the Government were not willing to address.
The Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex brought forward a Bill which is designed to take a different approach to farm foreclosures and bankruptcies. He should be given credit for taking the initiative to bring Bill C-653 forward. It is obvious that there are a small number of farmers who could use additional emergency protection to prevent foreclosures on their farms. Bill C-653, which has moved from second reading and into committee, is an attempt to provide that assistance and at least gives an indication that Members from all sides can get together and expedite legislation if we so desire.
Bill C-653 will be carefully studied in committee. While its intent is admirable, there are some grave concerns over the effects it will have if it is passed without any amendment. It could eliminate long-term lending by banking institutions in this country over the next number of years. I do not believe any Members of Parliament wish that to happen since it would be, to use an old saying, like cutting off our nose to spite our face. We must carefully consider the Bill since agricultural organizations have already indicated some concern over it; and since the banks are also properly concerned about it, Members of Parliament should be very concerned.
In my opinion, the role that banks have played in their dealings with agriculture should be both criticized and applauded-which does not happen too often in the House. While no one can see into the future, the banks certainly gave too much encouragement to farmers to borrow money during the latter part of the 1970s. However, I want to compliment the banks, which have in most cases been fair about lending money to farmers. When the Farm Credit Corporation is coupled with this measure, hopefully we will come through the current economic situation with which we are faced.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, once again we are under the guillotine as the debate on Bill C-143 draws to a close. I do not particularly like speaking with a guillotine over my head but I suppose we must do so when we are faced with a Government such as the one opposite, which is not particularly concerned about how matters are debated in the House. The Government makes no effort to listen to what the Opposition says and act upon that advice. Instead it comes forward with a Bill with the intention to bull it through, no matter what arguments are made by the other side.
The amendment which we are debating today would have the effect of allowing the Government, within what remains of this fiscal year, to borrow the $5 billion that it requests. We do not really quarrel with that since most of that money has already been spent. However, we would like to see the Government give more thought to its request for an additional $14 billion which it says it needs. In our opinion, the Government has not given enough consideration or thought to the effects of excessive borrowing.
In the few minutes that I have I would like to examine the effects of excessive borrowing. First, we must consider the cost of repayment, because I do not think the Government always takes this factor into account. It simply says that it needs the money and then asks to have authority to go to the capital markets of the country and borrow that money. But what about five or ten years down the road? The Government does not think about the consequences of its immediate action today.
The fact is that as one borrows and borrows and piles up more and more debt, the cost of servicing the debt goes up year by year. A couple of figures might be of interest. In the 196869 year, interest payments on the national debt amounted to 2 per cent of Gross National Product. I think that is a fairer way of putting it, rather than in dollar terms, because dollars have been affected by inflation. However, in the 1982-83 fiscal year, the interest on the debt will be 5 per cent of Gross National Product. We are pretty sure what it will be because we are nearly at the end of the fiscal year. The cost of repayment or the cost of interest on the public debt has increased by two and a half times since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. The interest payments now amount to $1,700 per Canadian taxpayer.
Let us consider it from a slightly different perspective. Again, in 1968-69 one dollar in nine from federal revenues went toward debt servicing. In the period which is just ending, the 1982-83 fiscal year, it has been necessary to use one dollar in three from federal revenues solely for debt servicing. I wonder how much longer can we carry on along this road to ruin?
I was carefully listening to a speech given a few days ago on this very subject by the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). He said that the Government is leaving a legacy of debt in Canada for generations and generations to come. It is doing this without proper thought or consideration.
It is funny that in Canada, a country which is so inherently wealthy, we are taxed to the hilt, yet we, speaking collectively, as Government, find ourselves with no money to spend. How can that be? There are billions of dollars generated from public revenues, but the Government never seems to have enough. That is obviously because it has not given proper consideration to the management of public affairs, and particularly to the management of public financial affairs in Canada. This is due to this borrowing which has taken place, greater and greater amounts each year, since 1968. Thirty per
March 28, 1983

cent or one-third of all the money which is now coming in is going toward servicing the debt which has piled up over the years since 1968.
This is why our social programs and services are going downhill and why we find ourselves without sufficient financial resources to maintain the health care standards to which we have been accustomed in this country. This is why useful public works are at a standstill.
1 was listening carefully to the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and he mentioned the fact that useful capital expenditures, which would pay dividends in the years to come, are not being made. They are not capable of being made because we have no money with which to make them. All that money, all that public revenue, has been used to service the debt. If we had looked after our affairs since 1968, public revenues would have been sufficient to make these necessary capital investments in roads, bridges, colleges and hospitals. In so doing, if that money had been invested for those purposes, it would have created the desperately needed employment in Canada.
Right now we are experiencing the worst of both worlds in this country because of past mismanagement. We are saddled with very high unemployment and we are unable to make those public investments which would have cut into that unemployment and created jobs for Canadians.
Another effect of the excessive borrowing of the present Liberal Government is that private borrowing is crowded out. In this country, there is at all times a bidding match going on within the capital markets for the available dollars, for the available savings. If Government comes into this market with such requirements as it has, $19 billion in this instance, and is prepared, because it must, to pay the high interest rates in order to attract that capital, then it is self-evident that there is no money left over for the private borrower, or he or she is forced to compete with these excessively high interest rates to get his or her share of the available savings. When the Government has a new bond issue, it must make the rate on that bond attractive; otherwise, people will not buy it. It must inch up the interest rate so as to attract people to lend money to the Government.
Most of the money the Government borrows, whether it is through Canada Savings Bonds or other obligations of the Government, is the accrued savings of Canadians. The Government is not using those savings for capital purposes; it is using them for current account purposes. What is actually happening in Canada is the destruction of capital. Canadians save and put by money, dollar by dollar perhaps $100 a month, and then the Government borrows that money. Instead of using it for capital purposes, it uses it for current account purposes, thereby destroying the accumulated capital. Private borrowers are priced out of the market.
Am I correct in assuming that my ten minutes has already expired? That being the case, I will give Your Honour the next thrilling instalment of this debate when my time comes up again tomorrow on third reading.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in his various remarks over the last week, has been
Borrowing Authority
referring to consultation with regard to the budget and, shall we say, the whole of the Government's economic program. However, let us examine that in light of the requirements of this particular Bill. The Bill seeks borrowing authority of about $19 billion.
As my colleagues have said, we have no real quarrel with the $5 billion in Part I of the Bill; that is, the balance for this particular year. However, the Government has used the provisions of Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act. We have seen publicity in the newspapers to the effect that this is an obscure Section of the Financial Administration Act and that the process is perhaps somewhat strange or not often used. In terms of the Act, it merely states that the Minister, with the consent of the Governor in Council, may borrow, for periods of up to six months, those sums which are required to pay Government obligations and for which there is insufficient money in the general revenue fund. There is nothing gravely strange about that; it has been used before.
The Government, as the Minister said, has been going to the Treasury bill market every week. There is a reason why the Government has been going weekly to the Treasury bill market. These are short-term Treasury bills, usually a maximum of six months, but the Government is using this procedure, along with actions by the Bank of Canada, to control the movement of the interest rate. These are being used as a tool basically at the present time to keep the interest rate in Canada sufficiently higher than the interest rate in the United States so as to buttress the level of the Canadian dollar.
The Canadian dollar has been floating since 1971. Canada is not involved, as France was last week and indeed has been for many months prior to the events of last week, in trying to defend a certain level of the Canadian dollar against the fixed amount of the reserve U.S. dollar or against part of the monetary snake in Europe.
I say frankly that the Minister is conning the Canadian public by what he says about consultations in what was talked about by the former Minister of Finance in the budgetary statement of June 28. Consultation is consultation pure and simple. It is not talking things over after the event. Last summer's process of hearing public representations on the Ways and Means motion was not consultation. There were changes but that was not a result of consultation. Instead, it was hearing representations after proposals had been set down in quick-setting cement.
The Minister talks about consultations now in various areas with regard to the budget. How is that different from previous years? National associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and any number of other groups, have filed briefs with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on the subject of budgetary provisions precisely as they are doing now. Maybe the minister is talking more, he may be talking in

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
public more, but that is not the consultation that we would like to see.
It is unfortunate that the public is not aware of what was said by both the questioners and the Minister during the Committee hearings on Bill C-143, because there the Minister simply adopted a stonewall, hard-nosed attitude. He did not try to explain. He did not even say that he had changed his mind. He told us in October that he would present a budget some time during these weeks after which he would ask for borrowing authority, and that is a proper sequence. Somehow or other he has become enamoured of what is a bad practice by this Government, and I am surprised in some ways that it was accepted by the Chair, that it could come forward again with an omnibus Bill.
My colleague for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) had an amendment which would have eliminated Part II of the Bill, and that is precisely the position we are taking. We want a budget showing how the Minister proposes to raise the moeny to face those $88 billion of Main Estimates and loans for fiscal year 1983-1984. Then in the normal course, he would say that he has to borrow. We know he has to borrow, but how much? The Minister is asking us for carte blanche, in asking us for $14 billion. As a matter of fact, he can carry over $2 billion from the Bill of 1982-1983 into 1983-1984. So in effect he will have provisions for $16 billion.
He does not tell us when he is going to come forward with another borrowing Bill. The year 1982-1983 gave us the rather untidy spectacle of the Government coming forward for borrowing authority four times. But 1982-1983 was possibly one of the most disastrous years in Government fiscal planning in that the estimated budgetary deficit was $16 billion, if I remember rightly. As a result of escalations along the way, this figure could now reach approximately $29 billion. There are economists and other monetary authorities in the country who say that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government has quoted a figure of approximately $26 billion, the actual figure may be closer to $29 billion.
Based on the performance of the last two years where Department of Finance officials have been proved to be so wrong in their forecasts, I am rather inclined to go along on past performance and say that those independent economic authorities, with their estimates of $29 billion or thereabouts, will likely be more in the right than will the experts in the Department of Finance.
My colleague for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and others have indicated why we would oppose this Bill. I am opposed to giving the Government a blank cheque at this time, and I would vote against this stage of the Bill.
[DOT] (U30)


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be speaking today to Bill C-143. The House is now considering an amendment proposed by the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) which would in effect cut
the borrowing authority requested by the Government by about $14 billion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) asked the House for a borrowing authority of $19 billion because the borrowing requirements for the financial year ending this week amounted to $5 billion, and because the projected deficit for 1982-83 was higher than expected. The Minister is asking for authority to borrow $14 billion more because he wants to ensure that the Government is able to carry out its debt program without disrupting financial markets. The Minister is requesting an additional authority of $14 billion for the first part of the 1983-84 financial year, not because he wants, as the previous Member told the House, a blank cheque, not because he wants Parliament to authorize him to borrow money he has no right to spend. Parliament must still authorize the Government's expenditures, and Parliament must determine how the Government is going to spend this money.
With its amendment, the Opposition is telling the Gover-ment that next week, when the next financial year begins, it will have to come back to Parliament to ask for another increase in order to be able to borrow $14 billion. Therefore, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) needs $19 billion and not just $5 billion. The Minister explained why in his speech to the House on February 17 of this year. He wants to ensure that when the Government starts borrowing on the money market, it can do so in an orderly manner without being obliged, as might happen, to borrow excessively large amounts during several weeks and thus put pressure on interest rates. Any Member of this House who is aware of the economic situation in this country at the present time will have to admit that between now and the months of June, July or August, 1983, it would be impossible to conduct Government operations otherwise than in a deficit situation. For instance, 72 per cent of the increase in the deficit since October last year was caused either by interest rates that were higher than expected when the loans were contracted or by a drop in Government revenue. In a recession, companies are making less money and as a result paying less in taxes. More workers are working shorter hours, and also paying less income tax. Many people are unemployed, so there are fewer people paying taxes, and as a result, Government revenue is not as high. It is the only way to change the situation by June, July or August, 1983. In fact, the Opposition wants to give the impression that the additional $14 billion requested by the Government for the next financial year is supposed to cover all the Government's borrowing requirements for 1983-84, which is not the case at all, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance made it clear in his speech on February 17 that it was only to cover requirements up to this summer, because whether we like it or not, the Government's deficit for 1983-84 may be as much as $24 or $25 billion. We hope that the recession has bottomed out and that we are now on our way to economic recovery. If that is the case, and if the encouraging signs we have seen, especially since the beginning of this year, mean that companies will make more profits faster, that people will go back to work
March 28, 1983

faster and be paying taxes at a faster rate than expected, perhaps the deficit will not be as high as was expected a few weeks ago.
On the week-end I read that people were now predicting that the deficit for 1983-84 might be only $24 or $25 billion instead of $30 billion. However, next fall, the Government will have to come back to Parliament for another increase in borrowing authority. Thus, if the Opposition were to cut the Government's borrowing authority by $14 billion, which is what the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) intends to do in his amendment, it would mean that in the next financial year, there would be only about $2 billion left to conduct the Government's operations. That will not make sense at all. The Government would have to come back to the House, probably within a month or six weeks, for further borrowing authority. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and all the Members of the Opposition who know anything about economics know perfectly well that the Government is going to be in a deficit position by June, July and August of this year, and they also realize that Parliament will have to authorize Government expenditures. If Parliament does not want to do so between now and June, July and August of this year, then it should not, so why should we waste our time and run the risk that the Government intervention on the money market will not take place in an orderly fashion? It means the Government would have to introduce another Bill in the House in April or May, instead of waiting until this fall, when another request will be necessary in any case, because the present borrowing authority will not cover more than June, July and August, since it represents about half the deficit projected for 1983-84.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Government is acting wisely by increasing its deficit in a recession, because otherwise, the full weight of the recession would fall on the people and regions that are most vulnerable in this country. Some areas are particularly sensitive to the effects of a recession, and my riding is one of them. If the Government had not decided to carry a large deficit at a time of economic recession, it would mean that those regions and those people who are particularly vulnerable in our society would carry the full weight of the recession. I think that in the present economic situation, it makes sense to use this country's financial resources to ensure that the cost of the recession to economically vulnerable individuals, groups and regions will not be as heavy and I therefore think that the Government is very sensible in taking advantage of the credit available in Canada to stimulate the economy.
Another factor we must not forget is that in a recession, although unemployment is higher than usual, there are still people working. In Canada, there are still people working and saving money. In a recession, there is a psychological reaction that makes people afraid to spend. In Canada today, 13 per cent of disposable income is invested in savings. If the Government did not intervene to borrow these funds and to reinvest them in the country in order to stimulate the economy, it
Borrowing Authority
would delay economic recovery, because today, companies and businessmen, as well as individuals, are afraid to invest. They are afraid to borrow substantial amounts of money. Therefore, if governments and not only the Federal Government but also the Provincial Governments, did not borrow this money which represents 13.5 per cent of the disposal income of Canadians today, it would be necessary to invest those savings elsewhere, outside Canada, and that would delay the recovery of the economy.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, it follows almost naturally and automatically that in a situation like this one, governments, and this includes the entire public sector, should borrow while ensuring that programs are directed towards those who are affected by the recession and at the same time, that Government action should be taken to invest in economic development, which will boost economic recovery. These funds will be borrowed to provide for continued economic activity in this country. Consumers sometimes complain that the deficit is too high in a recession. These are the people who would probably get us into a really big depression.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Government's deficit is higher today, and I shall repeat, it is because Government revenue has dropped and certain expenditures must be maintained in the country to encourage economic recovery.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate and to support the proposed amendment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I do not tend to agree with his economic policies too often, but in this case it is an intelligent way to deal with the proposed borrowing of the Government, which is completely out of control. What is really at issue here is whether it is realistic for such an unprecedented amount of money to be voted into the hands of the Government without a budget before us. I do not think at any time in the past has a Government ever asked for so much and given so little information to Parliament as to what those expenditures are really for.
Bill C-143 is the fourth major borrowing in eight months. We had Bill C- 111 in June of last year for $6.6 billion, C-125 in July, 1982 for $7 billion, C-128 in November, 1982 for $4 billion, totalling $17.6 billion in borrowing during that period. When we add Bill C-143, it totals $36.6 billion in borrowing in less than a year. This borrowing alone as proposed by the Government is in excess of $1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country.
The few Government speakers who have risen, including the Hon. Member who just finished, Mr. Speaker, have not given us any reasons why Members on the Opposition side should vote to allow the $14 billion to be borrowed without the Government putting forward a strategy, or at the very least some kind of outline of a budget.

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
With respect to the $5 billion, I believe most Members of the House can glean from the Supplementary Estimates, and from the Main Estimates of the last year, some idea of what those expenditures are for. But to ask for $14 billion, however, which takes us from April 1 to October, 1983, is really quite irresponsible. The request of the Government for that kind of a blank cheque must be turned down by any Member of this House who is seriously representing his or her constituency. I heard a Liberal Member saying that we can have a look at the Main Estimates. Well, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is here. He and I share the knowledge from our discussion of the Main Estimates that the intended expenditures of the Department of the Environment are not all included in the Main Estimates now. We both know that.
I believe it is irresponsible for any Member of this House to vote through a borrowing of $14 billion without expenditures being tacked down. Certainly I know that if the New Democratic Party were sitting on the Government side, there would be much howling from the Liberal Members of "Give you guys $14 billion? We don't know what you are going to do with it." And the Tories would be doing the same thing. Yet when the Members of the Liberal Party rise to speak about it, they say: "Oh, it's fine, you have the Main Estimates; you know what we are going to do".
I will point out a few things on the record, Mr. Speaker, which will give you some idea why Members on this side, both the NDP and the Conservatives, are pretty concerned about the unsound economic strategy of the Liberal Party. Tom Walkom of The Globe and Mail said just last week: "While it is not unheard of for a Government to ask for some interim borrowing authority, a $14 billion request without a budget is unprecedented". The Government would borrow $5 billion, $6 billion and $7 billion without a budget, but we are being asked for $14 billion, almost $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, can this kind of action continue, the ever-increasing borrowing, without the Government providing some detail of its intended use? Surely, what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is proposing here is to turn Parliament into a rubberstamp for out of control Liberal pork-barrelling. Just over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, in the committee on energy matters, this same Minister, "Old ironclad", came in and asked for a $100 million write-off from Canada's taxpayers for another Liberal blunder, which was heavy water production with the Candu system. With no prospect of sales and no predicted sales, the plants are still running in full operation. In the riding of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), they have just written off $130 million again for this year just to keep 700 jobs producing a commodity which has had no major sales in or outside of Canada in the past four years. I believe Canadians have a right to know, Mr. Speaker, that those 700 jobs are being underwritten by $200,000 a year, when in other areas of Canada, such as my riding or the riding of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), where we have 40 per cent unemployment, all we get for various Government programs is a couple
of hundred thousand dollars. That is how much it costs to create one of these heavy water jobs, and it is what we get to provide sustenance and food on the table for thousands of people in our ridings.
We must ask, Mr. Speaker, how much hard-earned capital can be diverted into industries in some areas where Liberals try, and in some cases successfully, to obtain their places in this House through the diversion of taxpayers' money. And what about the billions of dollars owed in back taxes by the corporate sector, now roughly equal to the present deficit? Why are not the Government Members, and for that matter the Tories, clamouring for it to be paid in? Is it now so close to election time that it might jeopardize the chances of Tweedledum and Tweedledee for election donations? Why is the Minister not proposing a dramatic increase in taxes? Why shift the tax burden to the young and the unborn generations? The answer to that is quite clear: if the Minister of Finance and the Liberals were proposing to increase taxes in this country by the rate at which they are intending to borrow, and workers came home with $100 or $200 a month taken off their pay cheques, there would be chaos in this country and that Liberal Party would not be governing for very long.
Instead of doing the honest thing, which is to explain what it wants the money for, the Government is trying to go through the back door and the debt is simply going to be passed on to Canadians as yet unborn. I wonder how high a debt the Minister of Finance plans to leave as a legacy to his own children, whether $10,000, $20,000, $100,000, simply so the Liberals can continue to float what is clearly recognized in this country as an unsound economic policy. What is the money for? Is it for the Liberals to try to buy voters' confidence back? We know they are not doing it through a sophisticated industrial strategy which would decentralize the economy, encourage conservation, allow us to pursue a soft energy path now recognized by many scientists as the only way to go, which would allow us to revitalize our rural communities, put our forestry workers back to work, replant our ravaged forests or clean up our environment. Even though 75 per cent of Canadians now would support a lowering of their standard of living in order to have a cleaner environment, we see the federal Government doing very little either to clean up the Great Lakes, stop acid rain or deal with those very important matters.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, the money is going, at the rate of $800 a day, to Donald Macdonald to help write off the $100 million loss on Consolidated Computers and to continue paying the tens of millions of dollars on Mirabel Airport, when small airports, particularly in western Canada, can no longer get any money even to pave the potholes on the main runway. The money will continue to go to grants, including 80 cents on the dollar to many oil companies which already have large profits and which, as demonstrated by a report prepared by Consumer and Corporate Affairs, have ripped off consumers for hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet the Government does nothing to try to recoup that massive rip-off and try to help consumers with their cost of heating oil or gas.
March 28, 1983

What is there for home owners and renters? There have been no Government speakers who have risen and said: "There will be something for home owners and for renters". There is nothing for them, Mr. Speaker. What did the elderly get? They got it right in the neck. They got a 6 per cent and 5 per cent cut in real pension income. This is denied, of course, by Government Members, but any pensioner who takes a look at what he should be getting in terms of the present rate of inflation knows that he has been ripped off. They get nothing, Mr. Speaker, for building the country. The Liberals talk a lot but when it comes time to put cash down, the cash goes to the corporate sector.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the unborn will get in terms of just the $14 billion debt unless Members on the Government side accede to the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, which is a very realistic proposal and should be supported by anyone in this House who understands economics and what Parliament requires in order to vote properly on such a massive borrowing. Young Canadians will get a cut in Family Allowances. Those in schools, college, training schools and universities also get a cut, thanks to the shortsightedness of this Government's policy.
But where is the $14 billion going-setting the $5 billion aside for a moment? We need to know this, Mr. Speaker. It is irresponsible to ask for unbudgeted funds. What banker would lend anyone an amount of even $14,000, let alone $14 billion, without knowing what they are going to do with it? What federal bureaucrat, even under that Government administration, would lend or grant any money without at least some temporary guidelines? Where will the money go? It will go to corporations like the CPR in order to pay for the Prime Minister's doubletalk on double-track, while increasing by five times the cost to farmers for grain movement by 1990. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) wants to give hundreds of millions of dollars to the CPR while destroying the Crow rate. We know that only 6 per cent of Canadians are farmers now. The number is down dramatically from even ten years ago. The average age of farmers this year will creep up to the age of 60. Is it Liberal policy to turn farms in this country over to the corporate sector? We love to hear the Tories and Liberals screaming that the NDP would land bank all the property, but it is interesting to see what the right-wing strategy in terms of farming is. That is certainly what the changes to the Crow rate are.
With two million unemployed and with borrowing at $2 billion a month, I believe it would only be responsible for all Members of this House to support the amendment now proposed, which is to reduce that borrowing from $14 billion to $1 on behalf of all future generations of this country.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: I would like to respond today, Mr. Speaker, specifically to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). I do not know what it is, but I believe there is some revolution in medical science which has occurred which not many of us have caught on to yet. Because somehow decent-meaning people get elected
Borrowing Authority
on the other side of the House, something is taken out and a cassette is put in, and what would otherwise be grossly illogical becomes parroted; and the attempt appears to be to sell that as both logic and true.
Let me refer to two specific comments made by the Hon. Member for Gloucester. His argument was that we should not be concerned about a proposal to borrow $14 billion for the next fiscal year in advance of receiving a budget because, after all, it is not for the whole year. It is not as though the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), said the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), was trying to borrow everything he needs next year; he is only trying to borrow part of it. The fact that that in itself is a violation of Parliament's basic tradition and right does not seem to fuss him. It should as a Parliamentarian, but it does not seem to.


Herb Breau: Your Party did the same thing in 1979.


John William Bosley: No, we did not. The interjection is that we tried to do a $14 billion borrowing in 1979 without a budget. That is nonsense and the Member knows it.
The other statement made by the Hon. Member for Gloucester should be repeated on the record because it reminds me of a statement made by another Liberal Member a long time ago about what it is to be a Liberal. You will remember that statement: anything goes. The Hon. Member's statement was to the effect that if the Government did not borrow the $14 billion, economic recovery would be impeded.


Herb Breau: That is right.


John William Bosley: He went on to say that after all, Canadians would not loan that money to Canadians, they would ship it out of the country. The only borrower in this country in which the lending institutions have any confidence is the Government of Canada. That is the implication of suggesting the money would not be invested in Canada if the Government did not borrow it.


Herb Breau: You know that I did not say that.


John William Bosley: I know exactly what the Hon. Member said.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) does have the floor.


Herb Breau: Unfortunately.


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, I am never concerned about being heckled, I can assure you. When one is dissecting doubletalk, it is not surprising that the person who originated it in the first place wants a second kick at it.
The simple fact of the matter is this. To my knowledge, and the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) put it on the record a minute ago, no Government has ever had the audacity to come to the House of Commons and ask for anything like $14 billion without a clear budgetary statement for the year ahead.
For the sake of the Hon. Member for Gloucester I want to deal with why that breach of the traditions of Parliament is so

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
important, why we oppose it, and why we support the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). Let me remind the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, that last June I believe it was, or whenever Bill C-125 came before the House, when the Government's financial needs were estimated to be roughly $17 billion and it tried to borrow $21 billion, this Party fought that and the Government agreed to reduce the provision to the then known borrowing requirements. The Government agreed to a proposal made by our side that the Bill be reduced to $17 billion and that, if later the $4 billion was needed, this Party would support a limited debate on the $4 billion. That turned out to be necessary, which is not surprising because, after all, this Government's economic policy is just to keep borrowing and spending and never worry about who is going to have to pay the bill.


Herb Breau: There was a recession.


John William Bosley: That the recession was coming was not unknown, except perhaps to the Hon. Member for Gloucester. At that time, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Government talked about what good Parliamentarians they were in agreeing to defer the debate on the $4 billion at the time not known, in budget terms, to be necessary. At the same time we were told: "You are right, we ought not to come to the House of Commons for further borrowing authority unless we have presented a budget". Now, six months later, because the Government does not dare bring in a budget, because it does not have the courage to bring in a budget, Mr. Speaker, the Government tries an end run around the traditions of 110 years of this House of Commons. That end run is this: we do not know what our budget is going to say, we do not know what our spending is going to be, we do not know what our revenue projections are going to be-


Herb Breau: Look at the estimates.


John William Bosley: -so we will table something called the Main Estimates, which every Member of this House knows is out of whack in any given year, under this Government anywhere from 5 per cent to 15 per cent. The Government calls that its spending estimates when everyone who watches Parliament knows that is not reliable, particularly under this Government.
Then the Government invents a new tradition. It says: all we have to do to justify borrowing is table a document where we may spend, without any commitment to a budgetary document, without any debate or any of the normal ties attached to a budget vote. It is a shameful way to avoid presenting to the House of Commons the Estimates in a budget context for the next fiscal year.
That is absolutely clear to parliamentary watchers, and that is why members of the media, particularly business columnists, are so astounded. I refer again to what the Hon. Member for Skeena has read into the record from a columnist in The Globe
and Mail. That is why those analysts are so astounded, for the sake of the Hon. Member for Gloucester, Mr. Speaker, that this end run is being tried.
Let me put it, if I can, in a different context that perhaps even the Hon. Member can understand. Can he get up in his place and tell me or any Member of this House what precisely the period of time the $14 billion in borrowing-in other words, $14 billion in deficit-is to cover? Does anyone know? The answer is that nobody knows. The Minister of Finance knows full well that if he got up in this House and said: "Well, that is for the next four months", or five months, three months or six months, he would be signalling what he expects the deficit to be in budget year 1983-84. Of course he is not going to do that, because once Canadians discover precisely how bad the financial situation of this Government is, they are going to be equally astounded.
The Government has to learn two important points, Mr. Speaker. That is best exemplified by the fact that last year the Government of Canada was in the securities market for a total of 51 per cent of the net securities issued in Canada. You cannot borrow your way out of the problems we have in this country.


Herb Breau: What about the Americans?


John William Bosley: The Government is going to have to learn that.
The second point, Mr. Speaker, is that each year under this Government the interest alone on accumulated debt climbs as a percentage of the Gross National Product. In fiscal 1982-83 it comes out at 4.8 per cent of the Gross National Product, up from 2 per cent when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office. Somewhere along the line the Government is going to start coming clean with Canadians, coming clean with the House, and understand and honour parliamentary traditions. But most importantly, somewhere along the line this Government is going to have to learn the basic lessons of economics, that if you go on spending what you do not have, trying to fool people with their own money, eventually you will lose because the people know better.


Mr. Halliday:: Mr. Speaker, would it be reasonable to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
March 28, 1983


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Last Saturday, in Quebec City, Madam Speaker, the Quebec wing of the General Council of the Liberal Party of Canada unanimously adopted a motion on the new grain transport policy announced on February 1.
The delegates have asked the Canadian Government that compensatory guarantees be written in the legislation so that Quebec farmers will not be unfairly treated should the equity rules in Canada be no longer respected once the new policy has been implemented. The delegates have also asked that the dairy policy be established on a lasting basis so that spokesmen for the agricultural sector will not be forced each year to make numerous representations to the Canadian Government in order that the program be maintained. The delegates also want the Livestock Feed Board of Canada to be given more extensive powers with a view to offsetting the major role of the Canadian Wheat Board in Canada.
Although the resolution dealt with many other aspects, its main purpose was to maintain the rights acquired by Quebec in a sector of the economy where, in recent years, the Canadian Government has contributed to the improvement of the situation. Some delegates expressed grave concern about the scandalous distorsion caused by Mr. Parizeau's progressive energy tax which has created a gap of tens of millions of dollars to the detriment of the overall economy of Quebec.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, the representatives of the White Crow Movement, who are in the gallery today, have one purpose and one purpose only-the retention of the present statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rates. Hon. Members are being lobbied by these representatives today and tomorrow. These farmers will be seeking a simple "Yes" or "No" answer to the question of Crow retention. From the New Democratic Party they will get a unanimous "Yes" for Crow rate retention, and they will get it in Parliament and across the country in every Province.
I am certain the Conservatives will tell these representatives that they oppose the Pepin plan. But opposing Mr. Pepin will not keep the Crow. We hope our lobbyists will be seeking a clear position from each Conservative MP, because there is no provincial Conservative consensus in the West. The federal Liberal Party seems committed to Crow change, but provincial Liberal Parties in Saskatchewan and Quebec want the Crow kept and they are putting pressure on their Members here.
These citizens with the White Crow Movement have come 2,000 miles to tell us how the loss of the Crow rate will affect them as farmers, members of communities, and as producers in the larger Canadian economy.
Their message is a compelling one. The New Democratic Party position is clear. We would keep the Crow. I trust all Members will give the White Crow people a thorough hearing.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Drumheller Institution was built to handle a maximum of 400 prisoners; it now houses 560 inmates.
The Institution was widely advertised when it was built as medium security, to house young offenders. Its population now includes inmates of all ages, and about half of the prisoners should be in a maximum security institution.
The Drumheller Institution has no segregation cells and, with little work available, most of the prisoners are in the open room at the same time. This, along with double bunking in seven foot by nine foot cells, and insufficient places for the inmates to eat, creates an inflammatory situation. As a result, young offenders who are serving their first sentence for nonviolent acts that forced no one else to do anything wrong, and who are not really criminals at all, who realize that they made a mistake and want to put that behind them and start a new life, are now being harassed by older inmates to a point that is hardly bearable. This situation is most unfair and is certainly doing nothing to rehabilitate the young offenders. It is actually breeding criminals.
I call on the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to commence at once to move the maximum security type prisoners to a maximum security institution where there are facilities to handle them, and to grant early parole to first-time offenders who committed non-violent mistakes.
The situation is so tense now that we could have another Archambault if action is not taken.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 regarding an issue that is very important to many in my constituency of Parkdale-High Park.
The Ukrainian Canadian Committee has named this Yuri Shukhevych Week-a week hat has come to mean a great deal for the Ukrainian people. Yuri was first arrested in 1948, at

March 28, 1983
the age of 14, and sentenced to ten years of imprisonment in Vladimir Prison, for being the son of Roman Shukhevych, the Commander in Chief of the Ukrainian Partisan Army (UPA). By the end of his prison term in March of 1987, Shukhevych will have spent 35 years in prison and exile. Hence, he has come to represent much more to the Ukrainian people than simply another dissident in a concentration camp; he has come to represent their aspirations for a free Ukraine.
It is fitting that we remeber Yuri today, for today is his birthday.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. These statements should not be used for congratulating or commemorating someone. I understand the Hon. Member's feelings, but unless he has a statement to make on a particular issue, I cannot accept his statement.


Jesse Philip Flis: As Chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Helsinki Group, I urge the Department of External Affairs to make representations to the Soviet Union Government, through the appropriate channels, for the immediate release of Yuri Shukhevych and others who find themselves in a similar predicament.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, last week the Court of Appeal of Alberta reduced the sentence of a man convicted of rape, from eight years to four years, for reasons that must be abhorrent to all decent pepole, and especially this Parliament which recently passed amendments on sexual assault.
The victim of the sexual assault is crippled by polio, has braces on her legs, and uses a crutch. She met her assailant, a former neighbour, in a bar, and went back to his apartment for beer and marijuana. Surely we should not have to explain that accepting the invitation to a legal beer or illegal marijuana does not imply acceptance of sexual assault.
The judgment states that "sexual intercourse took place after a short time", but the better word is assault, for, as the judgment notes, "the jury found that it was without her consent and violence was used". The accused was, at that time, serving a three-year sentence for a previous rape.
According to the original trial judge, "Eve sat on the bench for ten years, and the circumstances of this crime, I can say, without exception, are the worst I've ever seen."
A four year sentence is not inconsequential, but we must take exception to the reasoning, to wit: "We think the circumstances are such that it would not have been surprising to that young woman that something might well happen to her going up to the man's apartment between two and three o'clock in the morning-"
The courts must learn that "No" means "No" at two o'clock in the morning, three o'clock, or high noon.




Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, the Government seems to be losing sight of the perspective that society must be protected against anti-social behaviour and those convicted of it; that the public, too, has rights, along with convicted felons; that the penalty for crime is punishment; and that, even though we temper punishment with compassion and mercy, we must accept the fact that certain cases are above redemption and rehabilitation.
In Vancouver this weekend a convicted rapist, described by the Chief Justice of British Columbia as "a menace to society", has been set free by a court when it ruled the Parole Board acted illegally by arresting him upon his release on mandatory supervision. The B.C. Chief Justice also said "the liberty of the subject has to be waived in juxtaposition to the safety of the public at large."
I realize that the Supreme Court of Canada is dealing with the issue on May 17, but I just want to put the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) on notice that Canadians have had their fill of animals being returned to society to strike again.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I should like to call attention to the fact that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation may cancel one of its better programs, "Reach for the Top". The Canadian content of this program is 100 per cent. It features outstanding Canadian students-intellectual stars at the teenage level.
Everyone agrees that our most precious Canadian resource is our young people. I am certain that all Canadians want "Reach for the Top" to continue. Let us hope they will write to the CBC and let it know. As Members of Parliament, let us see that the CBC gets the message when we are studying the estimates.
We suggest that this program be continued. We are advised, however, that both regional and network program directors made a recommendation that the series be cancelled. They gave the reason as "not reaching the intended target audience". I would suggest that all that is required is a little imagination-a change of format and possibly more play-offs, more short-term competition. Surely the minds at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can find a way to save this all Canadian, young peoples' show.
March 28, 1983



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, today in Montreal a matter involving RCMP Corporal Zephreim Fortin is being heard by the Federal Court.
The issue is an important one for many RCMP members, involving the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which seems to be violated by the discharge or retirement procedures of the RCMP which, coincidentally, were changed last Thursday by administrative bulletin AM536. Very briefly, the issue which is being joined by a writ of prohibition by counsel for Corporal Fortin, involves the existing practice of retiring RCMP members at a lower age level if they have a lower rank, or perhaps to put it differently, on the basis of rank rather than ability.
On October 20, last year, the Commissioner of Human Rights, Mr. Fairweather, expressed his views on this procedure in the case of Sergeant Entwhistle of Fredericton, New Brunswick. However, the problem of differing ages for differing ranks regarding their length of service continues to upset members.
I ask the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to review this general practice even though the relevant section of the Charter of Rights will not be operative until 1985. It does represent an obvious and contining injustice and concerns the service representatives and the members of the Association of 17 Divisions who are looking for changes in this manifestly unfair practice.



SEARCH AND RESCUE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform this House that scientists at the Department of National Defence, Department of Communications, and at Spar Aerospace Limited, have successfully launched a satellite today to be used in search and rescue operations in Canada. Canadian designed equipment was launched today at about 11 o'clock our time aboard a U.S. weather satellite from Vandenburg Air Force Base in California. This search and rescue equipped satellite joins two similar Soviet satellites, the first of which has already contributed to the successful rescue of 17 North Americans.
This important addition to Canadian search and rescue capabilities is part of an international experimental program in which Canada has been a leading member along with the United States, France, and the Soviet Union. As well as saving lives, this satellite system should also reduce the risk to search and rescue forces who often operate under severe and dangerous conditions.
By participating in this high technology program Canadian industry will continue to remain in the forefront of this sector of space technology.
This successful launch today marks another important milestone for Canada in a very important, humanitarian program, and enhances internationally our already well established capabilities in space communications research and development. It also underlines the Government's commitment to improve search and rescue services continuously by every means possible, for all Canadians.
The issue in question is the justification of spending-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to remind Hon. Members that the House has unanimously agreed to expedite Bill C-653, an Act, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. I take also this opportunity to remind lending institutions which are at times rather over-anxious to be paid back that Parliament has acted unanimously. Tomorrow, the committee will start sitting again; beginning April the 11th, it will hold public hearings and will hear witnesses who will make representations concerning ways and means to avert a great many farm bankruptcies.
I simply raise this issue to urge lending institutions to show a little more understanding toward our farmers who may have fallen back in their payments, for they are perfectly aware that Parliament will accept unanimously, as it did in the case of Bill C-653, any recommendation aimed at preventing the bankruptcies of several farmers.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, on May 1 the hundreds of lay-offs which the CNR announced last January will be taking effect. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the Minister of Transport and the Government to prevail upon the CNR to cancel these lay-offs.
We all know that when the economic recovery comes we will need a railroad and the equipment, and if we do not put these people to work now, three years hence the railways will be whining and snivelling that they do not have their equipment

March 28, 1983
Oral Questions
ready and in place. The railroads are now laying people off for short-term budgetary reasons when there is work waiting to be done. Hundreds of people will be laid off on May 1 if the Government does not lean on the CNR to change its mind.
The railways led many people to believe that the lay-offs were related to the Crow and that they needed changes in the Crow rate. Now we have propsals made by the Government to change the Crow, and yet the lay-offs are to go ahead. If the railroads want to bargain in good faith with the Canadian people they ought to cancel the lay-offs for May 1, and, of course, at the same time accept the NDP proposal to keep the Crow, a proposal which would give them the same amount of money but would keep more people at work and solve many problems which the Pepin-Gilson proposal does not solve.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, Madam Speaker. The Conference Board in Canada is today estimating that, if you add the discouraged workers to the 1.6 million unemployed reported for February, we would have a real unemployment rate in Canada of 19 per cent as opposed to 12.5 per cent.
This prompts me to ask the Minister of Finance, given that range of unemployment unprecedented in our country why is he not bringing in measures to stimulate employment now rather than waiting until the budget? The Minister knows that when he does bring in the budget with these stimulative measures there will still be a substantial time lag, which means the situation will get worse. Why does the Minister not bring in these measures now?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am advised the Conference Board estimate is to the effect that, had it counted discouraged workers, the unemployment figure would rise by 6 per cent or 7 per cent, but it is 6 per cent or 7 per cent of 1.5 million, not 6 per cent over and above 12 per cent. Therefore, the Hon. Member's mathematics are not fairly representing the point of view of the Conference Board. Be that as it may, the number of unemployed is indeed very high and if we include the discouraged workers it would certainly add to the total number.
I indicated to the Leader of the NDP on Friday that we already have $2 billion worth of direct job and indirect job stimulation at the present time in the economy.
The Senate is now considering the Income Tax Act. I hope this Bill will be passed before Wednesday, at which time we
will be able to send refunds to Canadians, meaning that over the next two months some S6.5 billion will be injected into the economy in direct money that Canadians can spend. As I indicated, I expect to be able to bring forward the budget reasonably soon after we return in April.
I think the adoption of the Income Tax Act and the programs already in effect will play a significant role at least in alleviating the difficulties which many, many Canadians are facing at the present time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I doubt whether any of the 2 million unemployed, certainly the discouraged workers, the long-time unemployed workers in this country, can look forward to any tax refunds. That measure is a matter of complete indifference to them.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. I can cite economists who are predicting that unemployment payments could rise to $12.3 billion this year from $8.6 billion in 1982. Could the Minister confirm that this is a correct estimate? Could he also tell the House whether it is his intention to bring in a further increase in unemployment premiums in addition to the 40 per cent increase in premiums last year which, in itself, is a disincentive to creating jobs in the private sector?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me to confirm some predictions made by a private organization. I already indicated I was not going to spend my time discussing predictions from various institutions, for the simple reason that such predictions change constantly.
As far as our own predictions are concerned regarding the Unemployment Insurance Fund deficit for next year, I myself or some of my colleagues will be dealing with this matter during the budget debate. I do not know whether my hon. colleague would or would not want us to increase unemployment insurance premiums but whatever his position is, namely, whether he is prepared to see the Unemployment Insurance Fund deficit increase or whether he wants us to bring that deficit down, I should be happy to hear his views and consider them in the light of the budget.
I can inform the Hon. Member right away that as far as we are concerned, we are not now considering an increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
March 28, 1983


FINANCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows full well that another increase in unemployment insurance premiums over and above the 40 per cent last year would be a disincentive to job creation in the private sector.
Since we are told that we have to wait until the Minister brings in his budget, would he at least tell us the date of that budget today? Would he at least tell us, in view of the estimated increase in the amount of unemployment insurance benefits being paid out, and because of the seriousness of the unemployment insurance situation, whether he intends to bring in a further increase in unemployment insurance premiums? If he does, what stimulation does he intend to add to that in order to offset the disincentive this would represent to the private sector, especially to small business, in creating jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend may have misunderstood what I said in French. I have indicated that the Government is not considering increasing the contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. That is the Government's view.
I indicated that if my friend's Party has a different view, I will receive their representations if they want an increase. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we are not considering an increase in contributions to the unemployment insurance fund.
With respect to the date of the budget, I would be pleased to announce it before the House adjourns on Wednesday, assuming that the borrowing authority Bill will have been passed by the House in the meantime.
* *
*


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure that he will know that more and more cases of hardship and suffering in this country being reported, either to Members of Parliament or social agencies, concern single parent families headed by women. I am sure he will also know that it is among this group where the increase in long-term unemployment has been about the highest. It has gone up 106 per cent since this time last year, among single parents who are women. Half of those families are living below the poverty line.
Therefore, is the Minister targeting any special job creation programs for this particular group of single parent families
Oral Questions
headed by women, in the same way that the NEED Program is targeted toward a specific group?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the fact is that a very large percentage of women have been included in most of the job creation programs that we have put forward. The general estimate during 1982-83 is about 55,000 women, I believe, who are involved in our job creation programs.
Where we have special targeting is under the Canada Community Services Program which is especially designed to provide job creation initiatives in the community service area. I believe that about 80 per cent or 85 per cent of the participants in this Program are women.
The NEED Program itself involves a large percentage of women because it is not designed exclusively for those who have exhausted unemployment insurance but also for those who are on social assistance or have other forms of need.
We have tried to ensure that women have full and equal access across the board in our job creation programs. I think the figures bear that out.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I was trying to bring home to the Minister the fact that this specific group is really an extreme case. The number of long-term unemployed in this group has gone from 61,000 last year to 126,000 now. Many of those women who have children are living on approximately $450 a month and are paying more than half of that on rent. That is the situation I want to bring to the attention of the Minister.


TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, will the Minister consider whether specific arrangements can be made under the National Training Act to target training places for this group of people so that they will have an opportunity to guarantee themselves a place in the jobs of the future in the high-tech industries of the future? Will the Minister target this group for special training places under the National Training Act?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has pointed to an area where some significant progress can be made by enabling women, and single parent mothers in particular, to gain those skills necessary to make them eligible for the various types of work and occupations that are emerging.
I would point out to her that the National Training Act was designed specifically with that in mind. Not only do we have special incentive allowances for private employers-up to 75 per cent of cost-to train women on the job under both the Critical Skills Training Program and the Industrial Program, we have also reserved special places for women in all the training places that we buy. In fact there is a special category set aside for them.
Third, under the National Training Act we have opened the invitation to a wide variety of sponsors, whether they are

March 28, 1983
Oral Questions
YWCAs, women's organizations, or community colleges, to use the Skills Growth Fund to establish specialized training facilities, equipment and programs to enable women, particularly those with poorer skills, to acquire basic skills and move into high-tech and high trade jobs. To a large extent the utilization of the Skills Growth Fund is dependent upon the imagination and creativity which exist in the country. We are certainly open to those kinds of proposals.


REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT'S FORECASTS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Having heard the litany of programs available, particularly for those women who are the heads of single parent families and households, could he give us his Department's projections of the reduction in unemployment among that particular sector over the next fiscal year?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I have pointed out in the House many times, the primary objective of this Department is to create employment for people. We do not get into the kind of numbers games and statistical gymnastics which are all that the Members of the Opposition ever offer to the House. They never offer any concrete or constructive suggestions.


PROGRAM ESTIMATES
William Herbert Jarvis: The Minister knows how many tens of thousands of women who are the heads of households are on unemployment. Without trying to trigger the Minister into another diatribe in terms of partisan politics, what is the projection of the success rate of the litany of programs he just enunciated? What is his projection as to the reduction in unemployment among that group? Please do not interpret this question as an attempt to score partisan points. What is the forecast relief in human misery among the group of whom the Minister has spoken, and about whom I have posed the question?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, certainly no one on this side is trying to score points on such a sensitive issue.


William Herbert Jarvis: Oh, come on. Take a lesson from Cullen. You are a disaster.


Lloyd Axworthy: Does the Hon. Member want an answer to the question, or does he want to spend the afternoon bellowing out these various comments?
The point that we are trying to make is that we are trying, in the programs themselves, to provide a variety of incentives not only to bring women into the work force but permanently into the work force so that they will be eligible for the kinds of jobs created by the new technologies we face and the new occupations that are coming forward.
In one case I would point out that under the PED Program, where we provide a direct wage subsidy to private employers,
particularly in the small business sector, to provide jobs in that area for people, we estimate that 70 per cent of that program's recipients will be able to be retained on those jobs on a fulltime basis. A large percentage of those coming under that PED Program are women.


JOB CREATION FOR WOMEN-REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also have questions concerning women and employment. I am sure the Minister of Employment and Immigration is well aware of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, representing 230 women's organizations, which met this weekend. One of the priorities about which they were very concerned was the whole question of access to job creation and employment generally for women, particularly for women in low income groups and who are sole support parents, as mentioned by the previous speaker.
NAC is particularly concerned that women are not getting into programs such as NEED, over which the provincial Governments have a fair degree of control. As well, there is no built-in affirmative action requirement. I would ask the Minister, on behalf of the NAC group, if he is prepared to fight for a significant increase in federal funding for direct job creation in the budget which is being prepared now. Second, will he also make sure that half the jobs which are created by federal initiative are reserved for women?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in the 1983-1984 fiscal year we in fact increased the amount of money going into creation of direct employment by 50 per cent. We had a substantial increase to well over $1.2 billion from the budget of around $580 million. As a result, we will be in a position to offer close to 200,000 different places under our job creation programs across Canada under the direct employment programs that we offer, both the NEED program and the other programs like the Canada Community Development Program.
Where we have put forward applications for sponsorship by a variety of community groups or municipalities we have required that each of those applications must be accompanied by a positive action statement, whereby the proposed employer who will be using federal funds for job creation would indicate to what extent that employer is providing equality of access, with particular reference to women and to minority groups. As a result of that we have been able to increase substantially the number of women participating in the direct employment programs of the federal Government.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the record is just not good enough. That is what we are saying, and that is what women's
March 28, 1983

groups are saying. We have to work on this together so that there will be equal access for women in these programs.


NATIONAL TRAINING ACT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: The National Action Committee also is very concerned that many of the existing training programs are really not accessible to women with the greatest need. For example, there are many, many women who had children early in their lives and who have maybe grade 8 or grade 9 education. These women really cannot get into the training programs or the upgrading programs, because the coverage is not long enough. They need a year or so for much of the upgrading that would help them to become more employable. Many of the courses are at night, and these women do not always have babysitting services available to them.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I certainly do, Madam Speaker.
Will the Minister change the National Training Act to provide longer and more flexible upgrading programs for women, including life skills as well as computer literacy programs which require little of the formal education to which I referred?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, there is no need for changes under the National Training Act because those changes have already been made. They were part of the National Training Act. The fact of the matter is that, under the present Act, training courses can be extended beyond a 52 week period. They can go for upwards of two or three years, in fact.
What we have tried to do under that particular new piece of legislation, working with the Provinces, is to link up the basic skills training program which provides the basic literacy that the Hon. Member is interested in, to tie those into higher skills training programs so that there can be a full escalator along a training path both to allow them to reach certain stages of development and certain stages of acquisition along that way.
In addition to that, as I previously pointed out to the Hon. Member, we have also put in place access to the Skills Growth Fund so that specially designed or tailored programs for women in those circumstances can be designed.
What we do need now is a partnership by groups and organizations across the country to come forward with applications and proposals for the Skills Growth Fund. It really has to be an act of partnership in order to make the full utilization of the National Training Act work effectively for women.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Minister talks great in theory but, Madam Speaker, I can tell you women are not getting into those programs because they are not adapted to their needs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions CANADA LABOUR CODE


APPLICATION TO WOMEN USING VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is directed to the Minister of Labour. Will the Minister introduce changes to the Canada Labour Code to protect women workers from the tremendous impact of technological change? In particular, will he ensure two things: first, that full participation of all workers in all decisions relating to the introduction, implementation and the monitoring of technological change is a part of that Code, and will he also adopt the recommendations of the Task Force on Micro-Electronics and Employment which proposed a five-hour daily limit for those working at video display terminals? What does the Minister say?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, we are in the process of consulting both labour and business on all of the recommendations contained in the "Chips" Report, including the ones that the Hon. Member has just mentioned. We are having a good look at them and we will be able to come to some conclusions in the not too distant future.
Some of the issues that have been raised are very complex; they are subject to change because of technological change and improvements in manufacturing and because of the nature of high technology. Before we would want to include any proposition in the Code, we would want to make sure that we had the right answer.


EDUCATION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. The House is aware that last week was a week of good news for official language minority groups. Ontario announced that all French-speaking students were entitled to receive a public school education in their own language. The Province has promised to introduce legislation this fall that will establish a public elementary and secondary education system available to all francophones. The Secretary of State announced the renewal of a number of federal-provincial agreements on education, and more specifically, support programs for second language teaching and for the education of official language minority groups. My question regards the breakdown of and accountability for, federal funds spent by the Provinces to support these areas of education. Could the Minister inform the House whether all Provincial Governments have made a firm commitment to the Minister that they will publicly account for the funds granted by the Federal Government?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I have had previous meetings with provincial representatives,

March 28, 1983
Oral Questions
and especially with the provincial Ministers of Education, and I have had an opportunity to discuss how Provincial Governments can account for the manner in which funds transferred to them by the Parliament of Canada are spent. One of the essential conditions for renewal of the agreements is that the Provinces undertake not only to demonstrate that the funds are indeed spent for the purpose for which they are given, but also to indicate the Government of Canada's participation to all fund users, so that all Canadians are aware that the funds are made available to them by the Parliament of Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBERS OF LAW COMMISSION OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF FRANCE
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation of Members of the Law Commission of the National Assembly of France headed by Mr. Pierre Bourguignon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRESIDENTS OF GENERAL COUNCILS OF FRANCE
Madam Speaker:: 1 also have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the presence of a delegation of Presidents of General Councils of France, headed by Mr. Maurice Pourchon.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. There is implicit in the previous question and answer that some provincial Governments in Canada have not been using the funds allocated to them for second language training for that purpose.
Is the Minister in a position today to identify the Provinces that have not so complied with the purposes for which the funds were given, and to what extent they have not complied? Would he be able to table a document in the House of Commons which would indicate the extent to which Provinces have not complied with the purposes for which those funds were given?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, it is impossible to determine exactly how or on which part of the
program these funds were spent. This requirement did not exist in the past. The Government was unable to ask the provinces to account for the way they used these funds. We simply gave them a certain amount and generally identified the purposes for which it should be used. This is why, since 1979, all my predecessors have tried to develop a formula which would give us more information about the way these funds are used. I was indeed happy to be able to report to the House that we have now come to an agreement with the provinces about a formula which will provide real guarantees that the funds are in fact spent for the purposes for which they were allocated. However, at the present time, it is impossible to trace back the funds since we have no legal power to force the provinces to provide detailed information about how they spent this money in the past.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S KNOWLEDGE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there must have been some concern in the mind of the Government about the accountability for these funds, and there must have been some evidence that the Government relied on to come to the conclusion that the funds were not being used for the intended purposes. I happen to support the proposition that the funds be specifically earmarked, I want to tell the Minister that. What evidence does the Government have that heretofore they were not being used, beyond suspicion, gossip, and so on? What concrete evidence, if any, does it have that they were not being so used?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has given part of the answer himself. It is a fact that many Members on both sides of this House have tried to obtain better guarantees about the use of these funds. In addition, many representatives of linguistic minority associations, both French-speaking and English-speaking associations, especially in Quebec, have asked that much more accurate information be given concerning the use of these funds. It was to satisfy the Members of Parliament and the users of these funds or those for whom these funds were meant that we have tried to obtain the agreement which has now been reached. I am happy to be able to report to the House that our negotiations have been successful.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On December 22 last I asked the Minister a question about
March 28, 1983

discrimination regarding the payment of unemployment benefits by reason of the place of residence of an unemployed person. In Hamilton you need ten weeks of employment to be eligible for benefits, and in Burlington, right next door, you need 16 weeks. At a recent seminar of Stats Canada officials in Hamilton, they stated that they could not separate the economic statistics, of Hamilton and Burlington-that they consider it all one region for their purposes. When will the Minister move to do something about this inequity?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as I explained to the Hon. Member at the time, we have divided the country into 40 regions under the unemployment insurance system. When you do that division, you have to draw the boundaries somewhere. Usually they are drawn according to the longer term historical pattern of the unemployment rate because, as the Hon. Member knows, we have to gauge the various entrants requirements and other qualifying requirements according to those longer term trends. It is quite true that, during this time of recession, the area of Burlington has experienced more severe unemployment, but generally it has been a high employment area with a very stable workforce.
As I indicated at that time, all of the boundaries are under review. We cannot make one boundary change because, once you make one, it has a domino effect and affects every other boundary in a region. Therefore, they have to be balanced out. We are trying to look at what the longer term trends will be and adjust them, if adjustments are necessary, according to those trends, not simply responding to the short term circumstances that we are now experiencing.


TREATMENT OF HAMILTON AND BURLINGTON AREAS
William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I guess it depends on where you live in Canada. The Minister of Finance, speaking at a meeting in Riviere-du-Loup some time ago, announced changes of the boundaries of unemployment insurance regions so that the claimants of that region need to have a minimum of ten weeks of insurable employment in order to collect unemployment benefits.
The Hamilton-Burlington-Niagara area is a disaster area as far as employment is concerned. The process is silly. If you call Burlington information, you get the Hamilton office. It is all monitored through Hamilton. The statistical information gathered says it is all one region. Why does the Minister continue to do this, and when is he going to do something about it?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to dismiss any suggestion that the Hon. Member left that there was some preference given from one region to another. That is simply not the case. The determination of boundaries is set upon very clearly defined statistical indices that are developed by Stats Canada which represent the labour supply and labour surplus figures over a period of three to five years. The circumstance in the Burlington area is something that has emerged only within the
Oral Questions
last year during a time of recession. We, along with the Hon. Member, hope that that situation will turn around and that that area, which has provided such a very strong focus of economic growth in the past, will continue to do so in the future.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Sometime ago in this House the Prime Minister said that he would not fiddle with the Crow rate as long as there was not a consensus on the Prairies. We have with us today a group of farm men and women who have travelled from Saskatchewan to present to this House a petition containing over 15,000 names, asking us to keep the Crow rate for the Prairie Provinces. There is a consensus. The consensus is to keep the Crow. In light of that, and in light of the Prime Minister's promise that he would not fiddle with the Crow rate if there was such a consensus, will the Minister now listen to the people and abandon his promise to abolish the Crow rate?


Hon. Jean-Lue Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have already explained my view on the subject. There are people who will not agree with everything that is in the Bill on the western rail initiative. It will usually be for different reasons. I will have many occasions in future months to explain the policy. I will demonstrate that it is not a black and white situation.
The increase in the cost of transportation is a reasonable one; two times the Crow in three or four years, five times the Crow by the end of the decade. It is reasonable. Some months ago the pools were willing to accept two times the Crow now. It still remains at a very low level in terms of the cost of transportation with respect to the price of grain internationally. I will demonstrate that often.
In return, the western farmer will be the only one in Canada to be guaranteed a less than 6 per cent inflation rate, a privilege second to none in society today.
In return, the western grain grower will get the best railways in the world. Consequently, he will be in a position to grow more and pay less for storage, demurrage and so forth. It will be a very interesting debate.


REQUEST THAT REFERENDUM BE HELD
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, the Minister has been to western Canada. He knows what the people think. Sometimes he is a fair minded man. I want to know whether he will consult the people. For example, is he willing to have a referendum held among permit book holders so that the farmers can decide whether they want to go with the Hall Commission recommendations or with his recommendations? If he is a fair minded Minister, he will not be afraid

March 28, 1983
Oral Questions
of going to the people. Will the Minister go to the fanners in a referendum and listen to what the farmers want to do with the Crow rate?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have been in the West many times this past two or three years. I will be there very often in the next two or three years. I remember vividly the reaction of people to whom I was saying that we needed a task force or a commission. They told me that that transportation problem had been studied enough. Enough was enough. Now is the time to make a decision on the subject, and my hon. friend will have to go with it like everybody else.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Mines. I am sure the Minister is aware of the deemed income provision in the last two budgets which is attacking mining companies and, in particular, employees in isolated or semi isolated communities. At the present time they are receiving interest free and low interest loans and, indeed, subsidized housing. What has the Minister done to assist these people as a result of this very negative tax that is being imposed?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is very much aware of the work that has been conducted by myself with the officials of the Department of Finance to look into this matter. It has received a great deal of consideration. These benefit provisions are being phased in so as not to affect the employees adversely and in order that they will have a chance to build these costs into their future contracts. It is being done very equitably.


Jack Wendele Shields: For our benefit, the Minister is doing nothing and has done nothing. She is too interested in attacking the spousal income deductions.


TAXATION OF NORTHERN ALLOWANCES
Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the Minister taking into consideration the representations made by myself and the resource mining industry as to the very important provision usually provided to attract key employees to isolated communities for the development of our North? Is the Minister looking at that in his new budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I always consider seriously every suggestion made to me,
even those made by the Hon. Member, in spite of his lack of elementary courtesy for the Minister of State for Mines.


HOUSING
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, who is also responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As he is aware, we have nearly reached the expiration date for the $3,000 grant on the purchase of new housing. The Minister also knows that certain provincial statutes concerning the environment or agricultural zoning could prevent a purchaser from beginning to build his house before the expiry date. In view of these circumstances, would the Minister be willing to recommend to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that it accept as valid the applications made by people who cannot begin construction because of a provincial statute, on condition, of course, that the application is made before the final date? Will such people at least have the guarantee that they can benefit from this very useful grant?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, we have tried to be as open as possible and to interpret the rules as flexibly as we can, regarding housing construction. I am aware that there are some difficulties in this regard because Members on this side of the House have also raised the specific problem of zoning permits in Quebec. We are trying to develop a formula to solve the problem. I hope that the provincial authorities will also be a bit more flexible in this regard.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have already made representations to the Quebec authorities. I have been told that when it comes to their own files, they are not certain that they will be able to process all the applications they have received. This is why I am very objectively asking the Minister whether the CMHC could at least relax its rules and ensure that Canadians will not be penalized because of a provincial statute which, without any lack of good will being involved, might prevent building permits from being issued. I hope that all Canadians who obey the legislation introduced and implemented by the Federal Government will be eligible for this grant.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated that we are trying to interpret the rules concerning this program as broadly as possible and that we shall continue to do so. I hope to be able to give a more detailed answer to the Hon. Member within a few days.
March 28, 1983


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. As the Minister knows, the Inuit, the Native Council of Canada and the Native Women's Association of Canada all agree that the equality clause in Section 35 should read:
Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
Since the equality clause now included in Section 35 is quite different from the above, and in fact denies to non-status Indian women and their children their rights to equality, will the Minister assure the House that she will make every effort to see that a genuine equality clause is included in Section 35 of the Constitution?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware that we went to considerable trouble to see that the equality clause was included in Section 35. It was negotiated with the Provinces, and she has heard the answer the Minister of Justice has offered. However, I would like to add further that, as far as I am concerned, all of the women in this country are protected by the original Charter.


POSITION OF NON-STATUS INDIAN WOMEN
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that, unfortunately, the rights of the aboriginal peoples Section is outside the Charter and, therefore, I am afraid Clause 28 will not apply.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, it does.


Pauline Jewett: Well, I hope it does apply, but Clause 28 applies only to all the rights in the Charter. Section 35 is outside the Charter and, therefore, I would like to pursue with the Minister her point that equality rights are guaranteed in Section 35. They are not. Therefore, I would repeat to the Minister that only existing rights are going to be protected, and ask her again: since non-status Indian women and children do not have existing rights, will the Minister work to ensure the changing of the equality clause in Section 35 in such a way as to make it a genuine, full equality clause?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, we have made it absolutely clear that the clause as it stands now must stay because it has been supported by the Provinces and the Government. I would like to state further, however, that this Government is looking at changing the Indian Act, as the Hon. Member knows, and that is in the preparation stage now and the problem the Hon. Member is referring to will be addressed. Again, I repeat, the Indian
Oral Questions
women of this country are not outside the general Charter. I repeat that. That is why the Indian Act must be changed and come into effect before the three-year moratorium closes.


PRIVATE MEMBER S BILL TO AMEND INDIAN ACT
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question directed to the same Minister. Since she, herself, has stated that the Government must begin by amending the Indian Act, and since there is a Bill standing on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, which would remove Section 12(l)(b), a highly discriminatory clause in that legislation, will the Government bring forward that private Member's legislation upon the assurance that it will get immediate passage through all stages?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, we will be bringing in our own more comprehensive legislation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OFFER TO PASS PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Minister has the opportunity, if she and the Government are acting in good faith when they say they want to remove discrimination from the Act, to agree to our suggestion that they bring on that private Member's legislation immediately and pass it through all three stages forthwith in order to remove one of the most invidious Sections which ever saw the light of day from this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, we will be bringing our own Bill forward, and I trust we can count on the unanimous approval of the Hon. Members opposite.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Several of my constituents have found themselves in a closed mortgage situation where they are paying 18'A per cent, and I believe all Hon. Members will find this is a typical situation. When they try to open these mortgages they are told they have to pay a three-month penalty. I believe most right thinking Canadians are prepared to accept that. Unfortunately, the trust companies and the banks are now saying that they want something in addition to that amount, as much as $7,000 on a $40,000 mortgage. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to direct the

March 28, 1983
Oral Questions
presidents of the trust companies and the banks, or meet with them and ask them if they could accept their social responsibility? They have made 1814 per cent for two years on these mortgages. That is a handsome profit. It is time they limited themselves to a three-month interest penalty.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Indeed, Madam Speaker, the point raised by the Hon. Member seems very worthwhile to me, and a three-month penalty would seem reasonable to me under the circumstances. In addition, I would suggest that, if there are other cases such as those mentioned by the Hon. Member, they should be brought to my attention, and I undertake to have them submitted to the institutions involved, either by the Inspector General of Banks or any other appropriate agency, so that they will be closely scrutinized, in an effort to prevent financial institutions from being unfair to some citizens.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Central Nova.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. I believe the Minister was here earlier. May I wait until he returns to his seat?


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich.  * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with the relations between Canada and France. Can the Minister give us any indication of the progress being made, if there is any progress, in negotiations relating to the maritime boundaries around Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Madam Speaker, several weeks ago there was a further meeting between Canadian and French officials at which both the boundaries and the fishing problems were discussed. The Canadian side has asked for a period of further examination before resuming these negotiations. Just recently there was a communication from the Government of France, which we are presently considering. It is not apparent to us at the moment that Canadian interests would be advanced by an immediate resumption of negotiations, but we are considering the matter.


STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, is the Minister suggesting there is a linkage between the fishing rights of the French fishermen in the area and the 200 mile limit territorial boundary negotiations? If he is, can he say now whether he feels it can be done on a bilateral basis or whether it is going to have to go to the International Court the way our boundary disputes with the United States have gone?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not drawing a link between the nature of the settlement of the international boundary and, for example, the ability or willingness of Canada to provide quotas to the French fleet now or in the future, especially when the moment comes that the French fleet loses its fishing possibilities in the Gulf. There is a link, however, operationally in how enforcement might be undertaken. There has been an understanding between the two Governments as to how enforcement will take place in disputed areas.
Finally, with regard to the last question, it would not be my desire to search for a way to bring this matter to the International Court. As the Hon. Member knows, we have a very massive case there presently, affecting the Atlantic coast, and it would not be my wish to add to that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 46(2), and as requested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) last Friday, I am tabling on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in both official languages, copies of four Orders in Council authorizing borrowing of funds pursuant to Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act.


PETITIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on the Crow rate. I have had a chance-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.

March 28, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Out!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members know that it is not allowed to make displays in the House. Would they please immediately remove those displays and will the guards please help to remove them.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the guards please remove the displays?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Remove the Member, too.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order? I should not think so.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members who have been sitting in the House for such a long time should know that this kind of display is specifically prohibited by our rules. I would appreciate it if Hon. Members would not try to smuggle in these displays for publicity purposes. The House of Commons is not a place for publicity, it is a place for debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have had a chance to read very carefully the Standing Orders of the House and also Beauchesne. I have read very carefully the section on exhibits, and I have also read very carefully the section on petitions. What I have tried to introduce in the House today on behalf of some 15,000 farmers in Saskatchewan is a petition written in the proper form.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order or is he presenting a petition?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I was rising on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I will listen to a point of order.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I was rising on a point of order to put forth the point of view that I have had a chance to read Beauchesne and what it says about exhibits. What it says on page 117, citation-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. What it says about exhibits is pretty clear and I will read it to the Hon. Member:
Speakers have consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber.
That is quite clear and I do not see what the Hon. Member can add to what I have already said.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That citation, if I may, Madam Speaker, goes on to read:
Thus during the flag debate-


Erik Nielsen: Shame.
Petitions


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have ruled on the point of order and I have also ruled on the fact that exhibits were brought into the House. If the Hon. Member has a petition to present, the Chair will be very pleased to hear that petition, but nothing else.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I think that constitutes a point of privilege. I did not have a chance to put forth my argument-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now invoking a point of privilege. There was a point of order raised, which the Chair ruled on and that is final. If the Hon. Member wants to challenge that ruling he can, but there are other ways of doing it, not through a question of privilege.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask your advice as to how I can do it if I cannot do it through a point of privilege. I did not have the chance under my point of order to make my argument.


Madam Speaker:: My advice to the Hon. Member is to present his petition right away because his point of order has been addressed. He does not have a question of privilege, or in any event he has not raised one, and the only thing he can do now is present his petition if he has one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in that respect I have had a chance to get a photocopy of parts of the petition which we wanted to present this afternoon. I do not have all the 15,000 or 16,000 names here, but I have most of them. I have examined it very carefully and it is in the proper form. I want to present it to you on behalf of some 15,000 to 16,000 people in the Provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta who have signed it in a fight to save the Crow rate.
The petition calls upon the federal Government to keep the Crow rate as it is. It says that western Canadian farmers have paid some $131 million to move export grain under the Crow rate in the 1981-82 crop year and this grain in turn has contributed some $6.3 billion to the balance of trade. The undersigned, Madam Speaker, believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy. The final sentence in this petition is that western farmers will pay one times Crow; in other words, no change.
Madam Speaker, I present to you the photocopies of the names taken from the original petition, which many people went to great expense to present to the House of Commons.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to rise today on behalf of 172,075 Canadians from across Canada who have petitioned the Government. The Government has not given this matter any consideration so they have asked me today to present to the House of Commons their petition demanding immediate

March 28, 1983
Introduction of Bills
withdrawal of the automatic early release program; that people convicted of violent crimes be imprisoned for a maximum period; and that there be an immediate change in the law with respect to violent crime.
They respectfully submit that this petition be addressed to the House of Commons and its committees, and on that basis I am honoured to present their petition to you. It is rather cumbersome. It is not a display or anything, but it does contain the names of 172,075 Canadian citizens.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, in a very much less dramatic way I have the privilege, as the Member of Parliament representing St. Catharines, to present a petition signed by some 203 citizens, representing different church and concerned citizen groups, submitting their objection to the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, we would like to present to this House 16 sheets with signatures from many farmers and concerned people in western Canada, mainly from Saskatchewan, protesting any change in the Crow rate. Those sheets happen to be cut in the form of a crow, which you have ruled this afternoon as being an exhibit.
We would like to table those 16 crows in the House of Commons, if you find them acceptable, as a petition against any change to the statutory Crow rate.



NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE


Douglas Keith Anguish: for leave to introduce Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone.
He said: Madam Speaker, this Bill is entitled "An Act to Declare Canada a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone". I hope to receive unanimous consent to have the Bill brought up on Wednesday under Private Members' Bills when I hope it will be traded for the position of another Bill on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), who has so agreed.
The Bill would do two things, Madam Speaker. First, it would declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, which would effectively stop the Cruise missile from being tested over or on Canadian territory. We hope there will be a free vote of the House of Commons on this, so that those Members who wish to air their concerns about nuclear weapons can do so without being tied to a vote of confidence in the Government. It would not be viewed this way under Private Members' Bills.
Second, the Bill would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to go to the United Nations at some future date and put forth a resolution asking the United Nations to conduct a world referendum on nuclear disarmament and to work toward some sort of multilateral agreement on the elimination of and freeze on nuclear weapons.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Madam Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member who just introduced his bill is one of the jokers who showed disrespect to Parliament just now by bringing all kinds of items on the floor of the House. He implied that he would ask the unanimous consent of the House to obtain a favour. I can inform the House right away that we shall not give in to this kind of blackmail, since that would be conferring our seal of approval on his disgraceful behaviour. On behalf of the Government and my colleagues, I can inform the Hon. Member that we do not intend to accede to his request for having the bill he just tabled considered before it is his turn.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret the way in which the Government House Leader leapt to his feet on this matter. He is not making it easy for us to deal with Government business if he interferes with Private Members' time on a Wednesday. I should like to suggest to him that he reconsider, in light of other agreements that he will be seeking in the future.


William James Kempling: Blackmail!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows very well that I was speaking as a Private Member who will not consent to support the lack of respect shown by his colleagues. It is a lack of respect that he seems to have tolerated and that is unacceptable in such an institution.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I feel I must respond to this. I did not participate in the events this afternoon concerning the statutory Crow rate as any matter of disrespect to this House, and I mean that sincerely. The farmers of western Canada, particularly in the Province of Saskatchewan, drew up what they thought would be a petition to impress upon the Government their concern-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member has made his point about the comments made by the Hon. Minister but I cannot allow him to debate the question.


Mr. Lewycky:: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Government House Leader will want to withdraw his comments. I participated with total decorum this afternoon, as I usually do. For the Government House Leader to make that
March 28, 1983

type of statement in the House and attack me in that way is not conducive to the operation of this House. I am sure the Hon. Member will want to withdraw that remark. I seconded that particular motion.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am most aggrieved to see that the Hon. Member took part in this inappropriate bit of fun. I know him very well and I am rather disappointed. I know he does not intend to do it again. In any case, I do not intend to withdraw what I said about the Members of the New Democratic Party who showed disrespect to Parliament by taking part in actions that are prohibited by our Standing Orders.
The Hon. Member cannot expect me to approve such thoughtless and irresponsible action. On the contrary, I repeat what I said. I deplore not only the attitude of his other colleagues who acted in this way, but also the fact that he took part in action which, once again, constitutes a total lack of respect for this institution, and I am sure that the people in the gallery who watched this tasteless display were not impressed with the tactics used by the New Democratic Party to debate the issue or improve the debate and the policy. I am sure that the people who witnessed these disgraceful goings-on were not impressed, and I think I would be accused of being soft if I were to withdraw what I said since it was not unparliamentary and was entirely appropriate as far as parliamentary procedure and the Standing Orders are concerned.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I must say that I resent the inference contained in the statement of the Government House Leader. There was no tactic involved. The people of Saskatchewan presented-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -what they considered to be a petition on a matter of some considerable importance. They did so-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, order.


Ian Deans: -in a form that might well be acceptable to the House of Commons-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


Ian Deans: If you had not interfered this would not have happened.


Madam Speaker:: The manner in which the petition has been presented has been dealt with. I will have no more debate on that particular question. I warn Hon. Members, it must not be on the manner in which the petition was presented. I have ruled on that. I have told the House what I felt about the situation and that is over.


Ian Deans: What did you do with the Tory petition on metric?
Introduction of Bills


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I do not rise to speak about the way the petition was presented. I rise to speak on the conduct of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). He got up a second time and referred to this as being a joke and a matter of disrespect for the House. I assure you, there was no matter of disrespect meant to this House. It is a very important issue. The fact is there was no disrespect because we immediately removed-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


Mr. Smith:: You knew they were out of order when you brought them in.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. Members know that the only way to conduct debate in the House is to do so according to the rules. Petitions may be presented to the House with a very short statement, but no display should accompany those petitions.


Ian Deans: Those were the petitions.


Madam Speaker:: That is not the form in which petitions are presented.


Ian Deans: You do not decide the form.


Laverne Lewycky: I rise on a question of privilege. The Government House Leader made the accusation that I participated in the presentation of that petition when I did not. I tried to make that clear to him but he seems to be deaf to that, and he seemed to be blind when it was being presented.
I said that I seconded this motion about having this Bill presented in the House. The Hon. Minister ought to withdraw his comments because they certainly do not apply. He should open his eyes and ears next time, because that is a slur on my actions. No such thing occurred.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, I do not see how the President of the Privy Council-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order? Hon. Members should tell the Chair why they are rising at this particular point. If it is on a point of order, I can hear it, but there is to be no more debate on this question.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Madam Speaker, it concerns the introduction of the Bill that I brought into the House this afternoon. How can the President of the Privy Council tie one activity to another very important activity in this House and act like a child in not giving his unanimous consent for something like this?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will hear no more comments on this particular incident. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) rose and commented on a certain situation. He is allowed to do that but we cannot debate it indefinitely.
Motions.

March 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) is rising on a question of privilege.


Laverne Lewycky: Madam Speaker, I ask the Government House Leader to withdraw his comment that I did something in the House when I did not.


Madam Speaker:: That is not a question of privilege. I regret to tell the Hon. Member that he does not have a question of privilege.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,905, 3,908, 3,914 to 3,920 inclusive; 3,927, 3,928, 3,930, 3,931, 3,933 and 4,719.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Springhill Institution, Springhill and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Springhill Institution is Allan Stevenson,
(a)	Date of appointment to present position: August 1, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Security, Warkworth Institution, Campbellford, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Springhill Institution but the Assistant Warden, Security, Weldon Rideout, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to seven other Assistant Wardens.
(a)	Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: March 12, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Senior Keeper at Springhill Institution, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and
personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Dorchester Penitentiary is Eugene Niles, (a) Date of appointment to present position: June 16, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Manager, Technical Services, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Moncton, New Brunswick, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Dorchester Penitentiary but the Assistant Warden, Education and Employment, Neil Corcoran, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to seven other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Education and Employment: December 3, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Nil. (c) Salary range: $15,211 to $39,104 plus appropriate allowance paid for added responsibilities as per ED EST contract. *(d) This position requires graduation with an acceptable degree from a recognized university and an acceptable teaching certificate from a Province or Territory in Canada.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Cowansville Institution, Cowansville and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. The Warden at Cowansville Institution is Jean-Paul Lupien. (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 1, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Director of Social Development, Correctional Service Canada, National
March 28, 1983

Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Cowansville Institution but the Assistant Warden, Security, Jean-Paul Trudeau, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to one other Assistant Warden.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: May 1, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Keeper at the Federal Training Centre, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Federal Training Centre, Laval and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at the Federal Training Centre is Marc Andre Lafleur. (a) Date of appointment to present position: September 19, 1975. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Co-ordinator, Transfers, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Federal Training Centre, but the Assistant Warden, Socialization, Yvon Des-chenes, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to one other Assistant Warden.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Socialization: March 31, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Executive Assistant to the Director, Federal Training Centre, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $33,689 to $37,913. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission
Order Paper Questions
Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Leclerc Institution, Laval and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Leclerc Institution is Rene Rousseau, (a) Date of appointment to present position: January 1, 1982. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Education and Training, Federal Training Centre, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Leclerc Institution, but the Assistant Warden, Socialization, Jean Marc Lavoie, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Socialization: February 25, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Co-ordinator of Operations, National Parole Service, Regional Headquarters, Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $33,689 to $37,913. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualification for the position.
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Archambault Institution, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?

March 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Archambault Institution is Andre Lemarier. (a) Date of appointment to present position: August 10, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Security, Archambault Institution, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Archambault Institution, but the Assistant Warden, Socialization, Michel Gilbert, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to six other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Socialization: February 14, 1977. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Head, Living Unit, Correctional Development Centre, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $33,689 to $37,913. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Correctional Development Centre, Laval and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at the Correctional Development Centre,
Laval is Pierre Goulem. (a) Date of appointment to present position: April 1, 1972. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment:	Assistant Warden, Socialization, Federal
Training Centre, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $38,020 to $42,919. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Correctional Development Centre, Laval but the Assistant Warden, Security, Robert Caron, is presently designated by the Warden to act in
his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: March 21, 1977. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Preventive Security Officer, Correctional Service Canada, National Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $35,546 to $39,685. *(d) Same as part A(d).
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines is Roger Jourdain. (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 2, 1977. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Deputy Regional Director, Inmate Programs, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Regional Reception Centre, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, but the Assistant Warden, Security, Gaston Langelier, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to three other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: April 23, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Security, Laval Institution, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $35,546 to $39,685. *(d) Same as part A(d).
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Pubic Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.
March 28, 1983


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Portsmouth Centre, Kingston and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Portsmouth Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is James Murdoch, (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 8, 1982. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Section Supervisor, National Parole Service, Eastern Ontario District Office, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Portsmouth Centre but one of the two Parole Officers, Randall Glenn Grooms, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to both Parole Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Parole Officer: October 22, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Parole Officer, National Parole Service, Eastern Ontario District Office, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Warkworth Institution, Campbellford and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. The Warden at Warkworth Institution is Mary Dawson, (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 20, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Administration, Warkworth Institution, Campbellford, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed
Order Paper Questions
the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Warkworth Institution but the Assistant Warden, Security, Samuel Brazeau, is presently designated by the Warden to act in her absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to seven other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: September 22, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Acting Chief, Security, Equipment Resources, Correctional Service Canada, National Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) Same as part A(d).
information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Joyceville Institution, Joyceville and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Joyceville Institution is Kenneth Payne, (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 16, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Education and Training, Collins Bay Institution, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Joyceville Institution but the Assistant Warden, Socialization, Clement McQuaide, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to six other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Socialization: March 25, 1974. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Chief of Vocational Training, Correctional Service Canada, National Headquarters, Ottawa, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $33,689 to $37,913.
*(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination,

March 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions
"General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Millhaven Institution, Bath and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Warden at Millhaven Institution is John Ryan, (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 7, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Warden, Collins Bay Institution, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Millhaven Institution but the Assistant Warden, Security, Frederick Sisson, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to six other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: March 6, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Senior Security Officer at Millhaven Institution, (c) Salary range: $35,546 to $39,685. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Prison For Women, Kingston and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. The Warden at the Prison for Women is George Caron, (a) Date of appointment to present position: January 19, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Socialization, Prison for Women, (c) Salary range: $38,020 to $42,919. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B. There is no Deputy Director at the Prison for Women but the Assistant Warden, Security, Theresa Decaire, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to three other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: May 26, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Senior Keeper at the Prison for Women, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) Same as part A(d).
Information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Regional Reception Centre, Kingston and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: The Regional Reception Centre, Kingston has been re-named Kingston Penitentiary.
A.	The Warden at the Kingston Penitentiary is Andrew Graham, (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 29, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Security, Kingston Penitentiary, (c) Salary range: $39,700 to $48,500. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Kingston Penitentiary but the Assistant Warden, Security, Donald McBroom, is presently designated by the Warden to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to six other Assistant Wardens.
(a) Date of appointment as Assistant Warden, Security: October 5, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Co-ordinator, security Standards, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Kingston, Ontario, (c) Salary range: $30,567 to $34,090. *(d) Same as part A(d).
information provided is for previous work experience in the federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the federal Public Service and personal
March 28, 1983

educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Kilgour: 1.	How many professional persons does the Bureau of Management Services employ in Ottawa?
2.	Has the Bureau participated in foreign projects during each of the past three years and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the total dollar value (c) how many man-years were involved by the Bureau (d) in how many of the projects were management consultants from the private sector eligible to compete with the Bureau for the work?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1 and 2.
The Bureau of Management Consulting employs 110 professional persons in Ottawa. The Bureau's participating in foreign projects during the past three years is as follows:
Year	Number of Projects	Dollar Value	Person YearsFY 80/81	5	$176,150	1.2FY 81/82	10	$425,500	4.6FY 82/83	9	$471,000	4.7
The Bureau offers an optional service to Canadian Government Departments and, through External Affairs and the Canadian Commercial Corporation, to foreign governments and international agencies. Since the service is optional, clients always have the freedom to offer their consulting assignments to private sector consultants. If the Canadian private sector is invited to bid, the Bureau, as a matter of policy, will either not compete or will withdraw if a proposal has already been made.
In the foreign projects noted above, the Bureau was approached by the various agencies on the basis of their perception that the Bureau had the expertise to solve the problem. They had already decided not to use the Canadian private sector and to negotiate a government/international agency to government contract. In fact, on the 24 foreign assignments during the years 1980/81 to 1982/83, the Bureau used, on a sub-contract basis, 15 consultants from the Canadian private sector.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Borrowing Authority



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Blenkarn (p. 24001).
Bruce Halliday: Madam Speaker, I shall try to give you less trouble than you had in the last five or ten minutes.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Hypocrite.


Bruce Halliday: I do, however, feel constrained to make an observation on the petition raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He had 172,000-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, but 1 believe the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) just called my colleague the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) a hypocrite. I ask him to withdraw that remark.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not hear the remark.


David P. Smith: We heard it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Did the Hon. Member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake make the remark to which reference was just made? If he did, I invite him to withdraw it because the language is unparliamentary.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I did say that. However, I believe what I stated was incorrect. I should have said the statement which the Hon. Member was making was hypocritical in light of the fact his Party kept the House of Commons bells ringing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has indicated that he has withdrawn the unparliamentary remark. The Hon. Member for Oxford has the floor.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I will not pursue that. I did not hear what the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) said, and as my friend across the way said, it is a waste of time.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South presented a petition containing 172,000 names and in the preface to his presentation of the petition he indicated people were showing their dissatisfaction with the refusal of the present Govern-

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
ment to listen to what they, the people of Canada, are saying. I notice my friend the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) is about ready to leave the House. I have watched him and he has looked very sad all morning. He is now smiling for the first time today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), but I would like to correct something I have just said. It is important that I do so while the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) is in the House.
The Hon. Member for Dauphin has just told me that he did not support the demonstration but was supporting the Bill. Therefore, what I said about his colleagues who participated in that sad demonstration does not apply to him. I want to be fair to the Hon. Member for Dauphin. I appreciate that he did not support the demonstration and I understand that he can support the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oxford.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have another chance to make my speech.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: Returning to the concern of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South regarding the attitude of the present Government toward the wishes of the Canadian people, it is quite clear that Canadians are feeling more and more that the present Government has not shown a willingness to listen to them. As we debate Bill C-143 today, I note that this Wednesday marks the sixth week that the Bill has been before the House. Many of us in the Opposition have spoken more than once on this Bill precisely because we feel the Canadian people, and ourselves, need to be listened to by this Government.
This Government is asking for a sum of money that we think is unreasonable: it is asking for $19 billion. Most of us accept the fact that it may be necessary to give the Government $5 billion, which is needed for this present fiscal year; but most of us have reservations about the need for us to give the Government authority to borrow another $14 billion on top of that.
I had occasion to speak on this Bill some three and a half weeks ago. At that time I chose to comment mainly about some of my perceptions and views regarding the present Government. I was concerned about some of the characteristics that have been exhibited over the last several years in this House. I mentioned the deplorable characteristic of this Government's untrustworthiness. As I mentioned, that applies to the attitude concerning Bill C-143.
We had been told previously by two cabinet Ministers that we would not be given this kind of borrowing Bill until we
were told more about how the money would be spent. In the Government's untrustworthy manner, this has not taken place and it is most regrettable. In spite of the many demands from this side of the House, we are still not being given any information as to how this $14 billion will be spent.
When I spoke on March 4, I indicated that I was concerned about the characteristics of arrogance and secrecy and the general contempt the Government has shown for Parliament in general. That observation could be a speech in itself. There are many ways in which we can see how this present Government really does not trust Parliament and does not want to see Parliament functioning.
That brings me to a point on which I want to elaborate today. I do not pretend to be a student of parliamentary government although I am very fascinated and interested in it. If what I say is wrong, I would like to be corrected by some Hon. Member. My perception of the parliamentary system is that the Government is there to govern. There is a real role for the Opposition as well, particularly the Official Opposition. The Opposition is given certain defined terms of reference, one might say. The Opposition is there to protect the public from the tyranny of a majority Government, and to protect the public in particular against the unwise use of their money. I sense more and more that the present Government is showing that kind of disrespect to which I have just alluded. This Government is refusing to accept the fact that the Opposition Party has a real role to play in holding up this kind of unnecessary and costly type of legislation to spend the taxpayers's dollars. Since the Government has known for the last six weeks that Members on this side of the House were concerned about how the Government would spend the taxpayers' money, there is no reason why it could not have made an amendment or change to the borrowing authority Bill.
Let us review what the Government actually said when it presented the Bill on February 16. We received a press release from the Department of Finance which explained that the first part of the Bill asked for authorization to borrow $5 billion for the immediate fiscal year, and the second part of the Bill asked for $14 billion for the next fiscal year beginning in April, at the end of this week.
The reason given for asking for this borrowing authority was that the Government was unable to anticipate the drop in revenues which occurred and the increased debt charges. It said that those two phenomena, the decrease of revenue and the increase in debt charges, accounted for 72 per cent of its problems. The other 28 per cent accounted for "recession related expenditures". It referred to the rising cost of Unemployment Insurance. While that increase is understandable, the press release did not mention the other increases involved in that 28 per cent. I did not mention spending $1.5 billion for Petro-Canada to buy Petrofina. It did not mention the $800 a day being paid to Donald Macdonald which we have heard so much about. We were not told about those shady deals, in my
March 28, 1983

view, for which they have to borrow money from the Canadian people.
Before I discuss the details of the Government's request for the extra $14 billion, let me talk about the Government's inability to predict what its needs will be. On November 18, 16 months ago, the official prediction for our deficit was $10.5 billion. In June of last year, which is less than a year ago, the Government predicted that deficit would be up to $19.6 billion, which has almost doubled in seven months. As of October of last year the prediction had gone up to $23.6 billion. As recently as last month the prediction went up to $27.2 billion. In approximately 16 months, the deficit had risen by at least two and one-half times from what the Government had anticipated. That is the incompetence Canadians are faced with from the Government.
When such lack of competence in a Government is evident, it is no wonder that the Opposition becomes worried and feels the responsibility to put pressure on the Government to give a better explanation of its operations.
I would like to take a couple of more moments to elaborate on the statement made by the office of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The press release stated that one reason the Government had to bring in this borrowing authority Bill was in order to permit the Government to continue with an orderly debt program. I become concerned when the Government talks about an orderly debt program because I am not in favour of debt programs at all. I believe that we should avoid having some of these debt programs. If this is an orderly debt program, I would hate to see what a disorderly debt program would be like if we did hot have this particular Bill.
Another interesting fact which evolved from the Minister's news release was that this interim authority was meant to give Parliament adequate time to consider a new borrowing Bill based on the financial requirements for 1983-84 that would be set out in the forthcoming budget. We have heard much about the forthcoming budget and are given to understand that it will be introduced at the end of next month. The last sentence of the news release states:
It is the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill shortly after the next budget.
If the budget is to come down in April, the Bill would likely be introduced some time in May, which is reasonable. If we are to see the next borrowing authority Bill introduced shortly after the budget in April, surely it would be reasonable for the House to authorize borrowing for the months of April, May and possibly June, which would represent about a quarter of the year's deficit. We are being asked, instead, to authorize $14 billion which is more than half the deficit for this current fiscal year.
There is a reason why we seem to be holding this legislation up. We see no reason why the Government should be asking for more than $5 billion or $6 billion for the next fiscal year since it is promising to bring down a budget and introduce another borrowing authority Bill soon after the budget which we can debate more thoroughly at that time, we are told. If the Government House Leader (Mr. Pinard) were here I would
Borrowing Authority
ask him how much time he intends to give us to debate the next borrowing authority Bill. I doubt the time would be adequate when compared to what we think would be necessary.
On this final day of debate at report stage of Bill C-143, I suggest that the House should accept the amendment before it now to reduce the borrowing authority. Before we finish debate on this Bill I hope that the Government will see fit to reduce its demand from $14 billion to a more reasonable amount such as $5 billion or $6 billion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is not only a matter of concern to Members of the Opposition but to those on the Government side as well when borrowing becomes necessary at any time. During a time of recession when there are so many unknown factors in the economy, one must almost be gifted with ESP to be able to make a prediction beyond three months or four months. It is unfortunate that while Opposite Members recognize this fact, they do not accept it and, instead, espouse so much of what is political rhetoric in their speeches. The Opposition is aware that borrowing is necessary in order for the Government to meet its cash requirements.
The Hon. Member who preceded me indicated that the Opposition did not have information, that the Government was being arrogant in asking for the money, and that we will spend it as we see fit. He said that although he knows that this is not the case at all. If anything, there is a surfeit of information on the subject. Estimates were tabled recently, there are some 10 or 12 explanatory booklets from the various Departments, and we understand that that will be doubled in the future. Those Members of Parliament who have a sincere and honest interest in knowing where the Government will spend the money and why the borrowing is necessary will have the information at their fingertips if they are prepared to do some homework.
It would be pleasant, particularly for the Government, if we knew that the revenues we secure from income and other taxes meet the Government's spending requirements. However, knowing the facts, which the Opposition Parties should know if they have done their homework, we have seen the Government revenues dropping off.
The Opposition Parties must recognize, and they do so, that the Government can meet this particular requirement for spending by proceeding in two ways. One would be to raise taxes significantly, and the other would be to borrow in the short term to meet its cash requirements. Since the Opposition is arguing so vehemently against the approach of short term borrowing, which is absolutely necessary at a time of recession, surely the opposite is true, namely, that they advocate higher taxes. The Liberals find this approach particularly inappropriate at a time of recession. It is not the best method to follow if we are to consider the interest of average and low income Canadians. Raising income taxes is a very easy administrative way of doing things, but I think it would be inappropriate at this particular time to say to people who are hard-pressed as a result of the depression that we are going to increase their
24226

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
taxes by a significant amount in order to meet the requirements of the Government and the requirements of the ordinary Canadian. The benefits under the Canada Pension Plan or the Unemployment Insurance Program are designed to meet the needs of people by way of a form of safety net. That is why these programs were put in place and that is why we need the money at this time to prove the worth of the programs that we have in place.
I have had the privilege of being the Minister of Employment and Immigration and had to take a long, hard look at the Unemployment Insurance coverage. At that time we found that the UIC program was in a small surplus position, that later it dropped to a small deficit, and then back to a surplus again. But it was, by and large, in balance. The feeling of the contributors was that we should keep the payments at a particular level, not to have a large deficit but not to benefit too much from a large surplus which the legislation makes impossible in any event.
Now we have the situation where people are benefiting this year to the extent of approximately $8 billion. That is not money that is going into a sock or a bank account. It is money that is going into the economy. "Thank heavens", say the barbers and the retailers and the butchers and the bakers of this country, because it is not only supporting the unemployed worker, it is supporting the people who are in the business community. This money is going back into the community and is being used by Canadians to help them at this most difficult time.
I would say that Canadians, by and large, are kilometres ahead of the Opposition Parties because they recognize that we are in a recession, that we are in difficult times and that we simply cannot go out to the Canadian public at this time and say that we need more money and therefore we are going to increase their taxes right across the board. We cannot say that in order to meet our short-term requirements we will have to increase those taxes in a significant way. I just cannot believe that the Opposition Parties are advocating that kind of an approach.
Now we have the Opposition Members saying that there is another way of doing it, and that is, to cut Government spending, but every single time that the Government takes a measure that in a significant way reduces its cash requirements, it meets opposition from the Opposition Parties. When we brought in the block system for the transfer payments to Provinces, as a sweetener to that, because the Provinces were somewhat apprehensive that the amount of money that they were going to receive would not be as much as on a per capita or per person basis, the Government said that, on a one shot deal, it would put $5 billion into the program so the Provinces would not only have the increase but would have this $5 billion to distribute, so that they would know that they were not being short-changed. That was explained at the time as a one shot deal, as a sweetener to convince the Provinces that no one was tiding to short-change them on the transfer payments. When the second round of payments came about and the Minister indicated that the increases would still be a significant amount
of money, not only did the Opposition Parties say that we were paying less money, which of course was incorrect, but they were basing their case on this $5 billion payment, indicating that the Government should, out of hand in a transfer payment way, make another $5 billion available to the Provinces, which was clearly inappropriate.
When one looks at the way that my own Province, for example, spends the money that it receives on the transfer payment and does not use it for education, and when the federal Government finds itself at the post-secondary level paying something between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the cost of post-secondary education, my question is, is my Province really spending the money the way it should be spending it and where it was meant to be spent, that is, on the educating of our young people, particularly those at the post-secondary level? So a tough decision was made not to put this further $5 billion into the kitty. That was a way of cutting spending, admittedly, but we did not get any support at all from the Opposition Parties.
Now, we said we should make Canada Post self-supporting, to the extent that it can be. It has to meet needs across the country where it obviously is uneconomic to do so. On that basis we established a Crown corporation, of which everyone approved, I believe. We asked them to operate in a businesslike way, recognizing that there are significant deficits, somewhere between $500 billion and $700 billion. Then it was necessary to increase the cost of postage stamps in order to meet some of this indebtedness. That in fact was done. That was another means of cutting Government spending in a significant way, but the Government received nothing but castigation from the Opposition Parties, who said that this was inappropriate.
When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) had the guts and the determination to make the changes with the VIA Rail passenger service so that we could have a viable passenger service in Canada, there was nothing but criticism from the Opposition Parties, notwithstanding the fact that this particular railway probably would have gone significantly in the red, and maybe to the point of having to be cancelled because these particular changes were not made when it was necessary.
So I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where really does the Opposition Party stand? They are not in favour of borrowing of money; they are not in favour of cutting Government expenditures. They only have one alternative left, and that is to say to Canadians that in order to meet these particular programs like Unemployment Insurance, like the Canada Pension Plan, like payments to old age pensioners, that are helping out at this time, the only way the Government can get its money is by raising taxes, because they have eliminated the other two possibilities.
The Canadian public knows this reality and they accept it, but they also know the reality of the Official Opposition, that they really have no policy. Can you imagine having a policy conference, called specifically to talk about policy, but not having any votes on policy or making any determination
March 28, 1983

whatsoever? Where do they stand on this particular issue? Where do they stand on any of the issues, except negatively? When tough, hard-nosed, positive decisions must be made, they have been found lacking.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak, not for the first time in this debate, but to follow a very good friend and respected colleague, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who was a great disappointment to me today. This is one of the few times that he has disappointed me in any debate in this House in the last ten years.
I think the Hon. Member heard, during Question Period, when I, ill-advisedly and in the heat of debate, and I make no pretence or apology for saying things sometimes on which I have second thoughts, suggested to the current Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) that the Government would be much better served were the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton in the position that he had held and, I though, discharged very, very well. I do not take that back, even though it was said in the heat of debate because I thought that when the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton fulfilled that particular onerous responsibility he did so, first of all, with integrity, and I think with a sincere desire to fulfill a very, very difficult responsibility indeed, even in those days. I think he will be the first to agree that the pressures of that particular portfolio today exceed those that existed during his tenure.
I had intended to develop another theme in this debate, but I hope the Hon. Member will find it somewhat complimentary if I put aside my notes and deal first at least with some of the things that he said. I had never perceived that Member as having a snapshot view of Government. However, when he focused his attention on an issue that existed today, he did so to the exclusion of either the past and, more important, the future, because he talked about needing the gift of ESP when forecasting necessary borrowing, and he spoke about money going back into the community because we are paying Unemployment Insurance benefits. That is not the perception I perceived the Hon. Member as having when he was in Cabinet.
If I had to take him to task for his Cabinet responsibilities, I would remind him that he sat in that room when John Turner brought in those budgets. He is shaking his head no. If I am wrong, he is excused, because I would have found it very hard to believe that, without having an electronic bug in that Cabinet room, of all Members of Government that Member would have accepted the philosophy that existed in at least two budgets during my earlier years in this House, that commenced a spending spree for which now the Hon. Member is put in the embarrassing position of having to defend an enormous borrowing Bill. I do not think it is consistent with his philosophy, that of his constituents, or of any of us who share that geographic area in southwestern Ontario.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member placed me in the Cabinet when the Hon. John
Borrowing Authority
Turner was Minister of Finance. I must say that I was proud to have served as his Parliamentary Secretary when he introduced the de-indexing which saved Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Hon. Member is sufficiently defensive to rise on a point of order. It certainly discloses what I believe to be his true character. I say that with great respect.
What troubles me when I accuse the Hon Member of being guilty of a snapshot approach to the problem, is that he is saying that if the Opposition is in favour of borrowing, it must be in favour of increased taxation. If he is going to take that tunnel-vision approach, maybe he can justify that accusation.
Let me talk about something that the Hon. Member and I share. We share constituents with generally the same philosophy, ambitions, fears and possibly prejudices. He talked about money going back into the community in terms of funds paid for Unemployment Insurance. I am sure he will be the first to agree that for every dollar that of necessity goes to our fellow citizens who are so unfortunate as to have to rely on the Unemployment Insurance payments to pay for their heating, light, food and other necessities, there are likely tens or hundreds of other dollars that are not going back into the community. This is simply because his constituents and mine do not have sufficient confidence in themselves, the community and the country to take the risk that has been the tradition and history in our area.
I remember well many constituents, whether they be urban or rural in my riding and, I am sure, in the riding of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who a year ago in October or November would not take a risk because of that lack of confidence. Instead of putting money back into the community, they put it into Canada Savings Bonds at 19.5 per cent interest. That did not create one job. Instead of a new milk house, as improvement to a small business, a renovation to a home or a multitude of other projects that are, traditional and historic in our community, our constituents invested their money in Canada Bonds.
When talking about money going back into the community, let us consider the millions of dollars shared between those two comparable ridings. The Hon. Member did not deal with interest rates specifically. However, I wish to do that. This Government seems to take some perverse pride in or credit for a reduction of interest rates, which was one of the major barriers to investment in the community, that job-creating investment that has been traditional not only in southwestern Ontario, but from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
What has happened with interest rates? I do not think anyone in this House will disagree with the virtually unanimous position of the economists who have commented recently. They have said without reservation, equivocation or qualification that interest rates, even at today's level, are much higher than they should be. They have given three basic reasons to explain the situation. First, the recession created a shortage in

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
demand. It is as simple as that. People are not borrowing money to expand. In the view of entrepreneurs in this country, there is no demand for increased productivity. Second, there has been a sharp decline in interest rates in the United States. I presume that any increase in that country will be reflected within hours or days in this country. Third, the current economic recession hit Canada much more severely than it has most of our western industrialized trading partners. Those are the three reasons.
For whatever reason, and it is to the everlasting credit of Canadians, there still continues to be a part of our community that we have tagged as the risk-takers who continue to take risks. Unfortunately, the numbers have declined dramatically. It is a simple fact of life. The number of risk-takers has declined, but there is still that constituency that says, despite every economic argument to the contrary, that they are going to take a risk and start a new venture.
Given the extraordinary diminished number, once you have a risk-taker, what is that risk-taker, doing? I know quite a few of them. There is one in my family about whom I worry pretty well every day. That risk-taker is going to defy every prediction, rule and economic fact, take the risk and try to make a living.
Therein lie two factors. First, we must complement and support the person who intends to open up a small business and make a living on his own. The other side of that coin is that is it not consistent with Canadian risk-takers. Canadian risk-takers not only say they are going to make a living-I see you are getting nervous, Mr. Speaker. My time is up. I am sorry the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton provoked me and I had to use most of my time trying to set the record straight. I believe there is another stage in this debate in which I can participate.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to speak to this Bill today. The legislation before the House consists of two flimsy pages with few words on them. It is not a heck of a lot to present to the House of Commons when seeking to borrow $19 billion. That is why Members on this side of the House have demanded from the Government a rational explanation of what it intends to do with these borrowed funds. That is a legitimate request. The Government should have responded to it before coming to the House asking for this borrowing authority. We should have had a budget for a request for this vast sum of money.
The important point in the debate is why the Government is in need of such a large sum of money. Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that the Government has been mismanaging the economy, putting its economic focus in the wrong place. Therefore, we have an economic slowdown and record high levels of unemployment, which obviously means the Government revenues drop and the need of the Government to borrow increases dramatically. That is why the Government is seeking unheard levels of borrowing on such flimsy information.
When it comes to economic policies, the priorities of this Government are out of whack. Government emphasis has been on inflation. The six and five program was intended to bring down inflation. What it did was to reduce the amount of
money in people's pockets, and, therefore, reduce their purchasing power. It reduced the demand in the economy and served as a further break on economic activity. It contributed to the drop in revenues from which the Government is presently suffering. It added to the need to borrow the large sum of money for which the Government is now seeking authority. The request of the Government to borrow $19 billion is really an admission of the failure of its economic policies. It is a clear indication of the need for an alternative set of economic priorities and economic policies. This includes not only the whole question of how the Government should intervene in the economy, but also includes the whole matter of tax reform, in other words, how the Government would raise revenue. Obviously, if a Government is running a deficit, it must have something to do with how it is raising its funds as well.
I would like to make a few central points, Mr. Speaker. The first point is the fact that the present recession in terms of economic activity in this country, and, certainly, depression in terms of unemployment, really points to a long overdue need for a real industrial strategy, some intelligent thinking and action about where private and public investment in this country is going to go. We need an industrial strategy in order to ensure that we have a strong economy and one that can produce jobs, which in turn would produce revenue for the Government, thereby reducing the need for the large kinds of borrowing which the Government is proposing today. We need an industrial strategy which is based on the principle that the public has a right to have some say about what kind of investments are going to be made within the country and what kind of economic activity is going to make sense, not only in terms of profit, but also in terms of employment, and it is through the Government that the general citizenry of the country has a chance to have some say about the economic direction of the country.
In spite of this obvious need for an industrial strategy, the Government has been backing away from Government intervention in the economy. It is starting to echo the Conservatives in terms of their "hands-off' economic philosophy, in other words, to leave the direction of the economy to the private sector in the hope that somehow the private businessmen all by themselves will know better how to manage the economy, how to create wealth and how to provide employment.
The experience which we have had in this country with that philosophy and that approach has been dismal, Mr. Speaker. It is really on the basis of that philosophy of leaving the fundamental management of the economy to the private sector that we have arrived at the present economic morass in which we find ourselves today. Also it is as a result of the application of this philosophy in the United States that we are suffering from our present economic difficulties. President Reagan was elected on the basis of a philosophy which said there was really no place in economic matters for the Government or for the public, and with this philosophy he reduced public spending and Government intervention in the economy which resulted in
*
March 28, 1983

the predictable world-wide recession from which we are suffering today.
I must remind the House, Mr. Speaker, of the extent of our economic suffering. We cannot forget the fact that we have some 1.5 million people officially unemployed in this country and, obviously, every unemployed person reduces the revenues which can go to the Government because they are no longer in a position to pay taxes. We have 1.5 million people unemployed, but we have to add to that number those people who have just given up looking for work because they just cannot find any. They have become discouraged and given up. On top of that we have to add those people working part-time and those who are not working at full capacity because they cannot find the kind of employment they are qualified for. When you add those people in, you find the real level of unemployment in this country to be over a couple of million people. It has been reported that the real unemployment rate in this country is actually something like 19 per cent rather than the official rate of around 12 per cent.
The fact that the Government is before us today, Mr. Speaker, asking for record borrowing authority of $19 million should not be any surprise because the Government has been putting emphasis on bringing down inflation-at least, has been taking credit for bringing down inflation-and has been ignoring the need for job creation in any significant way. It has not put the necessary priority on employment. And when I say "priority on employment", what I am talking about is the fact that a humane society, as was pointed out by the Bishops not too long ago, really has to adopt the objective of full employment. In other words, every person who is capable of working and desires to work has the right to work. It is just not good enough to run the economy in a way that leaves a couple of million people out of work. By running the economy in that way, the Government is left with reduced revenues and, therefore, with a larger deficit. What the Government is saying by its actions is that it prefers to have people on welfare and on unemployment insurance benefits, rather than employed, creating wealth and engaging in productive and fulfilling activities.
It is a well-known fact in this country, Mr. Speaker, that over the last few decades the burden of taxes in this country has fallen more and more heavily on the individual rather than the corporation, and that the income tax in this country is no longer progressive; for example, those who earn more do not necessarily pay more taxes. In order to supply revenue to the Government so that it can do those things it needs to have done such as job-creation programs, there must be a decent and fair corporate and income tax system.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, it is now pretty obvious that this House must, in fact, pass the borrowing Bill. I believe that the debate which has characterized this consideration so far has been a good one. I believe the last three speeches have contributed matters of substance, and I certainly enjoyed them. However, in my opinion, the very fact that the Government is in such desperate financial straits that it must exhibit the desperation which is so apparent in
Borrowing Authority
order to get this money shows its lack of long-term planning and financial expertise. Did you know, Sir, for example, that some of the RCMP "A" Division members in Ottawa had their pay cheques retrieved last Thursday? Some of these cheques were passed out in advance for administrative convenience, then had to be retrieved ostensibly, I suppose, because it was feared they might present these cheques inadvertently, or otherwise, a little early for deposit or payment. This kind of financial precariousness illustrates, I believe, the lack of foresight which the Government has exhibited in managing the affairs of the nation.
The last time I spoke, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that there had been a veritable parade of Ministers of National Revenue and Finance since 1979, four in each Department, as I recall. On the other hand, despite the feckless disregard for good financial spending which has characterized some of the past Ministers, and indeed much of the Prime Minister's own personal technique when it comes to looking after our country, I would like to say something in a positive way this afternoon. I believe many Hon. Members are heartened by the fact that beneath this musical chairs act of Ministers there have been various Presidents of the Treasury Board in recent years, and Auditors General, such as the late Mr. Macdonell to whom I would like to pay tribute this afternoon as I know many Hon. Members would and have already done, who have in fact finally grasped the enormity of the fiscal and financial mistakes which were made in the 1970s.
I believe perhaps the turning point came with Mr. Macdonell in 1976, when he made the statement that the Government's finances were out of control. This even attracted the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and, to his credit, as I recall, the Lambert Commission was then instituted to look into the fiscal and financial acceptability of Government.
About this time Hon. Members will recall the Prime Minister had another small period of educational bliss thrust upon him by Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of Germany, to whom he was paying a visit. He then came back and made some Hilltop declarations on fiscal responsibility to the then Minister of Finance, now the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien). This provoked a brief flurry, mostly counterproductive because of lack of planning, and the Departments which were most in need of money did not get any. The Departments which were sloppy and over-allocated did not mind losing some. In any event, we then saw another progression toward accountability when we had the Comptroller General, Mr. Harry Rogers, appointed upon the presentation of the report of Mr. Lambert's commission. I think our late colleague, Bob Andras, subscribed to this kind of fiscal and financial accountability. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has certainly contributed a great deal toward bringing forward in the public consciousness the sort of value for money, special procedures and cost effectiveness concepts, which finally, I believe, are bringing some financial accountability to this Chamber.

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
So at a second level, Mr. Speaker, beneath the apparent futility of some of the Ministers who have occupied these portfolios which are so sensitive and where, as the Eton. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) indicated, the reversal of policies and confusion have contributed to the lack of business confidence, at another level there has been progress made in the House toward fiscal and financial accountability. I think, in fairness, the Government has to be given some credit for doing this. As well, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), when he was President of the Treasury Board, also subscribed to this kind of improved financial accountability.
Now, the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, in his remarks this afternoon, which inspired some very appropriate comments from the Hon. Member for Perth, indicated that the Opposition has no policies. Well, of course, we all know that this is largely rhetoric. The obvious thing to do in a period of falling revenues, when the Government may be caught by as much as a $6 billion shortfall because of a miscalculation of revenues from the National Energy Program, which I think itself has contributed to this situation because of that program's retrogressive effect, the Government obviously has to spend less and spend more intelligenty. As well, it has to look for alternate sources of revenue.
I do not know why, for example, the Government does not simply abandon the Macdonald Commission. It is not going to report for some years, has already cost $1 million, and it follows right on the heels of another McDonald Commission which cost the taxpayers of this country $10 million and which has produced very little if any benefit so far, except uncertainty for the Security Service, and which was almost a duplicate of the Mackenzie Royal Commission. The Maritimes Pollution Claims Fund, Mr. Speaker, is another source of potential revenue for the Atlantic region, provided the statutory changes were made to allow this $50 million fund to be used for purposes relating to marine stimulation, perhaps for the fishing industry or for shipbuilding subsidies. There are other indications as well that if the Government would simply manage its long-term commitments in a more astute way, it would not always be caught short to the point where it is constantly harassing Members of this House to pass legislation and today give them $19 billion so we can pay the Members of "A" Division of the RCMP here in Ottawa. Surely it is almost an absurdity that the Government is reduced to this kind of shortterm and obvious hand-to-mouth financing when it comes to running the affairs of our country.
Now, Sir, there is obviously a great responsibility on all Members of Parliament to make sure that the Government, when it is considering accountability and the spending of such vast amounts of money, pay greater attention to ongoing programs. Right now in the Department of Public Works the Minister has to grapple with the effects of the mortgage management portfolio system which has turned out to be a horror show, but which he inherited. It has wasted tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. There are also indications that the Auditor General, Mr. Dye, is going to take
another extraordinarily practical step in combating this kind of waste, as well as the item like the $100 million or $200 million, I forget which, overspending in the Montreal postal terminal debacle, which the Minister of the day denied even existed when I asked him about it. Obviously the Auditor General will have to institute an ongoing audit for large capital projects so that when he sees these kinds of excesses, based on political or other reasons, which are causing taxpayers to be ripped off for millions, he will have the authority to step in and give a little bit of guidance, or at least demand some explanations. In the past, Auditors General have had to wait until literally the horse was stolen before they went into the barn and announced the bad news to the taxpayers. Now, perhaps, if these trends can be carried on which the late Mr. Macdonell instituted and which Mr. Dye appears to be consolidating and expanding, we can get a more selective, astute and efficient spending of the hundreds of millions of dollars that many Departments waste each year.
Just to show you, Mr. Speaker, how the Government has grown, I think it was Peter Newman in Maclean's Magazine last summer who indicated that Sir John A. Macdonald had approximately 12 or 13 Cabinet Ministers and about 300 civil servants. Today each of the 36 Ministers in this administration, if you average it out, have approximately 17,000 civil servants under their administration. That is a tremendous increase. While it is unrealistic to advocate wholesale cuts in the Public Service, and I certainly do not, I think it is realistic to advocate a more selective approach to the use of consultants, a practice which costs the country hundreds of millions of dollars every year and in many cases only supplements or bolsters the expertise of many civil servants whom we are already paying very well for doing the same job which apparently has to be sanctioned again by consultants who are usually more notable for what they have done in the past for the Party in power than any great expertise they bring to the
I for one, Mr. Speaker, would not advocate delaying this measure any more. For the reasons mentioned, 1 think the Government needs the money. I hope that in the future it will use it more judiciously than it has in the past. I hope we can expect the same degree of conscientiousness from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) we now have, that has existed in some of the recent Ministers in the job. I hope the Government will seriously consider searching for some new sources of revenue, such as the Maritimes Pollution Claims Fund, and as well will consider changing some of the tax provisions which are counterproductive. Certainly nothing so stultified the industry, ingenuity and ambition of Canadians as the imposition of the capital gains tax which this Government brought it in years ago. At the present time the continuing existence of this tax, unindexed, only fosters confiscation by the state of property that people have accumulated and which has only increased in value because of inflation, but is taxed, none the less. I see you are indicating my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.
March 28, 1983


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on February 28, I spoke on this Bill and one of the amendments before us at that time. Now, a month later, I come back to the same subject again. Like the Hon. Member who has just spoken, I am going to try to be constructive, if I can, in helping the Government consider different ways of getting out of the trouble it is in. I suspect the Government already knows these ideas are worthy of consideration. For instance, in my speech a month ago I suggested two ideas they could look at to be put into committee. One was that we should use the Bank of Canada to help us get over this pressure we are under now with this present Bill which calls for the borrowing of a total of $19 billion. Now, I did not hear any comments in the press about these proposals, and I am used to that, so I am going to make them again. What did I mean by using the Bank of Canada? Well, if you read the Bank of Canada Act, which is 50 years old, you will realize that it was put in at a time when Canada was in terrible trouble on fiscal and monetary policy. We were at the beginning of what turned out to be a Depression of nearly ten years. The Government set up the Bank of Canada, took away from the commercial banks the power to control the money supply and gave it to the central Bank. For long periods in the Depression the Governments under Bennett and Mackenzie King, quietly used the Bank of Canada to pay the costs of operating the Government because they were not collecting the taxes. At that time there were so many people unemployed and there was so much unused plant capacity that there was no inflation. In the view of many people, we are not far from that situation today, Mr. Speaker.
A month ago I suggested that we use the Bank of Canada, and then just last week I heard that the Government is using emergency power. I assume that these emergency powers are the Governor General's warrants approach. I do not know the final answer, although I will eventually find it, but I wonder if the Government is not using the key to this type of approach. Certainly, the purpose of the Governor General's warrants is to carry the Government in an emergency such as when an election is called before the money has been voted. That is almost the situation today. The Act makes it very clear that no interest is paid to the Bank of Canada in that case. One of the heaviest loads that any Government carries today is the cost of interest at the present high rates.
1 put that forward at this late stage of the debate and ask Members of the Government who are present to find out if the Bank of Canada is being used. If that is the case and there have been no evil results, then perhaps we should follow the precedents of Bennett and King and use it more. I do not think that would cause inflation if there is a labour supply, unused plant capacity and, above all, a not too fast circulation of money. The velocity of money flow is not included in our monetary activities at the present time, although I think it should be.
Perhaps the Government has stumbled on something that is in harmony with what I said a month ago. It certainly should consider this matter again because it may do a great deal of
Borrowing Authority
harm if it tries to borrow $19 billion on the market in the next few months. That could create the impression in the minds of business people and investors that we are about to enter another inflationary period. In that case, interest rates would rise immediately and undo the achievement of the declining interest rates of the last six months.
I should like to suggest that the Government ask those who have the power to inquire, whether this technique of using the Bank of Canada is being followed. The trick is to do it quietly and get over the situation of having to borrow $19 billion at high rates.
The other proposal that I made a month ago was that the Government not borrow at rates of 10, 11 or 12 per cent but at about 3 per cent. That is all that money is worth. People will lend it at that rate if they have a guarantee that if there is inflation this year-and there will be some-the interest at the end of the year will be indexed for the year. But the principal will also be indexed, to keep its real value. If an investor of the type who puts his money in Government bonds as a rule, wants to lend money at 3 per cent, he just wants to be sure that he will get it back without any loss in value. This idea probably sounds kooky, but it should be tried to see what happens.
I suggest it would not give the impression that a lot of inflation is expected. If $19 billion is borrowed at an interest rate of 10, 11 or 12 per cent for three or four months, then the country may be forced back into the recession from which we are just emerging.
In the last two or three years, the basic problem of any government in any country has been getting interest rates down. I repudiate those monetarists who suggest that interest rates are the tool to control the economy of the country and the external value of our dollar. Let the markets decide those things. We should quit fooling around with fine tuning. I think that getting interest rates down would be accepted by everyone. Even the lenders of money know that if they destroy their customers they destroy themselves.
There are several things the Government could move on, Mr. Speaker. Let us put the old Farm Credit Corporation back to the terms that existed in 1933. In statutory form, the maximum interest rate under the Farm Credit Corporation was 5 per cent, and it was given power to lend 20 times the amount of capital. The same thing could apply to small business, to export business, and so on. We could move on that.
There are other ways of achieving this, such as through the principle of the Small Business Development Bond, as suggested in the Crosbie budget. This could be applied without cost but would give a tremendous impetus to business without altering the ways and means of the budget.
Finally, the mining industry, the energy industry and the forest industry have taken a terrible beating in the last few years. We must face the fact that what is set out in the Government's reports is correct. There will never be another low-grade mine developed in Canada, the reports say, under our present tax structure where two Governments are gouging the

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
industry. I think we must revert to the way things were done in the mining industry years ago. Because it was a capital intensive, high-risk operation, no taxes were paid until the debts were paid off. There was a three-year holiday. Today, instead of the three-year proviso, I would stipulate no taxes until the debts are paid off. There would be enough money left for both levels of Government and to give a return on capital and make the risk worthwhile to the mining entrepreneurs.
The same principle should be applied to energy companies. They are highly capitalized and have a long pay-out period so they cannot operate at present interest rates. They were not even operating very well when interest rates were 4 or 6 per cent. High-risk, low grade propositions such as natural gas, heavy oils, tar sands and so on, should be subject to the same rule as is applied to the mining industry-the Government gets off their backs until debts are paid off. The volume of business would mean that there would be something for everyone even at a low rate of tax.
That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker. These are some simple proposals that can be considered although some of them may be thought to be kooky. At times like this, however, we had better consider every type of scenario.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in report stage debate of Bill C-143, the borrowing authority Bill. I have only been in the House of Commons for four years but in the last year I feel that all we have debated is borrowing Bills. This is the fourth one this year, and there have been seven or eight in the whole session, so we have spent a considerable amount of time talking about borrowing money.
This year the Government will borrow $26.2 billion, and I am sure it will be back next year asking for authority to borrow more money, even though the $14 billion requested in this Bill will take it into next year.
This is the largest borrowing Bill in the history of Canada. The figures do not mean too much to the Canadian people because no one can relate to $19 billion. Take a look at the remarks which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) made in the debate on second reading of this Bill. He said:
This Bill is one in a series of necessary steps being taken to deal with the extremely difficult economic situation facing this country.
When you take a look at a statement like that and you realize who has been running the country for the last number of years, and you realize that not only has there been deficit financing every year, in good times and bad, but also increases in the deficit from time to time, then you understand the hollowness of that statement. Another statement of the Minister's is as follows:
-I want to emphasize that financial requirements have risen because of unexpectedly harsh cyclical forces. The Government of Canada remains committed to its longer term goal of systematic restraint of its expenditures as a proportion of the GNP, and to systematic reduction of the deficit as well.
Let me read that last little phrase again:
-and to systematic reduction of the deficit as well.
We have seen no evidence of that in the last decade and prior to that. There has, however, been one exception. That exception was the budget brought in by the Clark Government in 1979. It laid out very clearly the method of reducing the deficit over a period of five years and beyond. The one and only time this was done over the last number of years was done by a Progressive Conservative Government. For the Minister of Finance to say that he is dedicated "to systematic reduction of the deficit as well" is a very hollow statement indeed. We can take those words, I think, very lightly, because there has been no proof of it from the other side.
The spending of this Government over the last 15 years is staggering. It is very difficult even for a Member of Parliament to grasp the tremendous increase in spending around here. The Liberals do very interesting things. I can give an example of what has been done right in my own constituency of Brampton-Georgetown. This Government in its wisdom has decided to move the Citizenship Court from the regional seat of Brampton where it has been located since 1976 to Mississauga. Prior to 1976, everyone in our area had to go to Toronto. But the Government has decided to take an established court, which has been in Brampton going on eight years, and establish a brand new court in Mississauga in the riding of Mississauga North. This is a high rent district. It will cost the Government a tremendous amount of money, more than was spent in Brampton. I believe the problem is numbers, because this court services close to 400 applicants every month. It is an extremely busy court. There is room in the building in Brampton to expand and this would cost much less than it is costing in Mississauga. Yet the Government made this decision to move the court. It will cost the Government a tremendous additional amount of money. The location of this court in Brampton is central to the areas it services. This court is now being moved to the south end of the area that it serves.


Mr. Blais:: It is consolidation.


John Horton McDermid: It is not consolidation at all. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) said it is consolidation, but it is not. The court in Mississauga was established some six years later, as a matter of fact, last year. Incidentally, it is still not in full operation. Therefore, this is not consolidation at all. It is the transfer of a court from one area to another within the same region. As I said, it will cost a tremendous amount of additional money to establish this new court which is being located in a high rent district. It does not have to be there. There is no sense to this move at all. I might add that the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) who is responsible for the courts promised two months ago to give me an answer, but to date I have not received one. This move is a waste of money and it is completely unnecessary. But the Government went ahead just the same.
I am sure there are examples after examples of this type of misspending of funds. I know my colleagues can cite many more.
March 28, 1983

In the limited time I have I want to talk about the Department of National Revenue for a moment. I guess this Department is known in Canada, quite rightly, as the most effective collection agency in the country. I do not think there is any doubt about that. It is, "You are found guilty and you must prove your innocence later on." These people from Revenue Canada just come in and grab the money.
There is a very disturbing procedure going on in our country today. I am very concerned, as I know a number of my colleagues are. The auditing force of this Department is-and 1 will use the term advisedly-harassing the farming community in Canada. We hear the auditors are in British Columbia now auditing farmers. They have been into Ontario. I can give an example of an individual who was setting up an operation which would eventually have turned into a full-time one. He had received funding from the Federal Business Development Bank. He set up what I and many consider to be a very fine operation. The Department of Revenue did its audit, checking back five years. It forced the individual into bankruptcy. The Department completely destroyed this individual and his operation. The Department forced him to sell his farm at a much lower rate than it was worth, and it forced him to sell good top breeding stock at bankrupt sale prices. This forced him to the wall, and now we have an individual, who was preparing to go into a full-time operation and was deriving some of his revenue elsewhere, who is now completely defeated. He is disspirited. The Department of National Revenue did a real number on this individual, instead of trying to cooperate and help him. That situation is being repeated time and time again.
In Farm and Country, for Tuesday, March 22, 1983, the headline on page 3 reads, "Farmers battle tax grab." This article is about farmers being put upon by the Department of National Revenue. Because this Government is so hungry for tax money, this is what is going on today in our country, and it is a sin.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity today to express a few thoughts regarding the supplementary borrowing authority which the Government is seeking through Bill C-143.
I believe the proper allocation of authority is vital to the survival of Parliament. By whose authority then are expenditures to be approved and laws made? Is it to be done according to the traditions of this country and of other representative democracies throughout the free world? Or is it to be done through Orders in Council in the lofty ivory tower of the Finance Minister? No, Mr. Speaker I think not. It is to be discussed here in the House of Commons before people elected by the citizens of this country where decisions should be made to safeguard the best interests of the populace in mind. These decisions are not-I repeat-not to be made with the narrow, partisan interests of the governing Party in mind. Yet, time and time again in the House, we see gross examples of political engineering and maneuvering instead of face-to-face negotiating on these very important points of borrowing authority and expenditure approval. Would any self-respecting bank manager lend money without having a fair idea of where that money
Borrowing Authority
is going and how it would be paid back? Of course not. Yet the Finance Minister (Mr. Lalonde) hides behind his friendly smile and assures the House that this budget will be coming soon.
We are getting rather tired of being assured. Why not do things in the proper order and let us know how these moneys will be spent before requesting capital for, as the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) puts it, "prudent financial housekeeping". Any of our nation's homemakers would say that they would never stay afloat with this kind of financial housekeeping.
I want to focus on a few more remarks made by the Minister of State for Finance in defence of the Government's request for additional borrowing authority. The Minister's remarks on Thursday of last week seemed to indicate that he is satisfied with the amount of time which has been taken in debate and in committee on Bill C-143. We on this side are not because too many questions remain.
The Minister of State appears deeply concerned that he will not have the necessary capital to handle, as he puts it, "heavy tax refunds". This is rather interesting. Let me remind my hon. colleague that income tax refunds are funds which have already been paid to the Government. Where have they disappeared to? We do not even receive interest on the millions of dollars that are deducted at source during the previous year. This is a financial bonanza for the Government and one of the few sources of income on which its borrowing costs are nil. Yet it cannot even put aside for future reimbursement the small percentage of income tax received which is earmarked for refunds. No, it takes those funds as well and throws them into the trough for any and all Government enterprises to dip into.
It is rather like a lawyer who takes his client's cash to the racetrack. He throws it down on PetroCan in the fifth, Dome in the ninth, and loses his shirt. The only difference is that lawyers can be disbarred. Governments can carry on until their mandate is up, sinking more and more into the comfortable ooze of authority. Hopefully, the client-the citizens of Canada-will call a halt to the game-playing in the very next election. In any case, we in the Opposition are still wondering how the money requested will be spent. It is true that we do have the Estimates. We see the requirements for funding for the Small Business Investment Grant Program and the NEED Program which should ensure a few more Liberal votes. But these programs fail to come to the heart of the problem.
Why are such programs needed? A healthy economy would cure unemployment problems and ensure the development of a prosperous small business sector. However, band-aid programs aside, we are still awaiting the bag of tricks forthcoming from the Minister of Finance. After all, it is in the budget that we see not only the proposed expenditures but how that money will be raised. We shall see what new and devious schemes will be proposed to squeeze yet more funds from the depleted pockets of Canadians from coast to coast.
If we see wonderful and equitable programs emerging from this budget, if creative means are revealed therein which point the way toward economic recovery and a loosening of the

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
regulatory stranglehold on free enterprise, then we shall wholeheartedly approve such expenditures as will be required to meet the needs of these programs. But we will definitely not give voluntary blanket authority to patchwork, stop-gap, finger-in-the-dyke borrowing. We will not do so when one out of every four dollars raised is used to service the national debt.
Any business which operates in this fashion would be long out of business, with padlocks on the doors and plywood on the windows. The Government cannot operate indefinitely on such a huge deficit. Where does it stop? There are too many handouts and too many golden handshakes. Until it stops, the deficit will continue to grow, until eventually our citizens are taxed to death, the nation goes bankrupt and our dollars will become worthless souvenirs, like the deutschemark of bygone days when a wheelbarrelful would buy a loaf of bread.
As was indicated last week, supposedly in defence of Government monetary policy, Cabinet committees are taking responsibility for expenditure management, following guidelines set out by the Lambert Commission. Glowing words were spoken about checks and balances on spending. If these checks and balances are in place and functioning, why did the Auditor General have so much to say in his recent report?
There was more than one indictment of overspending in Government Departments, thus making a mockery of such statements by the Minister of State for Finance as:
The Treasury Board rigorously examines all requests for spending authority by Government departments and agencies. It is constantly on the lookout for inefficiency or impropriety and screens the submissions it receives very carefully.
If such were the case, would the deficit be what it is today?
In the past few weeks, we have heard abundant eloquence from the Government benches justifying the supplemental borrowing authority on the grounds that it is inevitable spending, and that they have somehow done their best and we should accept it. Well, their best is certainly not good enough.
Figures abound to confirm the fact that Government spending has risen much faster than the Consumer Price Index or the Gross National Product. There can be no arguing there. Therefore, why will the Government not give clear and honest answers about why these funds are needed instead of generating vague responses about new programs and seasonal needs? The citizens of Canada are entitled to a fair debate on this issue. Were we elected in order to sit here and watch while their best interests are continually shoved in the background for the purposes of expediency? Is not the whole purpose of Parliament to have such discussion? Without responsible debate we might just as well shut this place down. Without input from elected representatives, our country will eventually be run by a Cabinet committee advising a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with his emperor-like powers. How close are we to getting to that stage right now?
It was pointed out last week by my hon. colleague, the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), that the reasoning for deficit spending is a fallacious one and that going deeper and deeper into debt will not help bring about economic prosperity. To that opinion, I add my overwhelming support.
We hear about finance companies which consolidate one's debts by substituting several small payments into one, huge crippling one. Any way one looks at it, one is still in debt. Similarly, adding to the deficit is economic suicide, yet in seeking this supplemental borrowing authority, the Government is doing just that.
Deficits are only short-term and meant to provide funds for programs to stimulate industry and commerce. That is the platform of my friends to the left, and increasingly of my hon. colleagues across the floor who seek to imitate them. However, that is not my Party's policy. We endeavour to cut spending, cut borrowing and cut the deficit because it is a Canadian tradition. That is how our forefathers operated. They built this country up by the free enterprise system and the cash payment system. It worked for them.
Let us not turn this country into another Sweden where free enterprise is virtually dead and where the tax burden is indeed unbearable. That is where we are headed with a Government that borrows increasingly and expects carte blanche to do so.
In conclusion, it is my belief that the Government must exercise more responsibility in dealing with the financial affairs of this nation. One way for it to do so is to determine now that it will make an effort to cut down on the deficit, first, by cleaning house and following the recommendations of the Auditor General. The second way is to encourage participation of Parliament in fiscal affairs and by declining to muzzle dissident voices through premature closure on Bills such as C-143. After all, the welfare of Canadians is at stake.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to stand today to speak to Bill C-143, and particularly the amendment which has been proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Bill C-143, an interim borrowing Bill, comes in two parts. There is $5 billion for the ongoing expenses to cover the shortfall in federal revenue until the end of this fiscal year. Then we are being asked by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to do an unprecedented thing, and that is, to provide through this borrowing authority $14 billion which is really, if one looks at the Estimates in the Blue Book, the shortfall in Government revenue for the first seven months of the fiscal year, from the month of April through to the end of October. The Minister comes in blatantly asking for this kind of borrowing authority from the House of Commons, from the people who are representing, or supposed to be representing, their constituents at home, when he is probably two weeks away from a budget that will tell the people what the $14 billion is going to be spent on.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has clearly stated in the amendment that we will authorize borrowing authority for $1 to the Government, forcing the Government to be accountable to the people so that when they do need the money and they are prepared to tell us what this money is going to be spent on, they will then come back to the



March 28, 1983

House of Commons and to the elected representatives of the people across the country, and say, "This is what we need the money for and this is how we are going to spend it."
Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly frustrating to sit in this House and to have a Government so callous and so brazen that it would come in with this Bill C-143. It does not even shock people anymore that a Minister of Finance would ask this House to willy-nilly pass a borrowing authority Bill that will give him $14 billion for the next fiscal year. This in essence gives him carte blanche to spend the money the way he wants to until the end of October, with no accountability to the taxpayer or to the people of this country. Imagine asking for this sum of money two weeks before he brings down a budget that will tell us how he is going to spend the money!
I had the pleasure of speaking a little while ago to one of my constituents in Fort McMurray who is a true pioneer, Clare Peden, who settled the northern country, who has worked with his hands, who drove a CAT 400 miles through the bush breaking trail so that he could go up and start a construction firm in Fort McMurray years ago, years before there was an oil-sands plant. He has slowly seen his tax dollar, his way of life and his confidence in the Government absolutely and totally destroyed because of actions like this.
I urge all Members, from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, to listen to what your constituents are saying to you. They are saying: "Enough is enough!" The waste of spending millions and millions of dollars in advertising across the country saying our energy dollars are working and we are only that far from energy self-sufficiency in this country is beyond belief.
The Government is wasting millions and millions of dollars doing studies to find out why the economy is stagnating. The economy is stagnating in Canada because the present Liberal Government has an attitude similar to that of the present Minister of Finance who says: "Hey, we can borrow $14 billion. We will not even tell the people of Canada. We will not even tell the taxpayer in Canada where that money is going to be spent. They do not need to know. We will tell them when we are good and ready." That is what the present Government is saying, and all Members should recognize that. That is what the Minister is saying when he requests from this House the authority to go out and borrow $14 billion.
1 know, and all Members of this House know, that to operate a Government or to operate a business, there are times when you have to borrow money. Of course you have to borrow on your assets, you have to borrow on your projected revenues, you have to borrow to run the Government. We recognize that. But it is discourteous and it is totally ignorant for a Minister of Finance to come forward and say that the Government wants to borrow $14 billion, and when asked what it is going to use the $14 billion for, to intimate that it is none of our business.
My colleague who spoke just before me asked how one could go to a bank and expect to borrow money and not tell the bank manager what it was needed for. It is the bank's money. The bank manager represents the bank. The bank represents shareholders, it is their money and they want to know what the
Borrowing Authority
borrower is going to use the money for. I recently made a loan at the bank. They wanted detailed copy of how the money was going to be used and how I was going to pay it back, where the revenue was coming from. They wanted to know the cashflow.
The people of Canada want to know where the $14 billion is going to go. They do not want the Members who are sitting in this House to give the Minister of Finance carte blanche authority to spend $14 billion on the kinds of things that he has spent it on in the past. They want to know if he has an oil company in mind that the Government wants to buy. They want to know if he wants to buy a pulp and paper mill. They want to know if the money is going to be used to bail out a Massey-Ferguson or a Ford or a GM. They want to know if the money is going to be used to assist the farmer, to assist the unemployed, and they have a right to know because you and I as Members of Parliament representing constituents are accountable to those constituents. We have to go home and say to our constituents, yes or no, this is why it is being spent and this is why it was authorized.
We in this House know that this Bill is going to pass. We know that it is going to go through because there is a majority Government. I have yet to see a Member from the Government benches stand up, give us an analysis and tell us where this $14 billion that is being requested is going to go. All we are asking in this amendment is that the Hon. Members on all sides of the House vote yes to the first part, the $5 billion, which has to be allocated to finish off this fiscal year, but that the $14 billion be denied that Minister of Finance with an insatiable appetite for spending money. We ask that it be denied now, and when it is required, that a Bill be brought before this House detailing exactly where this money is going to be spent so that we can then go back to our constituents and be able to account for it.
It is paramount that this amendment go through, and it should go through with all Hon. Members' blessings because, in the final analysis, our duty is to our country, our duty is to our constituency, and then our duty is to our Party, and it is not the other way around.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read briefly from a letter received from a valued constituent, Mr. Reed Naylor of Okanagan Falls. He says in part:
There are obvious areas of out-and-out waste and it is rapidly ruining us. 1 still hope that someone will organize a blacklist of Government waste to which anyone who sees examples may contribute. If such a program could be made to snowball, it might develop sufficient credence to indicate to Government some of the flagrant absurdities of their wasteful policies. It beats me to see my taxes spent on repeated advertising on CTV by federal Departments such as Environment, Metric Commission, Parks Canada, etc. etc. I counted five in one 60-minute period a few days ago.
It is no wonder the subject of waste in constantly raised. No wonder the subject of Government advertising often occupies the attention of Members. Spending by the Metric Commission on a program that practically no one in Canada wants is repeatedly raised. We are becoming a nation of cynics. The

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Government is asking for an unreasonable blank cheque so that it can continue its extravagance. It is creating an image, and people no longer believe in the integrity of Government.
Last Friday afternoon I flew from Vancouver to Penticton. A young lady sat beside me. She was from New Brunswick, now living in Coquitlam where she is working for the provincial Government as a dietician. This lady supports her parents who still live in New Brunswick. She made a remark that I believe is the typical reaction of the majority of Canadians. She said she was willing to make sacrifices for her country and was prepared to accept a salary freeze if necessary, but that she was offended by what was going on in Ottawa where restraint is spoken about but the Government is not prepared to restrain its own spending.
That is a common reaction in Canada today. People are prepared to sacrifice for their country, but they are offended by a Government that carries on a practice of waste, extravagance and patronage. It looks after its interests and those of its friends, to the disadvantage of those not so classified. This is why we are becoming a nation of cynics.
Just last week in Penticton, which is in my riding, Greenwood Forest Products was put into receivership. This was a busy milling operation, the largest employer in the area. It had a record of innovation. It was a productive enterprise, one that had developed a lucrative European market for lodge-pole pine panelling, competing with Scandinavian products.
That company had too much debt at too high an interest rate. The shutdown threw 250 employees out of work, placing them on the unemployment roll. This will have a domino effect on logging contractors, suppliers, engineering firms, in fact, the whole community. This is the most catastrophic incident to happen in the area.
Why did it happen? One reason over and above what I have mentioned was that the assistance offered to Greenwood Forest Products by the federal Government through its Enterprise Development Program was too slow in coming and imposed conditions just not acceptable to the parties.
This is in comparison to what the Government of Canada did for Maislin Trucking of Montreal. It guaranteed a $34 million loan with almost no strings attached. The treatment of Greenwood Forest Products has been unworthy and discriminatory. No wonder people are becoming cynical with this uneven treatment by Government, a Government that looks after its friends to the exclusion of those not in that category. Maislin had friends in Government. Greenwood Forest Products did not have friends of equal influence. It is this type of situation which offends Canadians and makes them cynical about Government.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses disclosed that close to half of Canada's unemployed are former employees of small and medium-size businesses. It conducted a survey which showed that 51 per cent of responding businesses had reduced the number of their employees since early 1981. It is significant that most businesses that responded had reduced salary demands, below 6 per cent; 38 per cent gave no salary increase to their employees; and 6 per cent had actually reduced wages. Compare that to the federal Government's six
and five approach for which it takes credit for all kinds of miraculous happenings in the economy. It has killed the economy. It makes it impossible for economic activity to take place. The Government says the six and five programs has broken the back of inflation. The other day I said it was like a farmer going into his chicken house, killing all his chickens and then taking credit for the fact that the weasels are no longer getting his eggs.
Mr. Bulloch says the private sector is leading the Government in restraint and wages. He points the finger at the Government in other ways. He said and I quote from the newspaper account:
Mr. Bulloch did say that while the recession was worldwide, "much of the cause has also been the result of a combination of damaging federal policies and intergovernmental bickering." He condemned the "collection of ill-conceived and ill-timed tax proposals" ... and the malignant growth of the federal budget deficit.
It has an impact on people in many different ways. A widow telephoned me the other day to say that she is receiving phonecalls from a collection agency about her son's student loan. Her son made payments as long as he was working, but he is now out of work. He advised the bank that he could not make further payments until he resumed work. The bank sent the official letter, after which it can call on the Government to pay the loan under the Government guarantee. The Government then proceeds to put the matter in the hands of a collection agency. This collection agency is saying to this recently widowed friend of mine who is living on a widow's allowance, "You have a responsibility. Mortgage your house so you can pay off your son's loan. It is your responsibility to look after this." I suppose none of us likes the fact that there are 100,000 student loans in default. That represents something like $200 million. However, I do not believe that the Government should be so cruel and so insensitive to the realities of life that it will put a collection agency onto a widow who is a responsible person, and suggest that she has an obligation to pay her son's indebtedness.
I think that is symptomatic of something which is happening in the country, that we have a Government which is out of control and which is putting the squeeze on everyone but itself. In so doing it is making, as I said before, cynics of Canadians.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the blanket which the federal Government is placing over Canadians is going to smother a society which we have known for 100 years. It is a great misfortune that Members on the Government side are not prepared to rise and take a stand on issues which are going to destroy our country if something is not done about it. When this Prime Minister took office, Mr. Speaker, 15 per cent of the GNP was all that was required to finance Government's operations. This year the expenditure will take 23 per cent of the GNP. The increased costs of financing Government since 1968 have multiplied 12 times. Canadians, I believe, are now starting to realize just exactly what is happening. For a
March 28, 1983

long time a lot of Canadians would tell politicians they would far rather have a Government going broke than their businesses being broke. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are finding out they are both broke. The total debt for which the federal Government is responsible is approximately $250 billion. People are now starting to realize what the consequences of that may be.
A few months ago the Government deficit was supposed to be $10.6 billion. Then the Minister of Finance said it would be $18 billion. Then it got to be $23 billion. Now at the end of this fiscal year we are finding it is well over $27 billion. Never in the history of Canada have Estimates been so far out of kilter. We must hold the Government responsible for this and we must hold the Minister of Finance responsible. This kind of attitude toward inappropriate action on the part of any governing body will ensure that we are going to enter into a disastrous situation.
Who is going to pull Canada out of the problems with which we have to deal? Government expenditures have outgrown and outstripped the growth in GNP. Let me impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, that deficit spending is just deferred taxation. What we are really doing is shoving a debt load onto our children and our grandchildren. They are going to have a great deal of difficulty trying to deal with it, and I am sure that they are going to be very unforgiving when they find out exactly what is being done to them. We have this rapid escalation of debt, yet the Government wants to borrow $14 billion more. My goodness gracious, Mr. Speaker, $1.5 billion in 1968 paid the cost of financing our national debt. Today it is $18.6 billion. That amount does not include any of the costs of our Crown corporations. In 1968, our debt cost 13 cents of every dollar which the Government spent. Today it is 20 cents. This is money which the Government is spending, not just taxation dollars which are taken in.
We must realize, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a terrible situation as far as our balance of finances are concerned and we must be cognizant of that. The Canadian people are now starting to realize just exactly what the situation is. The total debt, as I said earlier, for which the federal Government is responsible, is in the area of $250 billion. If we work that out among our Canadian people, it is $10,000 for every man, woman and child. A family of four, which is the average family in Canada, is facing $40,000 debt because of the position that their federal Government put them into.
The problem, Mr. Speaker, with the taxation policies of the Government, is that it is trying to grab more and more. Just the other day I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) if he would not consider cutting the excise tax on fuel and energy which is required in the production of our food. The Minister retorted, "Well, the Government has to get some money from some place." Far better, Mr. Speaker, for the Government to cut the cloth to fit the pattern. The Government should cut some of the expenditures which are not required. My colleague, from British Columbia mentioned one of them, the Metric Commission, still doling millions and millions of dollars out. There are many other programs over which the Government seems to have no control, or does not seem to have the
Borrowing Authority
desire to exercise control. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), mentioned earlier today the former Auditor General, Mr. Macdonell, who did a tremendous job when he was Auditor General, and he told the Government at that time that to all intents and purposes expenditures were out of control. Nothing has changed since that time. Government expenditure is still out of control. The only difference is that it is worsening, and Government has less control today than it has ever had in Canadian history.
I believe we are falling further and further behind in competition with other nations because of the fact that we are allowing our nation to drift further and further into debt. This national debt is being placed on our businesses, and our businesses are being forced out of business. I fear that if we stay on our present course we will continue to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is the responsibility of any Government to establish a climate in which our business community can progress and develop and in turn develop business. Small businesses supply 60 per cent of our jobs in Canada today. If we allow the Government to put the small businesses into bankruptcy, then we are all going to suffer the consequences. What happens when you put small business out of operation? They lay off people. Those people, instead of paying income tax, are then drawing Unemployment Insurance. What a lot of the Government's programs are actually doing is taking people who have been on welfare for a while or have exhausted their UIC benefits, and giving them a job for long enough to qualify for UIC. This is not very productive, Mr. Speaker, and it can be done in a better way. The Government should realize that this is its responsibility, and this is why this Government is being so irresponsible in not recognizing the benefits which can accrue when all Canadians are working together.
I do not think the Government should be asking the Canadian people for another $14 billion because it cannot afford the finance its present debt.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this Bill for a few minutes. This borrowing Bill is the fourth of its kind in the past eight months. Since $14 billion of the amount requested is to keep us going for the rest of the year, this Bill amounts to the Government's asking for a blank cheque to keep it going. The Government is asking us for money for programs which it has not even placed before the House, programs which have probably not even been thought of yet. In addition, a large percentage of this money goes to service existing Government debt, a good portion of which was brought about because the Government proceeded for the last 12 or 13 years with very little planning. It has approached government on a kind of day-to-day, session-by-session basis without any long-term planning. So what this Bill is actually doing, Mr. Speaker, is asking the people of Canada to pay for the lack of planning by this Government.

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
There are other examples of bad planning by Government which I could give this House, Mr. Speaker. One year after the present Government of Saskatchewan came into power, it had established a deficit of $220 million, considerably more in one year than all the previous Governments of Saskatchewan had managed to accumulate in the previous 77 years. But without planning, Government expenditures get out of hand. This Government's spending record is like a snowball going downhill. We have all seen those comic strips where a snowmobile starts small at the tope of the hill and as it goes down it picks up increasing amounts of snow, until at the bottom of the hill it ends up looking like a very large snowball. This snowball analogy is very apt, Mr. Speaker, because the big spending started back in 1970. That is when it started to snowball down the hill. The present administration had regular expenditures with very little planning until we got to the point, the bottom of the hill, that it had a huge deficit.
Just as a matter of interest, Mr. Speaker, back in 1973 the accumulated deficit of this Government was $51 billion; in 1976, $59 billion; in 1979, $98 billion; in 1982, $134 billion. But that does not include all those other debts the Government has run up, the debts of Crown corporations for which the Government is responsible, the letters of credit for which the Government is responsible, or letters of comfort as they are sometimes called. If you added all those together, the deficit would be well over $200 billion, Mr. Speaker. In 1970 we had an accumulated deficit of $900 per capita. By 1982 it reached $3,883 per capita. In other words, this particular Government has increased the per capita debt four times.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are times when deficits have a value. But what was the value of a deficit in the period from 1970-71 to 1974? There was no reason for deficits at that time. Right now deficit spending has a possibility of increasing the number of jobs. But basically we should use deficits only when they are of direct value to the economy, and that is the only time.
I know our Party is often called the spending Party. Well, as an example of what good spenders we are, I would point again to Saskatchewan and the 30 years of CCF and NDP Government. In that period of time it established an outstanding record of social services and expenditures that were good for the Province and for the country. It made those expenditures without once establishing a deficit. That is a good use of money, Mr. Speaker.
In the same period of time the federal Government increased the per capita deficit of the people of Canada fourfold from under $1,000 to approximately $4,000.
I should like to return to the reasons for the borrowing request, Mr. Speaker. It is required for programs that have not been placed before the House. An increased amount of money is to be expended on the railways, and I agree that there is a need for that but not at the expense of the farmers. The Government plans to ask farmers to pay for part of that rail expansion. It has already committed a lot of money to the
railway, but has not come before Parliament with this proposition. That is one reason it is asking for more money, and there are other reasons such as Mirabel and Pickering and other bad expenditures made in the past. If the Government planned its spending better, then there would be no need for these borrowing Bills.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-143, the supplemental borrowing authority Bill to authorize the Government to borrow up to an additional $5 billion in new money for the current 1982-83 fiscal year. It will also provide further authority to the Government to borrow up to $14 billion for fiscal year 1983-84, for a total, Mr. Speaker of some $19 billion.
Without question, Mr. Speaker, the total borrowing authority of $19 billion granted in this Bill is the largest borrowing in our country's 116 year history. To add fuel to the fire, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time this year that the Government has sought to increase authority by more than the requirements that had been projected in its most recent financial forecast. The deficit today Mr. Speaker, is 28 per cent of all expenditures. In other words, for every $4 the Government spends, it must borrow a little more than $ 1.
Mr. Speaker, the Government keeps telling us that the federal debt is $134 billion. However, as the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and I have stated on earlier occasions, and when one adds in the total debt of the Crown corporations of $55 billion and the $49 billion in pension funds that the Government has appropriated, the total debt is closer to $240 billion.
The June and October budgets of 1982 failed to provide economic and fiscal projections for the current fiscal year. Experts tell us that that is dangerous because it creates uncertainty and leads to unwarranted speculation and disruptive speculation in the financial markets as to the state of the federal Government's finances.
No banker, Mr. Speaker, would grant a line of credit to a financially crippled business that refused to provide cash flow projections. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, a private industry or enterprise with revenue that equalled only 70 per cent of expenditures and a gross debt that was more than triple the value of its assets, would be forced into bankruptcy. The federal Government, Mr. Speaker, cannot declare bankruptcy because it has no place to file.
There is no question that the poor economic performance will continue to have a negative impact on the finances of the Government, as the cost of social assistance rises and revenues stagnate or fall. Any recovery that may occur, Mr. Speaker, is likely to be a weak recovery, and as such will only have a moderate impact on the current fiscal dilemma. Even if we have a moderate recovery it may not be enough to bring the federal books into balance.
Unless measures are taken to control spending and to create economic growth, it can be expected that the present situation will not readily improve. By controlling spending, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Government is committed to carrying out
March 28, 1983

its obligations in financing our important social programs, such as Old Age Security, Spouse's Allowance, medicare, and many other worthwhile programs. These are obligations and duties that must not be reneged upon. But, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many other areas of spending that should be seriously looked at, that should either be curtailed or should be eliminated entirely.
One only has to go through the Auditor General's annual Report to see areas of unproductive spending, areas of mismanagement, areas of unaccountability and cost over-runs which, when totalled, amount to millions and billions of taxpayers' dollars wasted and gone down the drain.
I am not here to castigate and chastise individuals or Department officials, Mr. Speaker. I believe that most of them are dedicated people and are trying their best to do the best job possible. However, Mr. Speaker, because the money that they handle and the money that is their responsibility to spend wisely is not really their own, I do not believe there is the same judicial care exercised to spend the taxpayers' money more prudently.
I have in my possession a document that really spells out this problem in detail, but in the brief time at my disposal in this debate, it will not be possible for me to read this document into the record because of its length. However, perhaps I could draw the attention of the Chair and the Members to a couple of examples. One has to do with over-runs-spending over budget.
Environment Canada, experienced cost over-runs on 153 out of the total 223 projects to the amount of $283 million. This is a glaring example of poor budget planning, which would have resulted in wholesale firings if it had happened in private industry. But we all know that public servants rarely get fired. If something goes wrong, the punishment is usually a promotion to get him or her out of the Department.
In the other extreme, Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 1982, two days after announcing the need for more restraint, the Government paid $430,000 to provide 16 cities with fireworks. Really, Mr. Speaker, where is the common sense?
Common sense should tell us that we are heading for rocky shoals if this trend in spending continues. It is a case, Mr. Speaker of this Government's continuing to flounder around, pulling the wrong levers and greasing the wrong skids. The Government must readjust its priorities to get our economy rolling again. Money must be spent wisely to get our economy back on track. We must regain our strong economic base. Our industry must modernize in order to grow and expand. The Government should be encouraging such undertakings, not penalizing businesses with disincentives and by drowning incentive by the myriads of discouraging regulations that private enterprise is forced to contend with.
There must be a dovetailing and equity and partnership between business and Government. Harmony will bring about better economic results while, on the other hand, working at loggerheads with each other only ends in chaos and bankruptcy.
Over the years we have heard common arguments used by the Liberals to defend the Government's record on spending,
Borrowing Authority
debt and the deficit. One of these is, "Deficit spending is good for economic growth". Common sense should tell them that deficits do not necessarily occur as a consequence of measures to promote economic growth. The truth is that most of the existing deficit is the result of the failure to achieve economic growth. For example, in November of 1981 economic growth was projected by the then Minister of Finance to be 2.2 per cent. The projected deficit was $10.5 billion. In June of 1982 the Government predicted a negative growth of 2 per cent, and the projected deficit was forecast to be $19.6 billion. For the fiscal year 1982-83 the Government is forecasting a decline of
4.4	per cent, and the expected deficit will likely be around $30 billion.
It can be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, as the deficit has grown from year to year, that Canadians have become more and more aware of the damage that continuous deficits inflict upon the economy. We must be aware as well, Mr. Speaker, that our excessive borrowing is one of the reasons for the weak dollar and for the recent very high interest rates that have been necessary to support the dollar.
Another fallacy, Mr. Speaker, that we hear from the Government is, and I quote, "There is a deficit because of the positive initiatives the Liberals have taken over the years to assist Canadians." The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the many examples of unnecessary spending by the Liberals have been an unnecessary drain on the Treasury. That red herring, Mirabel Airport, has cost the taxpayers of Canada $700 million. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, the Government has consistently failed to exercise adequate cost control on projects and programs. It was discovered in October, 1979 that cost over-runs for ongoing projects initiated by the Liberals totalled $1.1 billion.
In 1978, the Unemployment Insurance Commission paid $290 million to those not legally entitled to receive benefits. Another fallacy projected by this Government is: "There is nothing wrong with having a large national debt. We only owe the money to ourselves, and there are assets to offset the debt."
The major problem with the Government's debt is that it must be serviced. One tax dollar in four is used to pay interest on the debt. Interest on the public debt will cost the taxpayers of Canada $16.7 billion in the fiscal year 1982-1983. That represents $700 per capita or $1,800 per taxpayer. The assets of the Government are dwarfed by its debt. In March, 1982, the Government had $40 billion in assets, compared to a total official gross national debt of $134 billion, which we know is not quite right, it is closer to $200 billion to $250 billion.
Another fallacy enunciated by the Government is: "There's nothing wrong with a short-term deficit." The federal Government has not balanced its books since 1970, and it will not do so in the next five years. The Liberals have maintained since 1970 that the deficit is only a short-term problem. There is nothing short-term about 17 years.

March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
1 could go on and on but I think the Government has to take account of itself. I am sure Canadian taxpayers have been very patient with this Government for a good many years, but I am afraid their patience has run out. 1 think the time has come to place a new sign on Parliament Hill reading, "Under New Management."


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are paying for the sins of the Liberal Government. During the good years the Liberal Government had all kinds of chances to put money aside. Revenues were good. We had good returns from the country. But the Government spent wildly. It lived high off the hog. The Government did not prepare for the day when there would be a shortage. Today we are paying for that. The Government has brought in a Bill to borrow $14 billion. The Progressive Conservative amendment is to cut that borrowing down to $1.
I want to tell you today, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people have to begin to realize that when one borrows $14 billion today, one pays far more than $14 billion in taxes tomorrow. We will not get by with $14 billion. Interest rates will go up and down. It will be $16 billion, $18 billion or $20 billion which the Canadian people will have to repay. That shows the kind of irresponsible Government we have in this country today. It is irresponsible because it did not put money aside when it had the chance to do so.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Government did not provide for the future. It did not put any grain in the granary. The government spent everything. It lived high off the hog. Now the Government is expecting the people of Canada to pay. I want to tell Members on the other side who are supporting this Bill that you cannot borrow yourself out of debt. That cannot be done. Liberal Members are just as silly as the man who stood on the street corner who tried to raise himself by pulling on his shoe straps. He pulled and pulled but he could not raise himself. The Government cannot borrow itself out of debt. I say to the Liberal Members that you are propelling the nation further and further toward bankruptcy. This Government has done that to the small business, the farmers, and even to some of the big businesses. Just the other day, a business had an opportunity to provide farm machinery to be exported all over the world. The company went into receivership because of this Government's policies, including its high interest rates and the refusal to assist with guarantees to help unemployment.
The Government is taking money out of the pockets of the farmers by introducing a new type of Bill whereby the farmers cannot even hire a casual labourer as they have been able to do for years. Now farmers have to pay an additional amount if they want to hire the neighbour's boy or an Indian. Yes, you cannot borrow yourself out of debt. The Liberals have ruined this country. The Liberals have ruined our industry. I say to the Liberals, you should recognize what you have done and resign.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, March 24, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the Bill.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. And more than five Members having risen:
Appolloni (Mrs.)	Fisher	MacBainAxworthy	Fleming	MacEachenBachand	Flis	MacGuiganBaker	Foster	MacLaren(Gander-Twillingate)	Fox	MacLellanBegin (Miss)	Francis	MaltaisBerger	Frith	MarceauBlais	Garant	MasseBlaker	Gauthier	MastersBloomfield	Gendron	McCauleyBockstael	Gingras	McRaeBossy	Gourd	MunroBreau	(Argenteuil-Papineau)	(Hamilton East)Bussieres	Gourde	Nicholson (Miss)Caccia	(Levis)	ParentCampbell (Miss)	Guilbault	Pelletier(South West Nova)	Harquail	PennerCampbell	Herbert	Pepin(Cardigan)	Hervieux-Payette	PetersonChretien	(Mrs.)	PinardCollenette	Hopkins	PortelanceCorbin	Hudecki	ReganCorriveau	Isabelle	ReidCosgrove Cote (Mrs.)	Johnston	(Kenora-Rainy River)Joyal	RobertsCousineau	Kelly	RobinsonCullen	Killens (Mrs.)	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Cyr	Lachance	RompkeyDaudlin	Lajoie	RooneyDe Ban6	Lalonde	Rosside Corneille	Landers	RoyDemers	Lang	SavardDesmarais	Laniel	SchroderDingwall	Lapierre	SmithDion	Lapointe	TardifDionne	(Beauce)	Tessier(Chicoutimi)	LeBlanc	TousignantDubois	Leduc	TrudeauDuclos	Lefebvre	VeilletteDupras	Loiselle	WatsonErola (Mrs.)	Lumley	Weatherhead-113.
Ferguson


Madam Speaker:: The motion is lost.
Motion (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on the motion of the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).


Marc Lalonde: that the Bill, as amended, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: If the House agrees, let us dispense with the bell to call in the Members.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Messrs.
Andre	Darling	HovdeboAnguish	Deans	JarvisBaker	de Jong	Jewett (Miss)(Nepean-Carleton)	Ellis	KeeperBeatty	Fennell	KemplingBlackburn	Forrestall	KingBlaikie	Fretz	KnowlesBlenkarn	Friesen	KorchinskiBosley	Fulton	LambertClark	Gass	Lawrence(Yellowhead)	Greenaway	LewisClarke	Halliday	Lewycky(Vancouver Quadra)	Hamilton	MacDonald (Miss)Cook	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	(Kingston and theCooper	Mountain)	MacKayCorbett	Hargrave	MazankowskiCrosby	Hawkes	McCain(Halifax West)	Heap	McCuish
March 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Messrs.
McDermid	Neil	SchellenbergerMcDonald (Ms.)	Nickerson	Shields(Broadview-Greenwood)	Nielsen	SiddonMcGrath	Nystrom	SkellyMcKinnon	Parker	StevensMcLean	Patterson	TaylorMcMillan	Reid	ThackerMitchell (Mrs.)	(St. Catharines)	TowersMitges	Riis	VankoughnetMunro	Roche	Wenman(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Sargeant	Young-78.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: It being almost 6.30 p.m. 1 do now leave the Chair until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.22 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 29, 1983