1983-05-31

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 26, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-151, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that we have no representatives from our socialist Party in the House as we commence debate on this very important Bill this morning. I say that because while the Liberal Party must carry the main burden for the deficit financing that we are now into and the necessary borrowing which follows from such deficit financing, I think all Members of the House would agree that it is certainly the socialist Party that has egged the Government on month after month, year after year, into more and more irresponsible spending with the resulting deficits and borrowing requirements with which we are now faced.
One of the saddest things happening to us is that people are losing their perspective. They no longer can relate to $ 1 million, let alone to SI billion or to $30 billion of deficit financing or requirements. The perspective is so confused or fudged at the present time that the Government sees nothing wrong with coming before us, as it did in its last presentation in the form of a budget, and indicating that between the 1983-84 fiscal year and 1986-87 the total financial requirements of the nation will be $93 billion.
Let me repeat that figure: $93 billion is what the Government has put before us as its financial requirements in the sense of what it will have to borrow either during this fiscal year or through to fiscal year 1986-87. I mention that because is it not strange that we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to whom many refer aptly as the emperor, who went to Williamsburg and had the colossal nerve to say to the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and various other participants in the conference, "You had better get your deficit in line; you had better cut back on your spending"?
That was the representation on the part of our Prime Minister who only weeks ago, through his Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), told us that our own deficit requirement for financial needs between now and 1987 would be $93 billion. That on a per capita and gross national product basis is much higher than they have or are anticipated to have in the United States. For example, in Canada our deficit for fiscal 1983-84 will be $31.3 billion, more than we spent at the federal Government level in total in the fiscal year 1975. It is about triple, in deficit terms alone, the total spending when the emperor took power in this country in 1967-68.
I mention this little bit of background because our socialist friends to the left, who have been so instrumental in putting the spending in place, have not only been allowing the Government but egging it on to increase this deficit. I still hear the odd socialist say that it is right to spend, that the Government should be borrowing, that somehow or other deficit financing is the way of the future. That is not true.
There is all kinds of evidence that the dilemma we face in this country with high spending, low revenues and big deficits is actually deterring rather than encouraging growth in this country. Some may claim it is Keynesian to argue that the state should be spending, fine tuning-as they call it-the economy with such spending and deficit financing. I invite those who attribute that approach to Keynes to read what Keynes said with respect to such deficit financing as we are now experiencing. He would have been shocked that socialists of the day, such as those who sit to our left or the dear socialists opposite who presently form the Government, would attribute their irresponsibility with respect to deficit financing to something that they learned from Keynesian teaching.
What Keynes suggested was that in times of a slowdown, the state can spend and go into a deficit position in anticipation of going into a surplus position in better times. You then pay off whatever you incurred in the form of debt during the slow time and somehow you have a levelling. Perhaps where this Government went wrong is that it only heard one side of the equation.
In the early seventies, at the behest of the New Democratic Party, the Government put in massive spending programs. When we were in power, we learned that they did not even have the foresight to ask about the projected ongoing trends with regard to the cash requirements for those programs year after year.


Mr. Kristiansen:: What about MPs' office staff?

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There we have it again, a Member of Parliament earning over $60,000 a year shouting out "What about MPs' staff?" Another socialist is trying out for-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is a service to constituents.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me tell that Member of Parliament that the best service he can give his constituents is to start cutting back on some of the federal spending that has been so rampant, largely at the behest of the NDP.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Why does the Hon. Member not lay off his people if he does not want to spend the money?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I would like to return to my central theme, Mr. Speaker, but it is clear how the rabbles start to get roused here. The socialists are the most intolerant group in the House. They never like to hear the candid truth about the thrust of their policies discussed in public.
I believe that before any borrowing Bill is passed, we in Canada must insist that the Government present a more meaningful program for the reduction of the ongoing deficit that it foresees for the country. There is absolutely no reason why we should be placing an invisible mortgage on the future generations of the country, a mortgage amounting to some $93 billion of federal financial requirements between now and 1987.
If I had an opportunity to speak longer, Mr. Speaker, 1 would tell you about the effect that, if in power, we in this Party could have on the deficit by stressing the greater productivity in industry and by seeing that agricultural produce is exported to a greater extent. In short, if we could do these simple things, we could reduce unemployment, reduce the deficit, reduce inflation in the country and we could raise the real growth to over 5 per cent on average per year. In truth, we would bring back to Canada a realistic prosperity, a Conservative type of prosperity that would be built on responsible fiscal financing with less deficit financing than this socialist-Liberal conspiracy has been frustrating the nation with for too long.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that when a moderate like my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), gives the House the benefit of his experience and his knowledge with respect to moderation in government spending, it causes shouting and disorder in the House on the part of the socialists to his left and the socialists across from him on the Government side. They have gone absolutely berserk and wild in response to this man who speaks only common sense.
As a Member of Parliament who attempts to represent a constituency from western Canada, I would like to carry on in the enlightened way of my colleague and try to bring to the House some semblance of perspective with respect to the Government's spending program. For a number of very legitimate reasons, this spending program is causing very serious and deeply felt concern for the people I represent.
The Hon. Member for York-Peel has made reference to the meeting of the leaders of the industrialized seven in Williamsburg, Virginia. He has pointed out quite rightly that there was a rather unusual and almost unbelievable intervention on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the course of those discussions. During the course of the discussions, as reported widely by the press, the Prime Minister joined with other leaders in railing against the extent of the deficit in the United States. One must ask oneself who is fooling whom.
This is the seventh time in this session that the Government has brought a borrowing Bill before the House to ask for additional funds over and above those it planned to spend in terms of an increasingly enlarged deficit. On each occasion that the Government comes before the House to seek borrowing authority, we find ourselves in a more deteriorated economic circumstance. The Government cries to the Opposition that it is in dire straits and in dire need of additional funds. This having happened on seven occasions, the only conclusion one can come to is that the Government is incapable of dealing with the economy of the country. That seems to be a selfevident fact. Why are we becoming more and more reliant upon borrowing Bills to carry on the day-to-day activities of the Government?
I was interested in the final communique issued from Williamsburg because it referred to the debt situation. After deliberation, the seven leaders stated that they viewed with concern the international financial situation and especially the debt burdens of many developing nations. The concern that should have been expressed is for the debt burden being experienced not by the developing antions but by the western industrialized nations. That is a matter of great concern to many Canadians.
In western Canada where I come from deficit financing and the great debt are viewed with alarm and skepticism. The Prime Minister increased spending from $12.6 billion in 1968 to approximately $100 billion in 1983-84. Our deficit will be in excess of $25 billion for at least each of the next four years. Yet the Government is back for the seventh time asking permission to borrow money. Its obligations amount to $26.7 billion but it already has $16 billion in borrowing authority. Now it is asking to borrow $4 billion more than the $10.7 billion it needs to meet requirements.
One has to ask why the Government is asking for these additional funds when, clearly, they are not needed at this time. As a humble country boy from western Canada, I can only conclude that there is the prospect of an election sooner or later. The Government wants to get into a position where it can have a slush fund available if an election comes within the next few months. I ask Hon. Members opposite why the Government is asking for $4 billion more than it requires. There is only one answer, Mr. Speaker: it needs the money to try to buy its way back into power in a future election.
That $4 billion is an interesting figure, Mr. Speaker. In western Canada people realize that is the amount of the
May 31, 1983

Western Development Fund. Government Members look blank at that because they do not remember it, but it was promised to the people of western Canada-


Mr. Pepin:: And you voted against it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It was promised to them with all the trappings of the Speech from the Throne. They were told this amount of money would be available in return for the amount that was going to be extracted by taxes on western resource development and energy prices. This phantom Western Development Fund has disappeared, Mr. Speaker. It has gone, it is kaput, it no longer exists.
Is it any wonder that people in Saskatchewan and western Canada are skeptical about the Crow proposal? I am glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is present for this debate. The Speech from the Throne in 1980 is the only one we have had in this session of Parliament. At that time the Prime Minister said that the Government has no representation in western Canada and asked western Members of Parliament to stand up and address the issues that relate to western Canada. I propose to do that, Mr. Speaker, even if the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister do not listen. I was asked to do it by the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne.
It is no wonder that the people of western Canada are concerned about the Crow proposals. They are skeptical about a Government that would commit $4 billion to western Canada and then completely renege on that commitment. How can they be impressed, therefore, with the commitment that the Crow benefit will be enshrined statutorily? That is precisely the question of trust which permeates this whole debate. The people of western Canada, the livestock producer, the grain producer, are looking at this Government in terms of the way in which it manages or mismanages its affairs, and because they are very wise people out there, they say to themselves: "We are not prepared to change what we now have for something which we describe out here as a 'pig in a poke'."
We have seen the way this outfit operates, the way it reneges on its commitments. It promised $4 billion to be expended to increase the industrial and manufacturing base in western Canada, yet not a cent has been committed under this program, of which I am aware, in any tangible way towards that objective. Where is the basis upon which we can expect anything from this Government that is not almost a matter of being enshrined in the Constitution, Mr. Speaker? I am looking forward to the amendments to the legislation which the Minister of Transport has promised for us today to see what exactly he has in mind. However, the federal Government under the present proposal holds all the cards. There are only two elements of statutory protection in the present proposals; one is for the railways. They are all right. The poor fellows, we should almost go out and have a tag day for the
Borrowing Authority
railways, they are so hard done by, according to the Minister of Transport; so he has looked after them in his legislation.
Of course, the other statutory protection is given to the federal Government. God knows, it needs some direction in writing as to what it is supposed to do. But that, Mr. Speaker, is not satisfactory. The farmer is stuck with an escalating rate. The protection given to the Government contribution is far more defined and comprehensive.
I see, Mr. Speaker, I have only a short period of time left. I look forward to the opportunity to carry on this debate. I will simply say, Mr. Speaker, I have given a couple of examples of what the feelings are in my part of Canada. There is dismay and disillusionment at the way in which this Government has carried on. The fact that it would ask for $4 billion more than it actually requires is offensive and reprehensible. It is the kind of fuzzy-headed thinking that this Government indulges in, which only says one thing to me, and that is that we may be having an election sooner rather than later. I look forward to that. I look forward to the chance which the people of Canada will have to vote on the performance of this Government.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that when this debate started 20 minutes ago there was not one Member of the New Democratic Party in the House. They have been trickling in ever since. They, of any Party in the House, are very big on borrowing anyway, and they have an interest in this debate, but it is usually retroactive. They always want the Government to borrow and urge the Government to borrow more, but then when we are before a borrowing Bill, they are against it, usually because the priorities are not quite the way the New Democrats would like them.


Mr. Fisher:: What is new? You do the same.


Benno Friesen: I wonder if it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker, in a case like this-


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


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member has just referred to the fact that when we commenced our sitting today at precisely eleven o'clock, it was a few moments before Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party took their seats. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that some of us take our committee responsibilities very seriously and we were hurrying back from our committee meetings.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Benno Friesen: I might remind the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), Mr. Speaker, that I just came from committee to speak in the House. His Party alone seems to be the guardians of the committee system, if you would listen to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap; no one else in the House is really interested in committees.
25874

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
The Government seems to have quite a double standard, Mr. Speaker. If you go to a bank or to Household Finance to borrow money, one of the requirements that both this Government and the provincial Governments have laid on the lender is that before the borrower signs on the dotted line he has to be told exactly what the loan is going to cost him. Now, would it not be a unique experience if this Government were required to tell all the taxpayers of Canada exactly what its borrowing is going to cost them? Would it not be unique if each of the taxpayers could say to this Government: "We will not lend you this money until you explain to us how much this is going to cost us"?
The cost to the taxpayer, Mr. Speaker, is going to be astronomical. As the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) has already pointed out, this year alone we have gone in hock for $31 billion, much of which is probably not necessary at this point. At that rate of borrowing the national debt is going to double over four years. We are already paying 25 cents out of every tax dollar just to pay the interest on the national debt. Imagine what that is going to do to the poor taxpayer out there given the borrowing trend we face in this country. It would be in the interests of fairness and equity to the taxpayer if he was able to extract from the Government some kind of statement about exactly what this is going to cost him.
As I have said a number of times in the House, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to repay this debt. There is not a Member in this House who is going to help repay this debt. Neither will our children. It is our grandchildren who will begin paying off this debt. That is the interest; I wonder if they will ever get a chance to start paying the principle.
If you borrow money in the business world you have to have some assets against which the borrowing takes place. But this Government's borrowing is like borrowing against the groceries. It is like some of the fishermen in my riding who would borrow money to pay for gasoline or groceries when they go on a fishing trip. They burn up the fuel, eat the groceries and afterwards there is nothing which the lender can attach to cover the debt. They cannot attach the boat or the fish or anything. The Government has spent this money and there is nothing which can be attached. It seems to me that we are in deep trouble, Mr. Speaker.
My friends to the left, who are always so interested in borrowing, should realize that there is a fundamental tenet in the borrowing world-that when you start putting yourself into debt you become at least a partial prisoner of your creditor. My friends to the left are always harping on the need for Canada to express its economic independence. Since this is the fourth time this fiscal year that the Government has come to us for borrowing authority, we need to ask ourselves how much is owned to Canadian citizens and institutions and then now much is owed by the Government to foreign institutions. I wonder if the financial critic for the NDP, the Hon. Member
for Kamloops-Shuswap, has any idea of how much we owe to Wall Street bankers.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do you?


Benno Friesen: How much have we borrowed in the name of PetroCan? It seems to me to be a fundamental fact of life that once you start putting yourself in hock you become at least a partial prisoner of the one who extends the credit. It is one thing for the Members of the NDP to say we want economic dependence, as I would, but it is another thing for them to say we need to borrow more money, knowing full well that the Government is going to have to borrow from Canadians and perhaps from foreign institutions and thereby mortgage our independence to those institutions. You cannot cry for independence and put yourself in hock at the same time. You cannot have it both ways.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: You would rather be in permanent hock to everyone by offering equity; is that it?


Benno Friesen: The Hon. Member from Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), who is a great financial expert and used to be the union leader in that area and knows all about this kind of deficit spending, is interjecting.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: We never had a deficit.


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


Benno Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is time for order in this place, and any time the Hon. Member for Kootenay West speaks we certainly lose all sense of order here.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is because you are so titillating.


Benno Friesen: Well, I would agree to that.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West brought forward an excellent point: Why is it that the Government is asking us to give it permission to borrow $4 billion more than it needs? That certainly is not in the interests of good husbandry. The Hon. Member indicated one probable reason, that very likely we are about a year away from an election and with $4 billion extra in the kitty there would be some kind of a slush funds for the election year goodies the Liberals want to have available to them.
There is another possible reason, albeit less likely because it would infer that the Government really knows what it is doing, that if the Government gets permission to borrow $4 billion more than it really needs, a year from now the Liberals could come back to the public and say: "Hey, we do not need that $4 billion; through very careful management and husbandry of our resources, through very careful cost accounting and cutbacks in all Government programs"-although we know that will not include advertising programs-"we have managed to save $4 billion for the Canadian taxpayer. Are we not wonderful people?"
That could be one of the ploys the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) wants to throw at the Canadian people a year from now and that is why he is asking to borrow $4 billion more than he really needs. I say that is not being honest with the Canadian people. It may be clever but it is not very smart. It
May 31, 1983

may be cute but it is not honest. The Minister of Finance ought to come clean with the Canadian people and tell us exactly why he wants permission to borrow $4 billion more than he needs.
1 say again that this is the fourth time this fiscal year alone that we have been asked to give the Government money, some of which it does not really need. We need to close the door on that. We need to tell the Government it has to be accountable to the Canadian people. Perhaps, as I said at the outset, we need to invoke the rule that the Government requires of lending institutions, that they are required to give the Canadian people a careful accounting of just exactly what it will cost them to borrow this amount of money.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I took note of the self-righteous comments of the last speaker when he made note of the fact that there were no Members of this Party here at eleven o'clock. I would like to inform the Hon. Member that we had advance warning that the first three speakers this morning would be Conservatives. Let me inform the House that that would be enough to delay all but the craziest people from coming into the House.
[DOT] (M40)


Mr. Kempling:: Hurts, eh?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Once again, 1 welcome this opportunity to participate in a debate on the Government's borrowing authority. This particular Bill, which would authorize the Government to borrow another $14.7 billion, comes hot on the heels of the last appeal to Parliament for borrowing authority. A little more than three months ago, the Government asked for authority to borrow $19 billion. At that time Members of Parliament were asked to authorize that gang over there to borrow $14 billion for this fiscal year without even knowing what the money would be spent on. Therefore, when the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) proclaimed as he introduced the Bill that this time Hon. Members would be told where the money would be spent, 1 found his self-righteousness a little hard to understand. Of course the Government told us this time what the money would be spent on. However, it should do that each time it requests authority to borrow money. The Minister really has no right to puff up his chest as if the Government had done Parliament some great favour by telling us how it will spend the money.
When we add it up-the $14.7 billion the Government wants to borrow under the Bill, the $14 billion borrowed for this fiscal year under the last Bill, as well as the $2 billion left over in borrowing authority from last year-we find that the Government is asking to borrow over $30 billion, a tidy little sum. 1 would not begrudge this to the Government if I were convinced that it would be invested wisely in economic recovery, if it were invested in putting Canadians back to work and, by so doing, increasing the Government's tax revenues, reducing its expenditures on Unemployment Insurance and welfare. However, I am not convinced of that.
Borrowing Authority
In spite of the grandstand statements about recovery and job creation in the April budget, all that is evident is that the Government plans to wait the recession out, hoping that it can claim credit for recovery when the recession is over. However, when the business cycle begins its upturn, the Government will surely not be able to claim any of the credit.
On balance, the Government's record shows that its tight fiscal and monetary policies spurred on the recession, throwing people out of work and bankrupting small Canadian businesses, farmers and fishermen, among others. The irony of ironies is that the Government, driven by the Conservative obsession with reducing the deficit, actually contributed to its incredible borrowing requirement today. Instead of investing its deficit a few years ago, the Government tried to cut its spending at the same time as it tried to slow down the economy with high interest rates. We all know what that brought us: recession. The recession brought on by those policies actually increased the Government's borrowing requirements as close to two million Canadians were thrown out of work and on to welfare and Unemployment Insurance rolls.
When I spoke to the borrowing authority Bill a few months ago, I had a slim hope that the new budget would hold something different for Canadians than the dreadful mix of Conservative economic schemes with which we have lived for the past five or six years. It was a slim hope, but nevertheless I harboured it.
At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) seemed to be testing the waters to see how far he should go with economic stimulation in his new budget. However, when he brought down the budget on April 19, we did not receive the long-heralded economic stimulation and job creation. No, what we received was the promise of almost 1.5 million people unemployed for the rest of this year and not even a glimmer of hope of returning, by 1987, to the days of less than one million Canadians unemployed. What we received were grand statements about the Special Recovery Program which gives $2.4 billion to the private sector over the next four years, and additional spending on public capital projects of only $560 million this year, $760 million next year and only $390 million in the following year. That kind of spending will not go far at all in sponsoring economic recovery and job creation.
What we received with the April budget was another stab at identifying the private sector as the engine of economic recovery, another abdication of the Government's responsibility for directing economic development and planning in Canada, directing it to the likes of Canadian Pacific, Imperial Oil and the mines. I am not saying that the Government should take over and run the Canadian economy. However, what I am saying is that the Government has a responsibility to provide some long-term direction as to how the Canadian economy will develop for the benefit of Canadians, not for the benefit of the blue ribbon coupon clippers south of the border.
Therefore, by throwing $2.4 billion at big business over the next four years, the Government expects it will fuel investment and economic recovery. However, I would like to remind the Government that Canadian industry is now operating at only

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
60 per cent capacity. Without an increase in consumer spending, there is really no incentive for business to invest, in spite of Government tax giveaways. The April budget did absolutely nothing toward putting more money into the pockets of the average Canadian consumer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It took money out.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: In fact, what it did was to take $3.5 billion out of those consumers' pockets through higher taxes over the next four years, all the while reducing taxes for corporations.
I want to tell the House what a couple of spokespersons from the corporate world had to say about this situation, because it is probably the only kind of source some of my Tory friends to the right will consider seriously. Tom D'Aquino, President of the Business Council on National Issues, has said:
In the budget, Lalonde identified the private sector as the engine of economic growth ... but what if the private sector does not deliver because it can't, because the demand just isn't there.
Tom Van Zuiden, senior vice-president of finance for Dofasco, said:
Corporations are not going to expand just to get tax credits. They need expanded markets and the current economy is not such that further expansion in our industry is really warranted.
All this says to me is that the Government is heading in the wrong direction, that when it builds a recovery program around incentives for corporate investment at the same time as it is taking money out of the pockets of consumers, it is missing the boat. It is a shame for the Government to approach this House for authority to borrow an additional $14.7 billion when we can see that none of the economic programs the Government is sponsoring will turn the economy around or, in the long run, reduce Government borrowing requirements.
Finally, I want to make the point that the Government's economic policies are adrift. Rather than trying to do something positive about the recession, the Government gave Canadians lots of talk but not a lot of action on economic recovery. The April budget may have been good to big business, but it does not hold much hope for the rest of us looking forward to genuine economic recovery. The economic posture contained in the last budget is one of waiting and pinning our hopes on American recovery. It is exactly the kind of timid economic direction we have been told over and over again we could expect from a Progressive Conservative Government. I contend that Canadians deserve better.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the gallery of the House of Commons was filled with young people, people in their early' teens listening to the debate. I wondered as I watched them what legacy this Government will leave to these young people. Will it be a legacy of opportunity or will it be a legacy of bankruptcy, indebtedness and high taxes?
Really this is a sad debate. This Bill asks Parliament to approve the borrowing by this Government of some $14.7
billion. This is the seventh time in this session that the Government has come to Parliament for borrowing authority and has requested a total of some $81.5 billion.
Many people do not understand what a billion means. If you relate that $81.5 billion to millions, Mr. Speaker, that means $81,000 million. That is the amount of money this Government has asked permission to borrow in this session which started in 1980.
It is interesting to look back on the history of the Trudeau years and see what has happened to this great country of ours. It is a great country. It is a country rich in resources, natural, physical and human, and a country which has the greatest potential of any country in this world. But this Government has not developed that potential. It has done its best to stifle it. Personally, I suggest it is because of the philosophy of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this Government, a philosophy which embraces socialist and Marxist theories, believes in centralization and in government control. This "Big Daddy" syndrome has forced us into low productivity and has caused this country to end up with the highest unemployment record in history, high interest rates and an 80-cent dollar. The Government and the Prime Minsiter say: "Well, there is nothing we can do about it; this is a world-wide problem and basically the Americans are to blame. If the Americans can only pull out of their problems, then Canada will pull out as well."
It is interesting to examine what has happened in the last 15 or 20 years, that I call the Trudeau years. If one looks at the statistics, one will find that on a national accounts basis spending in 1968-69 was $12.6 billion. In 1983-84 it will be $100 billion, which in that period of time is an increase of some 693 per cent. If one looks at it on a public accounts basis, a basis commonly used, one will find that in 1968-69 expenditures were $12.3 billion. In 1983-1984 they will be $89.8 billion, or an increase of some 554 per cent.
Let me refer to the public debt. When the present Prime Minister took over as leader of this country, our gross public debt was $31 billion. At the end of 1981-82, the last figure that we are able to get, it was $134 billion. It is estimated that in 1982 the public debt will be about $165 billion. It is further estimated that by March 31, 1987 our net debt, that is after we take our assets away from our debts, will be some $232 billion.
What about the interest on this debt? Each and every taxpayer in this country is faced with the responsibility of paying the interest on this debt. In 1983-84 the interest on our national debt will be some $17.6 billion. That is about $700 for every man, woman and child in this country, or about $1,700 for every taxpayer. But let us look at the year 1968-69. The estimates, the total cost of running this country, in 1968-69 were about $12 billion. That $12 billion included all the cost of government, all the cost of defence; in fact, every expenditure
May 31, 1983

of government. Now we are asked to pay $17.5 billion just in interest alone. The burden is almost unbearable.
I always relate the Government to a farmer, a worker or a small business. If you spend more than you take in, you are in financial difficulties. That is what this Government has done and is doing. It is spending more than it is taking in, and it is borrowing far beyond its means to cover the portion it is not able to take in. The result is we are very close to being in a bankrupt position.
I have told groups of senior citizens that they are probably the most fortunate group who ever lived in Canada because at the present time they are in receipt of the old age pension, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Canada Pension Plan, a health care plan and New Horizons grants. But I have to say to them that it is unlikely their children, or your children or mine, Mr. Speaker, or their children's children, will enjoy those benefits because there will just not be the money to cover those types of programs. With increasing budgets, increasing national debt and the aging population there will be fewer and fewer taxpayers to pay the cost of those programs.
Let me ask once again: What legacy will we leave to our children and our children's children? Will we leave them a legacy of opportunity, or will we leave them a legacy of bankruptcy and indebtedness? Unless we change our ways, unless we curb our spending and unless we base our decisions on economics rather than politics, I am very much afraid the legacy we will leave to those children will be one of bankruptcy, indebtedness and high taxes.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, a veteran Member of this House recently told me of a colleague who had one standard speech format available for all occasions. No matter what the debate, the speech was appropriate with only minor modification made to suit the subject. All that was required was a five-minute preparation to fill in the blanks.
That type of style would be an extremely efficient format for Members of this House confronted with this Government's legislative finesse of the past few years, and particularly of the past few months. This Government under the guidance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and latterly under successive Finance Ministers, has increased Government expenditures from $12.3 billion to $89.8 billion in the past 15 years. The Government, through waste and irresponsible neglect of fundamental principles basic to even a child's understanding of economics, has left the nation's productive capacity in shambles, while blaming the catastrophe on all the world around us and never accepting responsibility or putting it where it belongs.
The combination of excessive spending and a shattered tax base from which to draw revenue has had the inevitable result of ever enlarging annual national deficits. Now the nation, which a few years ago was shocked at the prospect of an increase in the national debt of Canada $4 billion, hardly
Borrowing Authority
blinks an eye as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) declares a deficit in excess of $30 billion and notes that the national debt has doubled in the past five years and will double again in the next five years.
The nation hardly grasps the implication of the Minister of Finance's figures, which show that a third of the revenue of Canada, which comes mainly in the form of taxes that Canadians pay directly or indirectly to the treasury, goes simply to pay the interest on the national debt or that 20 per cent of the expenditures of Canada go for that unproductive purpose. One can only pause to wonder what figures will be presented to the House and the nation five years from now when the national debt has doubled from $120 billion to $240 billion, if the Minister and the Government are allowed to pursue their unrepentant ways.
This is a special concern considering a growing conviction which is occupying thoughtful Canadians and was contained in an article in today's edition of The Citizen of Ottawa, headlined "Large federal debt will force up interest rates". I will refer to this article later if time permits.
In this circumstance of spending excesses, the only certainty which exists is that the Government of Canada through its Finance Minister will be back repeatedly to lay claim to the right to appropriate more and more borrowed money to maintain its expensive, expansive ways.
Thus the original concept of a standard speech would be entirely appropriate to the House. On how many occasions could it have been used in the past few months? A standardized speech on borrowing authority legislation would have been useful on seven different occasions during this session of Parliament.
The obsession for spending which consumes the Government has been demonstrated in Bills C-30, C-59, C-111, C-125, C-128, C-143, and Bill C-151 which is presently being debated.
In fiscal year 1982-83 the Government came to the House four times to demand authority to borrow a total of $22.6 billion so that it could continue its habit of unrestrained extravagance. And where are we today? In its April budget the Government indicated that it would require $26.7 billion to make up the excess of its spending over its revenue during the current year. At present the Government has borrowing authority in place of some $16 billion. If the Minister of Finance is forecasting a shortfall of $26.7 billion and has a reserve of authority to borrow $16 billion, the demand we should be debating today should be for $10.7 billion.
Why, then, are we faced with a demand for nearly $15 billion ? I suggest it is because the Government does not have any faith in its own figures and, more specifically, it does not have any faith in its own discipline when it comes to curbing its appetite for spending. Government Members say: "Give us unlimited financing so that we can act as we have always acted-bestowing favour on our friends, using the largesse of the treasury for political advantage whenever and wherever it most pleases us and is seen to be to our advantage".

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
We should contrast this attitude with that of the newly elected Government of British Columbia which campaigned on a platorm of restraint and realism. The people of British Columbia understood and appreciated this, as evidenced by the manifest rejection of the NDP call for actions of spending which are the duplicate of what the Government in Ottawa is presently inflicting upon Canada. Both the NDP and the Liberal Party opposite would be well advised to take note of the clear, decisive message which the electors of British Columbia provided. Canadians want their treasury to be treated rationally and reasonably-the type of restraint promised and being delivered by Premier Bennett of British Columbia.
1 would like to refer to an article which appeared in today's edition of The Globe and Mail headed "Curb needed in spending, Bennet says". It reads:
Without fiscal restraint, the British Columbia Government will accumulate deficits totally $12 billion in the next four years, Premier William Bennett said yesterday.
"Not only the provincial Government, but all provincial agencies and local Governments will be called on to exercise greater responsibility," Mr. Bennett told reporters .. .
"It is fair to say that every program of Government, every Government agency, every Crown corporation, every board, every commission-all are under complete review over the next few days and the next few weeks."
Mr. Bennett said the recession has ravaged Government revenue and he expects major shortfalls in tax income, particularly from corporations.
Where do we have any comparative degree of restraint shown by the Government of Canada? Of course, the answer is that we do not and will not have a comparative degree of restraint as long as this particular regime is in power.
Earlier I referred to an article in The Citizen by Seymour Friedland. It is in that context that I think we must be very concerned about what will happen five years from now when the national debt of Canada is double what it is presently because we have allowed the Government to continue in its unrepentant style of spending. An article entitled "Large federal debt will force up interest rates" quoted one Earl Bederman of the Canada Permanent Trust Company. 1 see Mr. Speaker is indicating that I have used up my allotted time, but the article reads:
Part of Bederman's pessimism is based on the recent Lalonde budget. Although it has received widespread acclaim, Bederman argues that it will have a depressing impact on the economy for the next four years.
I advise my colleagues opposite to read this particular article.


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


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, was there unanimous consent to let the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) finish? May I request that on his behalf?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona to make a speech. Only the Member who had the floor previously could
make that request and seek unanimous consent of the House. I gather he is not interested in doing that.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to speak for only ten minutes. This Bill is a symptom of the dreadfully serious mismanagement of the Canadian economy by its Government. Last year Canada ran dead last among the 24 member nations of the OECD. We placed 55th out of 81 countries in terms of economic performance, according to the publication "Euromoney". Some on this side feel that the Liberals have deliberately worsened the economy in order to fight inflation. We must ask ourselves, for example, how many of our constituents were put out of work because of the interest rate policy of the Government about a year ago?
As others have pointed out, this Bill will authorize the Government to borrow an additional $14.7 billion. It follows seven previous similar requests made by the Government in this Parliament. In his recent budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that the deficit for the coming year will be $31 billion, $28.8 billion for 1984-85, $26.7 billion for 1985-86 and $25.6 billion for 1986-87. That is $114 billion in the next four years. We must add to that the approximate $70 billion which those fiscal maniacs opposite ran up in borrowing in the eighties. That will be more than $200 billion before they are voted out of office in the next election.
Let me give some idea of their idea of irresponsible Government financing and what it is doing to this country. First, total Government spending in terms of the $100 billion the Government intends to spend next year is enough to buy a $100,000 home for every household in Alberta.
Second, the cost of interest on the debt exceeds the value of all federal income taxes collected from persons earning less than $50,000 a year.
Third, the Government's gross debt is the equivalent of $6,400 per capita and $16,000 per taxpayer. That is outrageous.
Fourth, in private industry, an enterprise with revenue that was only 70 per cent of its expenditures and gross debt that was four times the net value of its assets would be forced into bankruptcy. Where is there a place for those opposite to file for bankruptcy on behalf of their fellow citizens?
Fifth, the Liberals will spend between 1980-81 and 1983-84 a total of $49 billion more than had been planned in the Conservative budget when we were in office. That is $4,900 per taxpayer.
Sixth, the federal Government spends money at the rate of $274 million per day, $11 million per hour and $190,000 per minute. At that rate, $19 million was spent during the budget speech of the Minister of Finance.
Seventh, including operating deficits and capital expenditures, Mirabel airport today, as an example of the profligacy on the other side, has cost the taxpayers more than $700 million. That sum of money is the equivalent of giving 800,000 Canadians a free round-trip ticket from St. John's, Newfoundland to Vancouver, British Columbia.
May 31, 1983

Eighth, the federal Government has an information and advertising budget of $245 million a year, the largest of its kind in Canada. That sum of money is 18 times the total cost of Government in the first year of Confederation.
Ninth, in 1981 the federal Government spent $13.1 million on food, liquor and entertainment. I wonder how much of that was spent on other than Liberal friends. That is the equivalent of more than one million bottles of liquor.
Finally, the deficit this year will be $31.3 billion. If that incredible amount of money were turned into $1 bills and laid end to end, it would stretch just under three million miles. That is the equivalent of travelling the Trans-Canada Highway and back 304 times. The line would stretch to the moon and back six times.
What else can we say but that the Government is grossly irresponsible? It is doing its best to bankrupt the country, aided and abetted by its annex in the New Democratic Party. 1 sometimes wonder which is the annex of which. I ask that in light of the Gallup poll which came out a week ago. It indicated that 30 per cent of Liberal supporters favour a greater role for the private sector, contrasted to 41 per cent for NDP supporters, the Party of the Regina Manifesto, and 61 per cent for supporters of this Party.
The point is that the supporters of the new Democratic Party are now more in favour of private enterprise than the supporters of the Government Party. Times are changing and I cannot explain it. Maybe the New Democratic Party or the Liberals can explain it. Somebody looking at this country from Mars would consider that we were being run by a group of lunatics.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What about the guy speaking right now?


David Kilgour: At least I have their attention. It is really what I was hoping for because there is nothing more boring than standing up and giving a speech where nobody listens and then everybody gets up and disagrees.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If you say something silly enough, people will listen.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I will end early. I have said everything I wish to say. I hope that all Members of the House will vote against this Bill.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak again on this borrowing authority Bill which is in the order of $14.7 billion, of which something in the order of $4 billion is completely unaccounted for. Speculation runs high that that $4 billion would make a fairly substantial contribution to an election slush fund, paid out at something of the order of $10 million a day. That is a very serious matter. The matter of this House authorizing legislation to borrow taxpayers' money should receive a very careful and scrupulous accounting. If the Government is going to borrow that money, it should be targeted to specific projects that will fulfil a community need, an employment need and a need for economic development at
Borrowing Authority
this time. We do not see that occurring with the present initiatives of the Liberal Government.
Today I call to the attention of the House and the Minister some areas where it could allocate the $4 billion instead of dropping in into a slush fund. It is opportune that we have with us in the Chamber at this time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I recall to the Minister of Transport the need for an airport in the community of Bella Bella, B.C. Over the years that community of approximately 1,000 people has been looking for Government support by way of a borrowing authority Bill or a contribution. This is an excellent project and is worth studying. It is a native community with very high unemployment. There is a hospital in that community from which they evacuate people with difficult medical problems. There is an RCMP law enforcement establishment in the community and there are schools in the community.
It desperately needs an airport. The people have virtually scratched out of the ground by their own means the beginnings of an airport and, for a very nominal sum of money, could extend the airport runway to 3,500 feet which would accommodate not only their community but other communities on the central coast. Instead of spending that money, Mr. Speaker, It would appear that the Minister of Transport and his officials have decided that they would rather support an airport on another island.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The choice is to be made by the Government of British Columbia.


Raymond John Skelly: It would be very nice if the Minister would not pass the buck on to the Government of British Columbia but fulfil his Government's federal responsibility to native people through the mechanism of the borrowing Act by allocating assistance to the Indian community of Bella Bella.
There is no justification for allowing any government to go ahead and move a facility which is so desperately needed to an island with only 60 residents. I hope that my old friend, the Minister of Transport, will find in his heart a willingness to come forward and support that community of Bella Bella and the development on the central coast that will stem from it. I believe this is vitally important, Mr. Speaker. This is an important use for the funds that have not been accounted for in the borrowing authority.
The borrowing authority is an important mechanism by which funds can be allocated. It is interesting to note that the Ministers often complain that they do not have any money. Well, here in the borrowing authority it looks as if $4 billion has not yet been accounted for or allocated. The Government would like to see the House ratify the borrowing authority.
I bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport another project that is needed in the community of Bella Bella and which illustrates what I am trying to point out. If the Minister of Transport or the Government of Canada are looking for some way to account for those funds, the community of Bella Bella desperately needs a roll-on/roll-off ferry facility. The

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
cost of living in that community is so astronomically high that it cripples any economic development that would benefit the approximately 1,000 people who live there. The cost of food is prohibitively high. Elere in Ottawa we live in luxury in terms of the cost of food and facilities. The situation in Bella Bella could be changed, however, if the Government were to provide support for a roll-on/roll-off ferry facility. It is a nominal cost to create such enormous benefits in that community.
I hope that when the Government makes an evaluation about what it wants to do with that $4 billion it is asking the House to vote for, the Minister of Transport will provide that ferry facility for that Bella Bella. It would be very useful if the Minister of Transport could look at that project very carefully and find it within himself to support it as one of the priorities of the $4 billion.
In looking for ways to spend that $4 billion fund that has not yet been allocated, another very interesting application of those funds might be found in the community of Powell River. The community of Powell River has a single major industry, and its example is duplicated in many areas across the country. There are problems created by single industry communities. For instance, the pulp and paper mill in the community of Powell River has cut back production and has laid off 500 people. In a small community such as this, the lay-off of 500 people has a devastating effect. The people cannot move out because the housing market is depressed. There is no other source of employment in that community and the pulp mill will be virtually unable to rehire many of those people. The federal Government could provide support for work-sharing programs in that community. Even the apprentices who were laid off could be rehired to allow them to finish their training. The $4 billion that has not yet been allocated could be used in Powell River.
In addition, certain kinds of economic development could go ahead in a community such as Powell River, but initial support is needed. That initial support could help to diversify and strengthen the economy of a single industry community so that the boom and bust phenomenon would no longer occur. But that support is not forthcoming. It would be my hope that the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) and other influential members of the Government would look at Powell River when addressing the question of how to spend the extra $4 billion. I hope they would look seriously at creating employment opportunities, at creating job sharing opportunities as a short-term arrangement, and then look finally at assisting a single industry community such as Powell River to create some kind of diversity in its local economy so that it can take the boom and bust phenomenon out of the economy and allow people to have some kind of employment security.
While I am on the subject and the Ministers are present and listening, I would like to call three communities in the Comox Valley to their attention. These are the communities of Courtenay, Cumberland and Comox. The community of Comox has an air base which is proposing to move approximately 500 people to another area of the country to reduce the size of that
facility. Those 500 people, their families and their children will be removed from the valley. This will in fact have a very dramatic impact on the economy of that community. The community has already been hard hit by a recession and by the slowdown in the forest industries, and this is the present that they are to receive from the federal Government. I recognize why this is in fact being done, but certainly when 500 pay cheques are removed from a community with a stroke of a pen, the economy of that community is harmed.
Certain things can be done with this $4 billion slush fund that seems to be unaccounted for that would assist the communities in the Comox Valley. The Government could attempt to help the community with some offsets, and there are a number of offsets available. Hopefully, the Government would be concerned enough to provide the community with an alternate, such as another branch of the Canadian Armed Forces that could use the facility that is already there. The facilities are ideal for Sea King helicopter training. There are many other projects for which the federal Government could provide the offsets and opportunities after having caused a great deal of harm by removing 500 pay cheques from Comox.
It would be my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Government would be in a position, through the $4 billion that is unaccounted for to begin to address some of these very serious problems that are faced by these people.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I represent 87,980 people who live in North Vancouver-Burnaby. Each one of those households operates on a budget. They have so much coming in as income and they have so much going out for rent, food and other expenses. If expenses exceed income, the first thing that the householders would do is to look for a way to cut back and change that situation. This may mean, of course, that there will be spaghetti for dinner instead of hamburger. That is logical, but the Government is incapable of such plain common sense.
Anyone who operates a business works on the basis of a yearly cash flow statement which will indicate to him what he is taking in and what his expenses are. Hopefully there may be a little profit left over. If there is no profit and the businessman sees that he is going into the hole, then obviously he must cut expenditures or increase revenue. Again, this is just plain common sense. But the Government seems to be totally incompetent and totally incapable of understanding such plain common sense.
It might be interesting for my constituents to know that all 87,980 of them are in debt to the extent of $1,600 and that every taxpayer in the riding is in debt to the tune of $16,000 as a result of the Liberal Government. I am reminded of the story of one of my constituents who just had a baby. He immediately rushed to Lion's Gate Hospital, looked through the nursery window at his child and said: "Congratulations, my child, you are now $1,600 in debt. A few years from now when you become a taxpayer, you will automatically be $16,000 in debt, unless we can elect a Conservative Government and turn this kind of loose spending around."
May 31, 1983

How does the Government do it, Mr. Speaker? What is a supplementary estimate? It is an admission of failure. Seven times the Government has come back to Parliament for supplementary estimates in this Session of Parliament. That is seven admissions of failure-seven admissions that it cannot figure out what it is doing with the money.
We could talk about the $12 billion or $14 billion which was granted before, but let us look at the last 11 months. If this does not demonstrate incompetence on the part of the Government, 1 do not know what does. Eleven months ago the Government got $6.6 billion; nine months ago $11 billion; six months ago $4 billion; two months ago $19 billion; and today $14.7 billion. It has received $77.3 billion over a three-year period, or about $25 billion per year.
It might interest my constituents to know that they have a Liberal Government which is borrowing at the rate of $2 billion per month and that it has been doing this for years, to the detriment of the country. It is a Government gone mad. I would point out to my constituents that every dollar the Government borrows means one less dollar available for them to borrow for any purpose. This has an effect on interest rates and on the confidence the world has in Canada. When the Government is a mad spender you cannot expect investors to have much faith in it. As a result, in the last year alone $10 billion has left Canada. We will never know how many jobs that would have provided for Canadians had it remained in this country. We know why the money left Canada, however- because of the borrowing of $2 billion per month, month in and month out, that the Liberal regime has foisted on the public.
The foregoing is not all of the borrowing, Mr. Speaker; it is only the things that we know about. How many debts do Crown corporations have that are disguised as loans? How many debts do Crown corporations have disguised as letters of credit? How much are they showing as assets on the books, such as buggy whips, which should be written off and accepted as a loss? The Opposition cannot get that information from the Government and I can understand why it must be kept a deep, dark secret. It must be a source of continual embarrassment that such terrible things are even suspected.
A succession of Auditors General have told us that spending is out of control. You do not have to be very bright to know that, Mr. Speaker. The Government has the authority to spend but it has no responsibility.
When I first came to this House I served on the Public Accounts Committee-until I gave up in disgust. 1 remember asking an official of the Treasury Board what I thought was a very key question. I wanted to know what happens when a bureaucrat makes a colossal error, such as the overspending on the Calgary Airport, or architects designing buildings that drop into the muskeg, or any of the other scandals that have happened with this Government. 1 wanted to know the penalty for someone who did not know what he was doing in his job- the penalty for a Government official who wastes money. The answer I got from Treasury Board was that there are no penalties. As my colleague says, the chances are that the
Borrowing Authority
official would be promoted because it would be an embarrassment to leave him in the same position. But no bureaucrat is afraid of his job or is prepared to take the responsibility as well as the authority when he spends money.
I could go on with a thousand stories and it would take all day, Mr. Speaker, but I have two or three that 1 would draw to your attention. This year the CBC wants $820 million. 1 wonder if the Canadian people are prepared to spend $820 million over and above the revenue of the CBC. As well, $45 million is required for the Official Languages Act and the metric Commission wants $32 million. The Metric Commission is a good example of what I call the rise of bureaucrats. In 1974 its total budget was $44,000 but it has managed to get that up to $32 million. Today, its payroll is $3.2 million. The Consolidated Computer caper wasted $125 million. Some of the bureaucrats responsible for that should have been hanged by their thumbs.
I would like to see one budget, totally complete and fully explained in simple terms but no supplementary supply and no borrowing. If the managers cannot do that they should be given their running shoes. If the Cabinet cannot do it, that should be the greatest news story in Canada.
There are 12 American States where the people, through the native shrewdness that enables them to survive, have passed laws requiring that the budget of the State must be balanced. We may see that sort of thing here. This country will not have fiscal responsibility until this crew of drunken sailors and spendthrifts is thrown out of office, the sooner the better. 1 do not mean Government restraint on the backs of the poor. What I mean is financial responsibility on the heads of the wasteful bureaucrats who spend, spend, spend, without a thought for you and me, the overburdened taxpayer.
Mir. Mel Gass (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, we are once again witnessing the federal Government's need for parliamentary authority to borrow new money. Prior to this Winter, the Government had never had to use its emergency borrowing powers. To date the Government has come to Parliament seven times in this session to ask Parliament for more borrowing authority. We need only to recall Bills C-30, C-59, C-111, C-125, C-128, C-143 and now C-151. In fiscal 1982-83 alone, the Government came to Parliament four times to seek borrowing authority.
The Government has borrowing authority of $16 billion in the 1983-84 fiscal year. Bil C-143 had provided for up to $2 billion of the $5 billion of authority it granted for fiscal 198283 to be carried over into fiscal 1983-84 if it was not used. Bill C-143 also provided for $14 billion to be granted for this year, fiscal 1983-84.
Based on its financial requirements of $26.7 billion and existing borrowing authority of $16 billion, the Government needs $10.7 billion in additional authority this year. Bill C-151 provided for $14.7 billion in new authority-$4 billion more than is indicated by the financial requirements. Of this, $2 billion does not have to be used this year and may be carried

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
forward into the future. The Government thus has a cushion of $2 billion for this year, plus a cushion of $2 billion to be used in any year. The money that is carried over in this bill does not have to be used next year and could be carried over indefinitely. The Government already has $16 billion in borrowing authority for this year, more than enough to last until summer. The past history of the federal Government is proof positive that it has mismanaged our country's finances and now must borrow more money to make ends meet.
Let us examine the federal Government's spending and the deficit which will outline the Government's mismanagement of the country's economy. Over the past 15 years, Government spending has risen at an unprecedented rate. On a national accounts basis spending has climbed from $12.6 billion in 1968-69 to an estimated $100.2 billion in 1983-84, an increase of 693 per cent. Spending has increased from $12.3 billion in 1968-69 to $89.8 billion, an increase of 554 per cent. Relative to fiscal 1979-80, spending has risen by 78 per cent on a public accounts basis or 84 per cent on a national accounts basis. In 1983-84, the Government plans to spend $20 billion more on a national accounts basis than the Progressive Conservative Government had planned to spend, and will borrow $22 billion more than the Progressive Conservatives had planned to borrow.
For every $3 the Government spends, it must borrow $1. A deficit can be financed only by printing money or by borrowing. In 1982, borrowing by the federal Government accounted for 51 per cent of all net new security issues placed in Canada. Borrowing of that magnitude clearly must have an effect on the supply and demand for money, and thus on the interest rates which must be borne by the private sector. The budget points to a deficit in excess of $25 billion for each of the next four years.
At the end of the 1981-82 fiscal year, the gross debt was $134 billion. The gross debt was probably between $160 billion and $165 billion as of March 31, 1983. In comparison, the gross debt was $31 billion when the present Government took office. The net debt was $120.1 billion as of March 31, 1983. This compares to $16.2 billion in March, 1968. Since the Government resumed power in 1980, the net debt has almost doubled from its March 31, 1980 level of $68.6 billion. In the coming year, one public accounts revenue dollar in three, or one expenditure dollar in five, will be used to pay interest on the debt.
There is the ever-growing interest burden. Interest on the debt cost an estimated $17.6 billion, the equivalent of $700 for every man, woman and child in Canada, or $1,700 per taxpayer, just for interest. Interest on the debt in 1983-84 will equal 4.6 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product. This compares to 2 per cent when Trudeau first took office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must invite the Hon. Member to refer to his colleagues in the House by the name of their office or their constituency, and not their proper name, please.


Mr. Gass:: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The third cost is that productive private sector borrowing is crowded out and interest rates rise. In the 1982 calendar year, federal Government borrowing accounted for 51 per cent of the net new security issues placed in Canada. If there was less federal Government borrowing, there would be less demand for money and interest rates would be lower. At the time of the 1980 election, the Bank of Canada rate was 14 per cent, the average mortgage rate was 13.5 per cent, and the chartered bank prime rate was 15 per cent. By August, 1981 the bank rate had climbed to a record 21.24 per cent, chartered bank prime was 22.75 per cent, and some lenders were charging in excess of 22 per cent for first mortgages.
While interest rates have fallen significantly over the past few months, the reason for this stems from factors other than sound economic management. First, the recession has created a shortage of demand for new loans and a significant increase in the level of deposits. The savings rate is at record heights. People are afraid to spend money out of fear for the future, and they are justified because of the actions of this Government. The forces of supply and demand are thus partly responsible for the decline in rates. Economic recovery will mean the end of this source of downward pressure.
Second, there has been a sharp decline in interest rates in the United States. Any increase in U.S. interest rates will send Canadian interest rates back up again.
Third, because the current economic recession has hit Canada more severely than any of our major trading partners, our demand for imported goods has fallen sharply while our exports have remained relatively stable. This has taken some of the pressure off the dollar, which has been propped up by high interest rates. Economic recovery will end this temporary phenomenon.
The Government will argue that lower inflation is responsible for the drop in interest rates. In fact, the factors outlined above have had a far greater role. Indeed, a significant part of the decline in the inflation rate is due to the recession, which is hardly a sign of sound economic management. This year the financial requirements of the Government will be equal to 84 per cent of expected personal savings.
The fourth cost is that of confidence and it is possibly our greatest. The investment community does not trust a Government which continues to live so far beyond its means. They do not want to hold a currency which continues to be debased by excessive Government borrowing. As a consequence, the dollar has fallen, thus driving up the cost of living in Canada. Interest rates remain high as the Government attempts to support the dollar. Job creating capital investment has gone elsewhere. The financial requirements of the Government of Canada over the next four years will total $93.2 billion. Bills C-143 and C-151 are just the tip of the iceberg.
The Government's credit is certainly damaged when it comes to the unemployment issue. The national unemployment rate in February was 12.5 per cent, which means 1,585,000 Canadians were out of work. Four hundred and nine thousand Canadians worked part-time because they could not find full-
May 31, 1983

time employment. These unemployment totals do not include 149,000 discouraged people who have given up looking for work because there are no jobs available. In February, the youth unemployment rate was 20.7 per cent and in August, 1982 183,000 fewer students had a summer job than was the case in August, 1981. How can Parliament possibly support additional funding for a Government which has two million out of work and close to that number are on welfare? Unemployment Insurance benefits are running out and the Government does not offer concrete proposals which deal with this serious situation. In 1982 Unemployment Insurance payments totalled $8.6 billion. It is this very high unemployment rate which has been contributing to the increase in estimated financial requirements since October, 1982. By permitting the Government of Canada to borrow an additional $19 billion to finance the escalating spending deficit, now over $26 billion, Parliament is increasing the national debt to $160 billion.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my time is almost up. I have one last comment and that is that I believe very firmly in the adage that somewhere, sometime, somebody has to pay. I also believe that the "sometime" is getting very close and the "somebody" is our young people.
Mir. Howard Crosby (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh time in the current session that the Government has presented to Parliament a Bill to authorize the borrowing of a vast amount of money. This has been pointed out by other Hon. Members but I would like to underline that fact. Bill C-151, which enacts yet another borrowing authority, makes provision for the raising of an additional $14.7 billion.
On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, I have underlined the practical effect on Canadians of the enormous federal Government borrowings. Let me stress the fact that today most of the funds borrowed by the Government are used to meet current account spending deficits and not to construct public works and undertakings of an enduring nature. Annual borrowing to meet current spending deficits has a two-fold effect on Canadians, especially Canadian taxpayers. First, it increases dramatically the debt load which must be borne by all Canadians in the form of increased contributions to Government revenues. Second, the Government competes directly with Canadian businesses and individuals for available investment funds.
In the result, rates of interest on all forms of loans, from consumer car loans to loans for industrial expansion, are escalated upward. At present the interest rate is low, not because of Government policy but because industrial activity and consumer spending are at an all-time low. As we search for economic recovery, we need assurance that increased activity will not increase interest rates to the dramatic levels experienced in 1982 or we will be faced with a new burst of double-digit inflation.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, expressing the effect of the federal Government borrowing in simple factual terms, we are now utilizing over 25 per cent of annual revenues to pay interest charges. In addition, we are burdening 11 million Canadian taxpayers with an individual debt share of over
Borrowing Authority
$2,500 this current year, with a total debt share of over $20,000. To this burden must be added any provincial Government debt the taxpayer shares as residents of a particular Province. All of these Government debts must be repaid by Canadian taxpayers, or passed on to future generations. That is a poor legacy to pass on to our children and grandchildren.
When we consider the current state of the Government's purse, we realize and recognize the certain need for restraint in public spending. But we need real reductions in expenditure, not programs like the Government's six and five restraint which stresses perception and not fact. The Government pretends to save by cutting payments to senior citizens, young persons and retired public servants and then squanders money on Crown corporations like the post office, Canadian National Railways and projects like Mirabel airport and the Gulfspan ferry. To quote an example which is currently in the news in Nova Scotia, there is the $62 million loss on the investment in the CAST shipping group. Every time I stand in this House I remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that was money thrown away. He was warned in advance, yet he allowed it to happen.
With spending restraint in mind, Mr. Speaker, let me consider some special areas of concern in Nova Scotia, indeed throughout Atlantic Canada, which are relevant to the financial status of the Government. We all know restraint must be exercised but we also should know that it must be implemented in a careful and prudent manner and in the hope and expectation that the Canadian economy can be restored to prosperity in the years ahead. Contemplating the fact that we will have a new Government and new direction in policy, I think we can look ahead seriously to the day when the Canadian economy will be restored to its former prosperity.
Let me examine some of those special interest areas such as the educational system. The Government with its alleged restraint has cut back on payments to universities and other post-secondary institutions to the extent of over $1 billion. This comes at a time when we need to provide education and train Canadians. Yet the Government, by keeping back this sum of money from our young people seeking an education, puts an additional burden on those 500,000 university students because it will become necessary in this and ensuing academic years to increase tuition fees.
Canadians are proud that we have an educational system which offers the opportunity to young Canadians to seek university level education if they have the academic ability to perform. But now we are placing that in jeopardy. That is a negative step in two ways. First, it destroys the initiative of young Canadians who do not now see an opportunity for advanced education. Second, it fails to provide Canada with the qualified work force we need to take advantage of the move to a technological economy. That is the kind of reduction in spending which has no productive effect. In fact, it is very damaging and we will realize this in future years.
The April budget spoke of a Special Recovery Program and allocated over $4 billion to the program. Some of it was to be

May 31. 1983
Borrowing Authority
for special projects, over 100 of which were to take place across Canada. One of the most important projects from the point of view of Atlantic Canada was the allocation for marine transportation, specifically vessel procurement. Some $630 million was alleged to be allocated in the April budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). But when we come to examine that in greater detail we find that a great portion of that money was to construct vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard and it was merely an acceleration of an existing program.
The net increase in expenditure is much less than the $300 million first indicated. We on the East Coast are very concerned about the plight of our shipyards, indeed all shipyards across Canada. We realize there must be an acceleration of Government vessel construction programs, both in the Coast Guard and the Department of Transport, more particularly in the Department of National Defence. The patrol frigate program, which is a $1 billion program to provide six modern vessels to the Canadian navy, must be accelerated but no mention was made of that in the budget. So we wonder how serious the Government is when it talks about accelerating activity in the shipbuilding industry.
In budgetary terms, in national defence we have undertaken to honour our commitment to NATO to expand and re-equip the Canadian Armed Forces. The budget lost sight of this and again we have this unproductive restraint. By investing in equipment to the Canadian Armed Forces we not only create jobs and activity for Canadians, but we also create an enduring asset for the future, one which will, in effect, save money by acting now. So 1 urge the Government to take a look at defence expenditures and make sure that some action is taken to improve equipment in the Armed Forces, particularly to upgrade the Canadian Navy through the patrol frigate program.
I want to speak of a local matter which is of great concern, the recent announcement that the contract for the refit of the HMCS Nipigon will go to Davie Shipbuilding in Lauzon, Quebec. This multimillion dollar contract would have made a great difference to the work force at the Halifax shipyards. With the loss of this contract we can expect an empty shipyard, for which the Liberal Member from Halifax will have to answer. He knows the difficulties which have occurred there.
1 want to speak briefly of the fishing industry because in restraining Government expenditures the Government has apparently forgotten about its obligation to the Atlantic fishing industry. The task force report would require an expenditure of $300 million over and above the improvement of facilities at small craft harbours, but there is no provision for this.
We have to have some control over the offshore oil industry.
I read in the paper that Husky-Bow Valley are going to expand activity in their project, yet they are going to use a drill
rig imported from Norway. How does that create jobs for Canadians?
Let me end on this note, Mr. Speaker. While we appreciate and recognize that there must be restraints in Government expenditure, and while we oppose increases in borrowing, we want the Government to be responsible in its administration of the programs we now have on our books.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could call it one o'clock?


@Acting Speaker: Order, please. 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.


Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to an announcement made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) on May 25 of this year, according to which the Federal Government would honour all valid applications submitted on or before May 5, 1983, under the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program. A number of my constituents will be able to take advantage of the program until June 15. 1 have personally received many telephone calls from contractors and future homeowners in my riding, who want to congratulate the federal Government on this very welcome initiative. 1 can therefore assure the House that this program has been a tremendous success and that it has had a very beneficial impact on the construction industry in the Beauce area. As of April 30, 1983, 612 grants, each in the amount of $3,000, had been given out in Beauce, representing a total $1,836,000. 1 am therefore very pleased with the announcement made on May 25, which has met with the approval of the vast majority of the Canadian people.



NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, it is high time that the Government of Canada made a firm
May 31, 1983

statement on the extent of its claim to sovereignty over the seabed of the Arctic Ocean.
Do we claim to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the seabed within the entire sector extending from Canada's east-west extremities to the North Pole, or is the Government satisfied with something less?
At the time of the debate on the Canada Oil and Gas Act the Government was deliberately vague on the question. However, some maps issued by the Government tended to indicate a willingness to accommodate American claims to offshore resources under what has traditionally been considered Canadian territorial waters. Now speculation in the press puts into doubt Canadian jurisdiction over the Alpha Ridge in the Arctic Ocean.
The Government of Canada has waffled too long on this important issue, and must take a firm stand before the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. squeeze us out from our own Arctic resources.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, the second annual meeting of federal, provincial, and territorial Ministers responsible for the Status of Women opened this morning with great expectations. I congratulate the federal Minister for hosting this important conference. We sincerely hope that positive action will result from this year's deliberations.
The situation for women has worsened considerably in one year. Future employment prospects are dismal. Lip service is not enough. All Governments must back up their intentions by committing the necessary resources.
This morning the federal Government unfortunately could not report the implementing of mandatory affirmative action which should be an example for Provinces to follow. Provinces called for a greater federal commitment to educational upgrading and training, particularly for high tech jobs and non-traditional jobs in the future. Adequate pay and protection for women working part-time, and extension of affordable child care, are other issues which urgently require joint action.
While Provinces have gained greater awareness of inequities, most have a long way to go in establishing strong, independent Ministries responsible for the Status of Women. 1 regret that British Columbia did not send either a Minister or a Deputy Minister to this very important meeting. Several Provinces, notably Quebec, Newfoundland, and Manitoba, reported positive programs which are models for other Provinces to follow. However, as the Minister from Quebec stated, it is a long march toward autonomy and equality for women. The march, at least, has begun.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



COST OF PATENTING NEW PRODUCTS

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, last weekend a Member of the New Democratic Party stated that improved patent protection for new drugs would increase the cost to the consumer. He was correct. The consumer always pays. What he forgot to mention was that any increased costs would apply only to new drugs researched and developed in Canada. He also forgot to say that the generic companies, which literally stole their licences to manufacture for a paltry 4 per cent fee, have exported much of their ill-gotton profit out of Canada.
Compulsory licensing, which has been abandoned by other industrialized countries, has cost Canada over $1.2 billion in investment, plus thousands of jobs. The consumer has paid less for a popular tranquilizer. The two cents a pill that he or she has saved has cost thousands of consumers their jobs. That is the real price which has been paid.



FINANCE


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the increase in interest rates, signalled last week by our Bank of Canada rate going to 9.5 per cent, the second substantial increase in two weeks, indicates that the demand by Government to Finance deficits is already starting to crowd out the demand by business for funds, and is already starting to push up interest rates.
The Government must act immediately to change its fiscal plan, to cut back on its borrowing requirements, and to give strong signals to the marketplace that it will not be borrowing moneys indicated in the budget and that it will be reassessing its deficit and spending plans. If there is no immediate change in the Government's borrowing stance, then it is very likely that interest rates will rise rapidly and that any hopes for a recovery will be squashed.
Before the interest rate increase trend sets in too firmly, the Government must act dramatically. The Government could easily cut its spending plans by 5 per cent. This would reduce its borrowing by $5 billion and would significantly reduce the anticipated pressures on financial markets. Moreover, it would indicate to markets that the Government is prepared to be responsible with respect to its debt management. We cannot afford another round of high interest rates.


Mr. Rossi:: Those are your figures.

May 31, 1983



HIGHWAY SAFETY


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, a harsh reality, road trauma, accounts for a greater loss of productive working years than either cancer or cardio-vascular disease. It is the most common cause of death and disability of Canadians under the age of 35 and should, therefore, be a matter of great concern to all Members of the House.
Aggressive community action programs are necessary across Canada to help prevent road accidents. An excellent model is the Council on Road Trauma of Hamilton-Wentworth which has been operating since 1981, and which is the only organization of its kind in Canada. The Council consists of community members, and involves the Academy of Medicine, Regional Police, the Hamilton Auto Club, and the Ministry of Transport. Its action program includes efforts to secure and restrain infants and children in vehicles, to investigate passenger restraints in school buses, to provide emergency care education, to educate high school students on the hazards of impaired driving, to increase awareness by cyclists and motorists of the hazards of cycling, and to assist the police department in evaluating the vehicular related deaths and injuries.
It is a matter of concern to me that this type of organization operating at grass roots levels is not yet utilized by communities across the nation in order to promote road safety measures and to foster accident prevention.



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, the Yukon has supported, to various degrees, placer mines since 1886, and over $365 billion worth of gold has been put on the market by small enterprises and prospectors. Only a very small part of the Yukon area is considered to be viable for this type of mining, about one-tenth of 1 per cent.
At this time, in particular, with all significant hard rock mining shut down, placer mining is tremendously important to that economy and its people, yet the federal Government seems to be doing everything possible to chastise, demoralize, and potentially drive those miners out of business because, environmentally, it has been alleged that there may be some potential danger to some fish in a very few streams which are mined. Two reports, one slightly redone, have placed doubts in miners' minds about the priorities of the Government and its seriousness on coming to realistic grips with the problem-this, after 90 years of mining.
The problem is that public hearings, extremely important to the future of placer mining, are being held at the very time that the mining season begins. These miners need the hearings to put their case forward, which they feel is excellent. The
situation is explosive, and the House must recommend the cancellation of these hearings until late Fall.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Nurses Association has made an important contribution to the debate about the future of medicare in Canada by calling on Canadians to reflect on the inadequacies of the physician-dominated health care model that is now in place, and the way in which this domination contributes to increased health care costs. Their call for a greater variety of points of entry into the health care system, through the insuring of services provided by other health care professionals, and for more emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention, reminds us that a great deal of the cost strains on medicare are not related to the principles of medicare but rather to the prevailing health care model, a model which is not changed but rather reinforced by practices such as extra billing and user fees.
In this respect the Government's shortsighted application of six and five to funding for medical research is particularly tragic. Not only does it deny employment opportunities to the many who would like to work in this vital field, and seriously damages the long-term viability of medical research in Canada, but it precludes any expansion of research into the efficacy of various health care delivery models, research which desperately needs to be done if we are to find an alternative to the costs which our present model generates.
The Government should rethink its penny wise, pound foolish ways, and make up the shortfall in funding as it has been called upon to do by prominent members of the research community in Canada.



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, this week the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies is meeting in Saskatoon. As part of its discussions this conference is analyzing how various federal and provincial laws, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fare in their compliance with the provisions of international treaties signed by Canada, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
For instance, the federal Government refuses to bring forward legislation that would end discrimination against native women under the Indian Act. Canada promised these changes after complaints of native women were taken to the
May 31, 1983

United Nations, but promises are all that this House and the native people have received.
Another example of the Government's refusal to honour treaty obligations can be found in the recent case of Donald Marshall. Article 14(6) of the International Covenant calls upon a signatory nation to provide compensation to persons who have been wrongly convicted or punished for a crime and later subsequently exonerated through new evidence. The Government's actions put the lie to its words.
I call upon the Government to honour these and many other treaty obligations as soon as possible. Canada should be a leader in securing and maintaining rights and freedoms for its citizens. To fail to do so brings shame to our nation and our goal of a free and democratic society for all Canadians.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, over 15 years have elapsed since the Government of Canada, with great and grave controversy, unified our Navy, Army, and Air Force into one service called the Canadian Armed Forces. Whatever the merits or demerits of unification, the reality is that we have, today, distinctive elements in the Armed Forces under the new names of Maritime Command, Mobile Command, and Air Command.
In spite of the official nomenclature, Maritime Command has retained and maintained its status as Canada's Navy. The preservation of this tradition, so many years after unification, should be advocated, not discouraged. The existence of a distinctive naval force in Canada can be effectively publicized by utilizing the historic navy blue uniform. While the use of special insignia and the time honoured marine ranks should also be permitted, the whole world would recognize a navy blue uniform when worn by Canada's naval force.
I appeal to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamon-tagne) to help preserve the naval tradition in Canada by allowing Maritime Command to identify itself as Canada's Navy by wearing a navy blue uniform. The cost of changing military colours is a minor expense to incur in exchange for the strengthened morale that would result by returning Canada's naval force to its navy blue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



NEW EMPLOYMENT EXPANSION AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, when the NEED Program was introduced in October of 1982 it was
Oral Questions
billed as a program to give Canadians who were exhausting UI benefits a chance to work for a short period and then to requalify for unemployment insurance. It was nowhere stipulated that, instead of creating more employment, this Program would mean that other workers would lose their jobs so they could be replaced by people on the NEED Program who would be working for much less, often as little as half the original salaries for these jobs.
Recently the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) acknowledged that there had been some slippage on this point and that he would talk to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) in particular, to insist that employees hired under the NEED Program do not take employment from other workers.
In view of the situation, we, in this Party, would like a categorical assurance from the Government that it will put a stop to the practice of shuffling workers on and off unemployment insurance and calling it job creation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Cousineau:: Who else do you have on your list?


Pat Carney: -my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Finance. At the Williamsburg Summit, seven nations delivered a joint statement which said in part:
We must all focus on achieving and maintaining low inflation and reducing interest rates from their present too high levels.
We renew our commitment to reduce structural budget deficits, in particular, by limiting the growth of expenditures.
How can the Minister square that commitment, to reduce budget deficits and limit government expenditures, with the Government's own record of increasing the deficit by a whopping 50 per cent this year, and increasing expenditures by 12 per cent, which is twice the rate of inflation?


Mr. Nielsen:: Yes or no.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the former critic for finance, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, and in the absence of the former Leader of the Opposition-


Erik Nielsen: I am here.


Paul James Cosgrove: -and, as matter of fact, in the absence of all the candidates who have any opinions on matters of finance for

May 31, 1983
Oral Questions
the Opposition Party, I would be very pleased to attempt to answer the question for the Hon. Member.
There are two items which the Hon. Member, of course, has not taken into account in the recent budget statement of the Minsiter of Finance. The first is the plan by the Government to recover the expenditure for the Special Recovery Fund from a Special Recovery Tax. That tax will come into place 12 to 15 months from now to reduce some of the expenditures used for stimulation at this time. The second is the second part of the speech, the undertaking of the Minister of Finance that the expenditures of government would not exceed the general rate of growth in the economy, and there is the performance of this Government which is consistent with that undertaking over the last five years.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REDUCE AMOUNT OF BORROWINGS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of State for Finance. I can point out that the Leader of the Opposition is here, and our finance critic is here. We are waiting for the day when Hon. Members over there are former Ministers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Cousineau: Speak for yourself.


Pat Carney: Speaking for Canada, the Minister of Finance told the United States that it must reduce its budgetary deficit of about $200 billion in order to reduce interest rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Pat Carney: The Finance Minister warned that continuing high rates of interest could choke off the economic recovery. This is precisely the same argument that my Conservative colleagues and I have been making about this Government's own proposed budget deficit of $31 billion, which is 50 per cent more in relative terms than the United States deficit. If the Government feels that massive government borrowings will force up interest rates, shutting down businesses and throwing people out of work, why does the Government not take its own medicine? Why does it not practise what it preaches?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to know, in fact, what is the position of the-


Erik Nielsen: Government.


Paul James Cosgrove: -Official Opposition, when at least eight different opinions are offered on how the deficit should be treated, by the candidates for leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Mr. Epp:: How are you treating it?


Paul James Cosgrove: It is interesting to know what the Hon. Member's opinion is. That is number nine. I would warrant
that there are probably many, many more different single opinions of Members opposite.
On the question, Madam Speaker, I indicated in my first answer that the Government was concerned about the deficit. Indeed, the Hon. Member criticized the Minister of Finance for introducing the Special Recovery Fund Tax in the budget which was designed to recover, as I say, the expenditures that are used for stimulation at this time, namely, the Special Recovery Projects. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. On one day she cannot complain that the Government is introducing a tax to reduce the deficit and then, on the next day, quarrel that the Government is increasing the deficit. What really is her position on the deficit?


GOVERNMENT OBJECTIVES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my third supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. I am glad he recognizes, in spite of his poor mouthing, that I am the finance critic for this Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The Minister of Finance is quoted as stating that Canada will not change its economic policy in the wake of the Summit because he had achieved all the objectives he had set for himself for the coming year. Do these objectives include an unemployment rate of 12.5 per cent, which reflects two million Canadians without jobs, 3,700 businesses in bankruptcy in the first four months of this year-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is really exaggerating. She is really not asking questions but enumerating a lot of statistics.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I was in the middle of my question-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not to argue with the Speaker. I have just told the Hon. Member that she must go directly to her question.


Pat Carney: Do these objectives, which he says he has achieved, include an unemployment rate of 12.5 per cent, which reflects two million people out of work, 3,700 businesses in bankruptcy, and a faltering economy?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the present interim title or responsibility given to the Hon. Member, I would much rather, when it is apparent from the apparel of the Hon. Member, deal with a red Tory than with some of the Tory leadership candidates who have taken a very hard line on the deficit. It is very difficult to know what is the Conservative position on the deficit.
May 31, 1983

On the question of unemployment, the Minister of Finance has indicated that the figure of 12 per cent is unacceptable. The budget introduced a special recovery capital fund to create jobs at the present time. There is a special recovery fund of S2.4 billion designed to encourage the private sector to get involved and to help assist the Government, to take its share and provide jobs through the stimulation offered by those funds in the budget. We say that that amount of unemployment is not acceptable. There are steps in the budget in order to try to reduce that.


WILLIAMSBURG COMMUNIQUE ON LIMITING EXPENDITURES- GOVERNMENT POLICY
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the Minister ought not to throw stones-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I can remember when he was a full Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I ask the Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is hard for the Speaker to think there is a question coming when the Hon. Member starts with an admonition.


Erik Nielsen: Look to your right.


Madam Speaker:: That may be well placed in a speech, but not in a question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: In light of the communique at Williamsburg which indicated that we should operate by "limiting the growth of expenditures rather than raising taxes", will the Government advise us whether it will be abandoning the plan to increase sale taxes in 1984 as its only method of reducing the deficit?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It is obvious that we have a tenth opinion on how to handle deficits, from the Conservative Party. I wish some day the Hon. Member has a title in his Party, since he is criticizing me for being a Minister of State.
I think I have addressed the answer to that question in my first answer. The Government has taken steps to reduce the deficit by the special recovery tax which will come into effect approximately 12 months from now when the observed recovery will have permitted the economy to be stronger and to afford that kind of recovery tax. Second, the Government indicated that it would maintain its program of not permitting Government expenditures to increase beyond the general rate in the economy, that is, the growth of the GNP.
Oral Questions


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We know about the Government's commitment to reduce expenditures. Its expenditures are really up 18.9 per cent from a year ago.


AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT BORROWING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, let us talk about where we are going in the marketplace. Perhaps the Minister knows about a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce study which indicated that Governments in Canada will be borrowing 82 per cent of domestic savings this year. What effort does the Government have in mind to reduce its demand for funds on the marketplace so that business can grow and will have an opportunity to create jobs? When will the Government cut down its deficits in line with the Winnipeg-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -Williamsburg Summit? What action does the Government have in mind?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am really repeating myself, but I will because the Hon. Member has obviously not paid attention to my first two previous attempts to point out that in the budget there is a program to reduce the deficit, that is, to introduce taxes in approximately 12 months to 15 months under the heading in the budget called the special recovery tax. It is a program commitment by the Government to reduce the deficit and recoup those funds that were introduced to stimulate the economy at this time.
In so far as the question of crowding out is concerned, which I think is implicit in the Hon. Member's question, I doubt if there is a respectable economist in Canada today who would argue that the private sector is presently being crowded or there is any anticipation that there will be crowding by the public sector in the demand for funds.


PRICE OF NATURAL GAS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. From a recent announcement in British Columbia it appears that the intention of its Government is to increase substantially the price of natural gas to consumers in the domestic market. Also it would appear that under the National Energy Program the federal Government made a commitment to consumers that, if they converted from oil to gas, it would see that there was a 65 per cent ratio between the two prices.
Could the Minister tell the House what he intends to do to ensure that British Columbians are not ripped off by a debt-ridden Government, and that in fact a 65 per cent ratio will be

May 31, 1983
Oral Questions
maintained to honour the commitment the Government made to consumers if they converted off oil and on to gas?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, in all cases we have an agreement with the Provinces. For example, in January we decreased the special tax on gas and liquid gas in order to accommodate an increase in the price by the Province of Alberta. If I recall correctly, this decrease applied to British Columbia, but the Government of British Columbia did not increase the price of gas as did the Government of Alberta at that time. I do not know what the plans of the Government of B.C. are at the moment. Of course at the time of the agreement with the Provinces we said that we would reduce the special tax on gas. We did so in January, but very soon we will be running out of that tax because we have decreased it a couple of times in the last while.


PROVINCIAL TAXATION
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, there are two parts to my supplementary question. First I would like to ask the Minister what he said. On the other side of the coin, in terms of the price increase it is very definite that the Province of British Columbia will tax natural gas in order to raise revenues. It will increase the price of natural gas over the next three years, which will close the gap between the price of oil and the price of natural gas as a heating fuel. The Japanese appear to be forcing down the price of oil on the world market, which is an even more serious situation.
Is the Minister prepared to take action to protect not only the consumers of British Columbia but, should it set off a chain reaction across the country, other Provinces which want to earn needed revenue from the taxation of natural gas?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member had listened carefully to what I said he would know that I indicated that we have already decreased the federal tax on gas in January. The British Columbia consumers have benefited from that. But our commitment is related to the federal taxes. The owners of the gas can decide further price increases. Alberta increased the price of gas in March, and I think the Government of British Columbia is planning to do the same at this time. Perhaps the Hon. Member is not satisfied with the Government of British Columbia. He had a chance to say something about it not long ago, but there was a judgment passed by its own people.


PRICE SPREAD BETWEEN OIL AND NATURAL GAS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, my last question is to ask whether the Minister is going to live up to the commitment to maintain a guaranteed spread between the price of oil and gas, or did he simply con the
public when he stated that they would maintain that in order to get people to convert?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I invite the Hon. Member to read the agreement. We said we would maintain that ratio as long as there was tax room in which the federal Government could move. However, we do not control the producer price. It is controlled by the Province which owns the resource. In this case it is the Government of British Columbia, which was reelected a few weeks ago.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the Minister advise whether a contract has been issued to the Moose Factory General Hospital for maintenance and security? There was a two-month interim contract. Has the new contract been issued?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I thought I would have time to locate the answer. I was not given notice of this. I do not know whether a new contract was issued.


REQUEST THAT CONTRACT BE EXTEN DED
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Madam Speaker, the contract expires at midnight tonight, May 31. Will there be an extension of this contract for some period of time? If so, will the Minister explain why a $5,000 per month profit is being given to an interim company for two months, putting 16 workers out of work, workers who could have been used in that two-month period of time? Can the Minister tell me that?


Monique Bégin: No, Madam Speaker, absolutely not, unfortunately.
I would like to have received notice. This is a very small contract among a great number of contracts that we give to universities or others to maintain health services to Indians. If the Hon. Member is suggesting there will be a breach whereby people will be without service, I can immediately deny that. As to the specifics, I will supply them to the Hon. Member later.


AIRPORTS
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the closing of the Charlottetown airport for an eight-week period commencing August 15, in order to resurface the runway. I realize
May 31, 1983

that resurfacing that runway is very important and that good weather is required in order to apply the asphalt. However, has the Minister done everything in his power to ensure that there will be as little adverse effect as possible on the tourist industry? Has the Minister looked into the possibility of closing the airport later, possibly some time in September?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I do not have personal knowledge of the situation regarding the resurfacing of the runway at Charlottetown. I will inquire into it immediately to determine whether all measures have been taken to minimize the aggravation and discomfort of passengers.


REQUEST FOR REPORT
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure he also meant to say that, as soon as he finds out, he will get back to me.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member reads my mind.


PIPELINES
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. For several days we have been asking him questions about the Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline. The Minister has repeatedly responded that that is an American affair and he is waiting until there is some commitment from the American people with regard to its construction. With regard to the pipeline commission across the street, for which there is $5.3 million for the Prime Minister's friend, how does the Minister justify keeping that commission in place if he cannot justify to the Canadian people that there is any hope in the foreseeable and predictable future that the pipeline will in fact be built? How does he justify that continuous expenditure, $3.3 million for staff alone?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I did not say that we can or cannot. We have a project at this time, with the Americans. We have upheld our side of the contract or agreement. The Americans have not been able to fulfil their side of the deal. We have not given up hope of building that pipeline. That is why we have to keep staff in place.


ROLE OF COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, it is not a question of hope. It is a question of how we account for an expenditure of $5.3 million. That expenditure is taking place.
Oral Questions
There has to be some justification for it. We all hope the pipeline will be built and jobs will be created.
How does this Minister justify a former Minister getting half salary, his civil service pension, and his ministerial pension, along with his MP and old age pension? How is he able to collect half his salary as head of the commission? What value are Canadians getting? When will we know when the pipeline is going ahead? If the Minister cannot answer that, why will he not, at least in the interim, stop the existence of the commission?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member we are very fortunate to have Mr. Sharp working on that commission. If there is one Canadian who has very good connections in the United States and knows everyone in the oil and gas industry, it is he. The Hon. Member should be congratulating me for having convinced him to continue working for the Government when he could be enjoying his pension and not doing anything. We are very lucky to have him.

fTranslation]


PENSIONS
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In an article in today's Le Devoir, the Quebec Minister responsible for relations with citizens said the following, and I quote:
Early retirement: Miss Begin has failed to understand the Quebec plan.
I would like to know whether this plan is really going to help Quebecers, which group will be affected, and whether the study which appeared under the title: Outlook for 2030, the future of pension plans, provides for a more flexible policy on pension plans, and whether the Canadian Government has or will have anything particular in mind in this respect.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the first part of the Hon. Member's question is very easy to answer. Dr. Lazure's plan to allow people to retire at sixty will-as far as we can judge since we were not consulted at all-only benefit the rich and well-to-do who already have very good private pension plans, and they are only a very small part of the population. We cannot say it is all bad, and I suppose everyone would like to retire at sixty. But how will people manage to live on $125 a month, since instead of getting the maximum amount of $345 now allowed under the pension plan, they would get only about $125 per month. I think this plan will benefit only those who do not really need any extra benefits, and I am referring to

May 31, 1983
Oral Questions
people who are getting very high private pension payments. To correct this anomaly, we started a long time ago, and we were the first to do it, with a green paper on pensions and national consultation. I regret that Quebec is doing this without consulting us at all, because it may get this issue off to a bad start and create expectations that no one will be able to satisfy. 1 think this kind of policy is most unfortunate.


BANKS AND BANKING
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In the last few days hundreds of thousands of Canadians received their old age pension, Canada Pension or veterans pension cheques from the Government. Like me, they probably went to their local bank yesterday, and had to wait between 30 and 45 minutes because there were only two wickets open. Surely the banks, which are making hundreds of millions of dollars profit and which enjoy such a preferred position in the economy, can give better service to the people of Canada? I ask the Minister if he would take this matter up with the banks.
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, 1 should be glad to transmit the Hon. Member's complaint to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer that question to the Minister of Finance, but he is not here. Every other business in Canada, whether it be a supermarket or a department store, brings in extra staff when it knows that it will have a large number of customers. Surely the banks can do that too. Surely the people of Canada are entitled to better service than they are getting. I would urge the Minister to-


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


LABOUR RELATIONS
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, my question concerns the settlement of the Eastern Provincial Airways strike and is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Labour Relations Board in the absence of the Minister of Labour, although my question could also be answered by the Minister of Justice since it involves a legal question. The Board has decided that Eastern Provincial
Airways management breached the Canada Labour Code, and failed to bargain in good faith and make provisions for a quick return to work by EPA pilots. I would like to know whether the Minister responsible for the Canada Labour Relations Board can assure the House that the Board's decision will be supported and enforced by the Government. I should tell the responsible Minister that the President of Eastern Provincial Airways has made public statements indicating that EPA will not abide by the Board's decision.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour 1 will tell the Hon. Member that, in fact, the Labour Board's decision indicated that EPA must revise its collective agreement. The Labour Board has asked the parties to come forward with new collective agreements. It is our understanding that jurisprudence supports the fact that those particular orders of the Labour Board cannot be in any way delayed even if some kind of an appeal is put forward by the President of EPA. It is our expectation that such orders will proceed according to the present jurisprudence. I would like to have permission to check that out further for the Hon. Member.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response because it indicates that there will be a quick settlement which will put the pilots back to work for Eastern Provincial Airways and Atlantic Canada will benefit from it.


AIRLINESAFETY
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, because the Minister of Transport is also familiar with the problems of Eastern Provincial Airways, I would like to ask him if he has had a chance to look into the matter of safety in the conduct of the airline and if he has decided whether there ought to be a safety audit on the use of aircraft during the strike. Will he respond to our concerns with respect to airline safety and the involvement of the Canadian Transport Commission in the operation of EPA?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I did check once again. I do check almost every two weeks now to make sure that my hon. friend is satisfied. I did check again and I was again reassured that the Department pays much attention to the situation to make sure that the safety of travellers on EPA is not endangered.

[Translation)


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
May 31, 1983

I imagine that the Minister has received a number of representations from representatives of the garment industry during the last few months, urging him to reduce import quotas in order to promote job creation or at least save existing jobs. Could the Minister inform the House whether, following representations made by representatives of the garment industry, the Government intends to respond positively to the requests made by this association?


Mr. Lumley:: Madam Speaker, perhaps I may point out to the Hon. Member that clothing imports are the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of State (External Trade).


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State (External Relations), who, 1 believe, heard my first question. I apologize for not directing my first question to the Hon. Minister. 1 would therefore ask him whether the Government is examining the possibility of responding positively to the arguments submitted by the the Garment Workers Association, and when it will be able to give that response, considering the increasingly urgent aspect of this situation.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of State (International Trade) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of External Affairs have had several meetings to examine this question with representatives of the textile and garment industry, as well as with representatives of import firms.
This year, there has been a development on the market that has given considerable cause for concern. During the first three months of this year, a very large volume of clothing came on the Canadian market from Southeast Asia, mainly from five countries. My colleague, the Minister of State (International Trade), will be submitting a paper on the question to his Cabinet colleagues within the next two weeks.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It has been brought to my attention that it is the intention of the Solicitor General's Department to phase out the Regional Psychiatric Centre in western Canada. Could the Minister advise why his Department is doing this in view of the fact that incarcerated people need this facility so much?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member is referring to the Saskatoon Psychiatric Centre I can assure him that we have no intention to phase it out but that, indeed, work is now under way to find
Oral Questions
a way of improving it, and we certainly do not intend to close it down.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In light of the urgency of the acid rain problem, does the Minister know whether the Prime Minister used the occasion of the Williamsburg Summit to discuss that issue informally with the American President, and in any event, does the Minister know whether the Prime Minister discussed any bilateral issues with the American President on that occasion? If so, and if not the question of acid rain, which issues were discussed?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that question in relation to the entire range of bilateral issues. I do not know whether the acid rain issue was touched upon in an informal way. It was not the formal intention to do so since, as the Prime Minister knew, 1 had met with the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency on the Friday immediately preceding the Williamsburg Summit, and because a series of mechanisms has already been arranged for discussing those issues between myself and my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Secretary of State of the United States and Mr. Ruckelshaus of the EPA. There is already an established forma] pattern of continuing contact that will assist us with those discussions. There was no need to deal with these issues formally at the Williamsburg Summit.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of the Environment. Does the Minister not think that the Williamsburg Summit would have been the ideal occasion for the Prime Minister to raise that urgent environmental issue with the American President, even informally if not through the formal structures of the conference? Does he not think that Canada's acid rain campaign would be greatly helped in a general way if he were to get more backing from his Cabinet colleagues, and especially from the Prime Minister who has all but ignored this most urgent problem?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, those two questions are absurd. The answer to the first part of the absurdity is no, the bilateral discussions on acid rain between Canada and the United States are more appropriately carried out in a bilateral forum and not a multilateral forum. In answer to the second part of the absurdity, I do receive very strong support on the acid rain issue from all of my colleagues including the Prime Minister who has raised it several times with the President of the United States.

May 31, 1983
Oral Questions
I have no reason whatsoever to complain about the very strong support they have given to me, and the Elon. Member should not complain either.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Some Hon. Members:: Sing the blues.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the only blues will be on the Liberal side after the next election.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I had intended to ask a question of the Minister responsible for emergency planning, but in his absence I direct another question to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport will be tabling proposed amendments to the Crow legislation today. In light of the fact that he will have a press conference after three o'clock in room 130S, I wonder if he can enlighten the Members of Parliament, who represent the people of Canada, as to what the nature of those changes will be.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will make that announcement in a few minutes. I was told, though, that procedurally 1 could not introduce amendments during the second reading of the Bill, and I submitted to that view. That is why 1 should not be accused of lese-majeste because 1 did not provide the documents. The Opposition will have the documents in a few minutes. 1 will announce them later this afternoon, as 1 promised. This has to do with the safety net and with the addition of specialty crops to the statutory rate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, one of the great problems we have had in the House is that the Minister insists, and persists, on moving outside the House to make statements of major consequence to so many Canadians.


REQUEST THAT AMENDMENTS BE PRESENTED TO HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister when he is going to stop having debate outside the House of Commons and thus avoiding his responsiblity in the House? When is he going to bring these matters before the House so that we can ask questions, let alone the Press Gallery?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I definitely tried to do it the way my hon. friend is saying I should have done it. I was told that procedurally I could not do it. That is why I am doing it differently now. I was told that the Official Opposition was not opposed to that way of doing it.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL-APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT RESTRAINT PROGRAM
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is with regard to the concern expressed by members of the research community in Canada about the application of six and five to the funding of the Medical Research Council. This concern has been brought to the attention of Members of Parliament and the Government by eight former presidents of Canadian Federation of Biological Societies who are concerned about the paradox the Government has created. On the one hand it is restraining the funding for medical research and, on the other hand, it is trying to develop a long-term plan. They have expressed some very serious concerns about the damage that will be done to the long-term viability of the research base in Canada as a result of the cutbacks in funding to the Medical Research Council.
I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether she has had a chance to review the concerns expressed by these important members of the research community. Will she provide the $20 million they have requested to make up the shortfall that has been identified? If she is not going to provide that money, could she tell the House why not?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the need for more money in medical research. I do not think anyone would dispute that. There have not been any cutbacks in the way the Hon. Member has suggested, except that the general policy of six and five, which does not apply to medicare, does apply to Crown corporations and agencies and in that way affects the Medical Research Council. The whole question of more adequate funding for the MRC is under review by Cabinet at the moment.


REQUEST THAT FUNDING BE RESTORED
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, there is nothing to review. We have a fact before us, and that is that only a small percentage of those who applied for new funding have been accepted. That is not something that is under review; it is a fact. We want action from the Minister to restore the necessary funding so that what is really under review, which is the long-term development plan, can have some authenticity. Will the Minister do that in the meantime?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, as the Minister I have to look arrogant and I regret that, but when I explain to the Hon. Member that the matter is under review it means exactly that-the matter is under review. That includes a five-year plan. It is so obvious that I did not know the Hon. Member did not know that it includes funding.
May 31, 1983


THE CONSTITUTION
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I should like to know when the Government intends to bring forward the Bill that arises out of the communique from the Constitutional Conference that was just held. Will that be done before the summer recess?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I certainly hope so. I understand the Hon. Member is referring to the constitutional amendment resulting from the conference on native peoples in March. I hope that Bill can be introduced very soon, and I hope that now that we have had endorsation by all the four native organizations, we can proceed quickly with it. If we have the co-operation of the Opposition Parties we can do just that.


PREPARATIONS FOR SECOND CONFERENCE
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, is it also the intention of the Government to instigate meetings between the participating native groups after this Bill has been introduced, or before, in order to prepare them adequately for the next conference to be held within a year? Months have passed already and nothing seems to have been accomplished since the last conference.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the two are independent, the introduction and passage of the constitutional amendment by the House and the Provinces, and proceeding with discussions for the next conference. I can assure my hon. friend that we intend to proceed vigorously with discussions leading to the next conference. We plan to have a meeting at the official level, within the next month, I believe. The native peoples have asked for time before proceeding with the next stage, but I think all parties are about ready to begin the process leading up to negotiations.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the genial President of the Treasury Board about matters in which he has often expressed great interest-special procedures and cost-effectiveness, value for money, and accountability. In this area I want to draw his attention to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail today, which indicates a certain amount of concern by one of their ace reporters about the lack of specificity, to use another well-known word, in the expense accounts of some Ministers. I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board is going to look into this lamentable situation and take steps to correct it.
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to look into it. I understand that the guidance to Ministers from the Privy Council Office is exactly the same as that provided to Ministers of the previous administration.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, obviously the assiduity with which Ministers are following it is not equal to the standards of the previous administration, because we have seen other instances.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONDUCT EXAMINATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker,
I should like to ask the Minister again whether he is concerned about this and if he will look into the matter seriously?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to look into it. It is not clear that the administrative policy manual in question is intended to apply to Ministers as distinct from the guidance from the Privy Council Office which, as far as I am aware, is being followed by Ministers. It is exactly the same as was provided to Ministers in the previous administration.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I am sure the Minister has seen the Government publication which I think is known as Foreign Trade. It has a very interesting article about the installation in Barbados of the most advanced radar installations in the world, put in place by a Canadian company, Raytheon. I wonder when the Minister is going to provide radar installations in Canadian international airports as well, such as Victoria International Airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the selection process for the radar is under way. The number of companies has been reduced to two and a choice will be made in the coming weeks. Production will then start and delivery of the radar equipment will take place in due course. Victoria is still first on the list.


DATE OF INSTALLATION
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I think all Canadians who have the opportunity to visit Barbados will be very pleased that there is Canadian radar there. I think it would also be true that those who have an opportunity to visit Victoria would like to know when will radar be established at Victoria International Airport. I should like to know whether the Minister has a date for the installation of radar at Victoria International Airport.

May 31, 1983
Business of the House


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, Raytheon is one of the two companies on the list for the production of this radar. If my memory serves me well, the first radars will be introduced by 1986, according to the present plan. As I said, Victoria should be one of the first to receive one, so my hon. friend can promise radar for about that time.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture who is in charge of the Farm Credit Corporation. Within two weeks of the new fiscal year the $100 million in funds that was allocated in the budget for special farm loans for farmers in financial distress, had run out. Many more farmers would like to apply, but cannot because there are no funds. Since the Minister of Public Works recently found $75 million for buyers of new homes, is the Minister of Agriculture planning to increase the funding of FCC for this very important program in the near future? Is he also planning to waive the penalty clause on Farm Credit Corporation loans in order that farmers in financial distress may renegotiate their high interest rate loans at a more affordable rate?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, first of all 1 believe the Hon. Member should realize that the very capable Minister of Public Works found the $75 million within his budget for the year. 1 would like to have that capacity to find the money within Farm Credit, but the demand for our money was so great that we do not have any left. We are negotiating at the present time to try to raise additional funds. We are having discussions on the mortgage rates, to which the Hon. Member referred, which were higher last year. However, Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows as well as I that although they were higher than we would like them, they were still about 5 per cent below the rate at which anyone else in any other sector of the community could borrow. We are reviewing that matter, but I cannot promise what we will come up with.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on Government business.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I have a question I would like to ask today in order that the Government House Leader
might consider it before our meeting which normally takes place tomorrow.
Is it the intention of the Government to bring forward legislation for debate and passage before the end of June which is now not currently on the Order Paper? In particular, does the Government propose to bring forward the Canada student loan amendments for passage before the end of June?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member agrees to pass that legislation now, we are ready to do so without debate.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the issue is not whether we are agreed to pass it now. Is it possible that we in the House of Commons might see the legislative program which the Government hopes to have in place by the end of June in order that we can attempt, as we are supposed to do, to allocate adequate time for proper debate and consideration?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I sent a letter to the House Leaders immediately after the Easter recess outlining the main Bills with which we wanted to deal. When we have to call some legislation which is not on the list I provided to the House Leaders after Easter, and before that, after Christmas, I usually meet with them to discuss it. If the situation occurs that we want to deal with some new legislation within the next few days which is not in the letter I sent to the Hon. Member, yes, indeed, I would be pleased to negotiate with him. We do not intend to call legislation if we have no chance of success in getting it through before the end of June.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourteenth report of the Standing Committee on Transport.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON CONDITIONS IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE
Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the response of the Government of Canada to the Report of the Royal Commission on Conditions in the Foreign Service.
May 31, 1983


PETITIONS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition signed by numerous employees and unemployed individuals in the shipyards of Canada, asking that the Government implement an adequate marine industrial strategy. And I expressly urge federal Government to consider the two-two-two division in the frigate program.


Raymond John Skelly: I have a second petition, Madam Speaker. It is from the residents of Sointula, British Columbia, who have signed strongly in favour of advocating that the Government implement an absentee ballot system for the Canada Elections Act prior to the next federal election.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, just so that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) knows we are still here, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition signed by 37 residents of Canada from Kenora, Saltcoats, Ebenezer and Verigin, 34 of whom are members of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, in which they humbly pray that the Government will retain the Crow rate; that they are willing to pay one times the statutory grain rate for the movement of grain; and that the $131 million which they paid last year is their full and proper share for the movement of grain under the statutory rates.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,838, 4,903 and 4,916.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the Government enter into discussions with the Province of New Brunswick to examine the possibility of sharing the cost of construction of a second nuclear generator at Point Lepreau, New Brunswick and. if so, on what date and at what level did the discussions take place?
2.	Did the Government make any commitment to share in the cost of building Lepreau II and, if so, on what date are tenders likely to be called?


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
Borrowing Authority
1.	No specific proposal with regard to sharing the cost of construction of a second nuclear power plant at Point Lepreau has been discussed as yet between the federal Government and the Government of New Brunswick.
2.	The only financial commitment the federal Government has made regarding Lepreau II is the authorization for AECL to spend up to $10 million to initiate preliminary studies to determine the economic viability of the project. A schedule for calling of tenders has not been established.


Mr. Anguish: In the past two years, how many (a) letters (b) telegrams (c) names (signatures) on petitions did the Minister of Transport receive supporting retention of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: From March 1, 1982 to May 12, 1983, the Minister received the following items in support of retaining the Crowsnest Pass freight rate: (a) and (b) 2,213 (approx.), (c) 36,500 (approx.).


Mr. Hovdebo: How many (a) letters (individual or group) (b) petitions (c) telegrams (d) other communications did the Minister of Transport receive on the subject of the Crowsnest Pass freight rate since the appointment of the inquiry by Dr. Clay Gilson on February 8, 1982 and how many of the signatures on these communications (i) favoured retention of (ii) requested changes to the Crow rate?


Jesse Philip Flis: From March 1, 1982 to May 16, 1983, the Minister received the following items regarding the Crowsnest pass freight rate: (a) and (c) 2,282 (approx.), (b) and (d) 36,500 (approx.), (i) 38,713 (approx.), (ii) 69 (approx.).


David P. Smith: I would ask 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-151, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to
[Stage Direction]
May 31. 1983
Borrowing Authority
the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, we are again asked by the Government to give authority for the borrowing of several billion dollars more in order to meet the costs of operating Government programs for the coming year. We are opposed to this borrowing Bill. We are going to vote against it. Not because we are opposed to borrowing money. Not because we are opposed to deficit financing. We are opposed to this Bill because we see no intention on the part of the Government to deal with the serious problems which this country faces. We see a Government which is prepared, according to the documents tabled at the time of the budget, to live with more than 10 per cent of the population unemployed for X number of years. We cannot accept that. We can see no concerted, well-thought-out plan by the Government to deal with the major problems facing this country.
I would like to spend just a few moments dealing with some of the points made by a number of the Conservative Members of Parliament this morning. In their attacks on the Government and in their attacks on the deficit, one could not help but feel that they believe, or were trying to create the impression, that this Government is the only Government which is running deficits, that somehow these deficits could be avoided.
It is interesting to look at the record of the provincial Governments. We see that every provincial Government will operate this year with a deficit. Let me just put on record some of the figures which were reported by The Globe and Mail on January 24, 1983. The Province of Alberta, the wealthiest Province in this country, will have a deficit of $2.3 billion. How are they going to deal with their problem? They are going to deal with their problem by putting a user's fee on the people who can least afford it, the sick when they must go to hospital.
The Province of British Columbia, which has a so-called Social Credit Government but which we know is really a Liberal-Conservative coalition, will have a deficit of $1 billion.
The Province of New Brunswick will have a deficit of $250 million.
The Province of Nova Scotia will have a deficit of $170 million.
The Province of Ontario will have a deficit of $2.2 billion.
The Province of Saskatchewan, which has a new Conservative Government, will have a deficit of $220 million, which is probably a bigger deficit than in all the years of the New Democratic Government under Premier Blakeney.
I ask Hon. Members of Parliament what the deficit of these Provinces would be if it were not the case that so many of the programs for health insurance, hospital insurance, postsecondary education, the Canada Assistance Plan, and all the others, were cost shared by the federal Government. All the Provinces would have larger deficits if the federal Government were not involved in funding these programs. The deficits are not because Governments have been wasteful, although there
is, of course, waste in every Government, as there is in every large institution, public or private.
The deficits are the result of this major recession. The only way they might be eliminated would be if we took the meat axe approach to cutting social programs, as President Reagan has in the U.S. I point out to our Conservative friends that in the four years President Reagan will be in office he will probably be responsible for increasing the U.S. deficit by somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. That from a President who was absolutely opposed to deficit financing. I note that none of the Conservative Party leadership candidates is advocating major reductions in any of our social programs.
However, I want to say just a few words about why I cannot vote for this Bill. It is because this Government uses the money for political reasons and in wasteful ways. To use my own city as an example, the downtown core of Winnipeg has been declining for a long time. It has lost a third of its population. Business establishments, from the largest like Eaton's and Hudson's Bay, to the small retailers, are suffering. Many of them are going bankrupt. Downtown Winnipeg will not be revitalized unless there is a major, well thought out plan to do so.
Each of the three levels of Government has agreed to put in $32 million towards a program to revitalize the core area. Of course, the federal Government, through many other programs such as DREE, the Department of Transport or the Department of Employment, has tens of millions of dollars to be spent in Winnipeg which could be used to revitalize the city. For years it has been recognized that this could not and would not happen unless we had a redevelopment plan that put in place a large number of housing units near what used to be the most vital business area in the City of Winnipeg. There are many people in the downtown core in the daytime. They come to work between eight and nine o'clock in the morning and they go home between 4.30 and 5.30 in the afternoon. They have an hour or an hour and a half for lunch-not enough to liven up the area.
What the downtown core needs is well planned redevelopment with a large housing component, but what they are getting through the urging of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), who seems to have control of all the federal money which goes into the city, is a number of poorly thought out, harebrained, off the cuff proposals. We get a proposal for an arena. Winnipeg already has an arena; we do not need another one. Along with that we would need a 2,000 car parking garage which would cost $30 million. We do not need it. We have a proposal for a hotel when existing hotels in Winnipeg are operating far from capacity. We are getting an Air Canada building which is being designed without any reference to the existing surrounding buildings. It does not blend in. There will be no stores or restaurants on the ground floor as there are in other privately owned or Government buildings in other cities. We are going to get a National
May 31, 1983

Research Council building, the idea being that it will develop its research and bring in private businesses which will build the kind of new products developed by the centre. There will be no space for them. It will not be the same situation as in places like Boston or Silicon-Valley in California. We are supposed to get a CBC building which will add nothing to the downtown core of Winnipeg.
What Winnipeg needs is not one or two buildings as the Minister has proposed and which are given front page publicity. What we need is an over-all plan to draw people into the area. Besides housing, we need to know that the new buildings will fit in with the existing buildings, that there will be walkways and arcades to protect against the heat of Summer and the snow and wind of Winter. We need a rapid transit system which could use the existing railway right-of-way to bring people from the University of Manitoba to the downtown area.
These are the kinds of things we need. The people who have been interested in the redevelopment of Winnipeg for years have been hoping to get these kinds of things. We had hoped the three levels of Government would co-operate in this development, but we have had a kind of bull in the china shop approach of the Minister of Employment. He has the money and he has tried to bulldoze these harebrained schemes through in the City of Winnipeg.
I cannot vote for this borrowing authority, Mr. Speaker, because I cannot see that this Government is prepared to do the kind of planning to provide the jobs and services required and meet the needs of the ordinary people of Canada.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am pleased to participate in this debate but, frankly, it is a bit depressing. In fact, it is greatly depressing to be standing here for the fourth, fifth or sixth time in this incredibly long session debating a Bill to give authority to that group of bandits to go out and borrow another absolutely colossal amount of money, $19 billion. This is literally beyond human comprehension. We do not know how much $19 billion is; no one can get their head around that figure. What we do know is that it is going to have to be paid off at some time. That is what is most depressing.
We stand here making our speeches and we know that ultimately a vote will occur. The trained sheep and seals in the backbenches of the Liberal Party will say "Aye, sir, aye" to the request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for this authority. No one will really think about or contemplate that $19 billion, or think about the fact that future generations are going to have to pay that debt off, or about the fact that those who follow us will have the responsibility for the social programs that the Hon. Member for the NDP talked about.
Family Allowances are not going to go away; old age pensions are not going to go away; the assistance we provide medicare is not going to go away. The next generation will have the responsibility to pay for those programs. It will have to look at this generation in our old age. Obviously they are going to be interested in having money for themselves, educating their children and providing a good standard of living for
Borrowing Authority
themselves. But they are going to have to pay off this incredible legacy of debt.
We have left to the generation that follows a much poorer legacy than our parents left us. This Parliament, this Government, took over a country built by our predecessors which was much stronger, better placed than the one this crew is going to leave for those who follow us. That is what is depressing about what we are doing. We participate in the debate, we try and raise these concerns, but we know full well that our words fall on deaf ears. They will make not one whit of difference. After the Bill is passed the bureaucracy will go out, borrow the money and spend it as though it were nothing. To them it does not amount to anything. They will not lose one minute of sleep. There will not be one iota of expression of concern for the fact that this Bill will have to be paid off by the next generation. That is depressing.
The other depressing thing about this debate is the irrelevancy of this whole institution, all of us who are elected by the population of Canada, to the process of Government budgeting, spending, taxing and so on. Undoubtedly we in Canada have the most ridiculous system imaginable. It is certainly not democratic; it is anything but. Think about it. At the end of February each year, this year included, the President of the Treasury Board solemnly presents to the House the best estimate of spending for the fiscal year starting April 1. It is a great big, colossal, thick book. Members of Parliament, who have the responsibility for watching the public purse, for examining expenditures, are supposedly to oversee and examine the proposals, the estimates of the Government, and to deny the appropriations for inappropriate expenditures, to be the watchdog.
What happens in reality? In reality, nothing happens because, in fact, if the House does nothing, at the end of June the Government's proposals are passed in total anyway. If we attempt to do anything, the trained seals on the Government backbenches will prevent us. There is no one on the Government side who has the courage to challenge a Minister or the proposals of the Government. Therefore, in effect, the whole exercise is an exercise in futility.
Perhaps one can forgive it partially. I do not think one could forgive it if one has respect for democracy. However, perhaps one might partially understand it if the numbers were at least accurate, if one knew that that was really the amount the Government would spend. However, we know that those numbers bear only a passing resemblance to reality, because six weeks after the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) solemnly presented his estimate of spending this year, the Minister of Finance gave us another number which amounted to a difference of some $600 million. We are still supposedly seized with the responsibility of overseeing spending estimates for this year. We knew just six weeks after the estimates were presented to us that they were already inaccurate. Did the President of the Treasury Board say; "I regret that my estimates are inaccurate"? Did he issue a press release

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
correcting the figures which he had presented? Did he say: "My original estimate of increased spending this year of 9.6 per cent is now wrong because the Minister of Finance has increased the spending"? Did any of those things happen? Of course, none of those things happened.
On the taxing side, on the revenue side, what is the role of the House? The new taxing regime has effectively been law since April 19, the day the Minister of Finance presented his budget. Oh yes, we must pass some amendments to the Income Tax eventually. However, they will backdated, retroactive to April 19, so effectively that means they cannot be changed. Therefore, on the expenditure side there is no control by the House. There is no accurate information from the Government because it can change very quickly, as it has done.
On the taxing side, we were in the preposterous situation of not being able to have any input into what was proposed. So that is effectively law. When they do not match, here comes a borrowing authority Bill of $19 billion. One might say, understandably: "If one is to spend more than one takes in, one needs to borrow some money, and therefore the borrowing authority should be that difference". Should it, Mr. Speaker? No, it is not. The borrowing authority is not the difference between revenue and expenditure. The borrowing authority is some other number that we know is out by $4 billion or $5 billion, anyway. The whole process is absolutely absurd.
If we were being honest in this place, we are fraudulently collecting indemnities from the public of Canada-


Paul James Cosgrove: Speak for yourself.


Harvie Andre: -as representatives of this House.


Paul James Cosgrove: You're never here. You have to be here to collect.


Harvie Andre: There is the mouthpiece, the junior Minister of Finance, saying "Speak for yourself'.


Paul James Cosgrove: You have to be here to collect, but you're never here.


Harvie Andre: The junior Minister of Finance has yet to contribute anything at all. Even if he contributed some thoughtful discussion once in a while in this place, perhaps he would justify some fraction of what he is receiving from the taxpayers.


Paul James Cosgrove: At least I'm here.


Harvie Andre: He says that at least he is here. He is a well trained seal. He says: "At least I am here as a well trained seal, saying, "What would you like, sir? Aye, sir, aye'". That kind of performance can be replaced by a teddy bear with a mechanical arm. That is all one needs. A teddy bear with a mechanical arm could perform that function. That is not why we are elected. That is not what the public expects of us.


Paul James Cosgrove: It expects you to be here.


Harvie Andre: That is why we, Government Members in particular, are in fact fraudulently pretending to our electorate that we are here representing them, that we are here genuinely
acting on behalf of the people who elected us. That is absurd. We are not, because we have no power to act. There is nothing we can do.
There is no ability in the House to do anything on behalf of our constituents. Any Hon. Member opposite who is honest will admit that fact. We just stand here and watch these colossal sums going by: $89 billion worth of spending, $70 billion worth of taxing, $19 billion worth of borrowing. The zeros just keep adding on, and we care not one whit. Therefore the next generation will have to pay for it. "So what? We will not be here. It is the next group which will look after it. Who cares about that? By then we will be in the Senate or appointed to the chairmanship of CNR or Air Canada or some other worthy office which comes from being a loyal, stuffed teddy bear which says, "Aye, Sir, Aye" at the appropriate time." That is all the Government cares about. That is what is so fraudulent.
If we were in fact genuinely overseeing the public purse, spending, taxing and borrowing would come down at the same time and they would not become law until this place judged on the question. That is the system in the United States, in Australia and in countries which still have democracy. It is long past the time we should have returned to that.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, like everyone else on this side of the House, have risen to speak on Bill C-151, a Bill which covers one side of a piece of paper measuring eight inches by ten inches or maybe eight inches by eleven inches, a Bill representing in sum total $14 billion plus, added to the $5 billion which was carried over from another borrowing Bill amounting to $14.7 billion. As well, the Bill includes the provision that on March 31, 1984, if there is any sum which exceeds $2 billion left over, a little bit in a slush fund, just a little bit extra to play with, it will be cancelled because, after all, that is not very much money, $2 billion.
This is the seventh time this session the Government has come before the House of Commons asking us to approve borrowing authority for money because the Government is spending much faster than its revenues are rising. That could be accepted if the expenditures of the Government and the huge deficit has made a contribution to the well-being of the people of Canada, who in fact are responsible for paying off the debt.
In 1982-83, the Government came before the House with four different borrowing Bills. Bill C-143 was the largest borrowing Bill brought in by a Government in the history of Parliament. There has been mismanagement and overuse of this authority, which all Governments must have, by the federal Government, which still has $16 billion left over from Bill C-145. The Government still has $16 billion left over from Bill C-143. The projections of the Government for the current fiscal year are $26.7 billion. The most this Government needs with the left over $16 billion is $10.7 billion. As the Hon.
May 31, 1983

Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) pointed out, if you take into account the Government's own on hand cash balances, the Government needs only to borrow $7.7 billion. That is all the Government needs in additional borrowing authority.
But we are asked, as Members of Parliament, blindly to approve borrowing authority for a Government which, as I hope to show later on, has not been responsible to the people of Canada in the expenditures it has undertaken. People presume that the Government is responsible to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada, and that we as Members of Parliament, in turn, are responsible to the people of Canada. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he brought in his budget, to save his own hide-a facade for the people of Canada-literally with the stroke of a pen, added $200 million. Just with the stroke of a pen the Minister of Finance threw in $200 million to change the budget he exposed through his asinine tomfoolery and his showmanship.
I do not know what the rush is to have this Bill passed, but I would presume that if this Bill is rammed through, as the Government wishes to do, then Parliament will not be able to scrutinize for the balance of this fiscal year any spending which this Government wants to undertake. This Government, and Members of the NDP who support the Government, have much the same policy lines. The Leader of the NDP in March of 1983, as reported in Grainews, said:
What we're going to be doing is to express in emotional terms the need for action, rather than worrying about the details of the action that's needed.
That is what we see. It is a policy of "never mind what happens with the money. Just get the money, spend it and hope that after a long period of time some benefit accrues". It is policy of "for goodness sakes do not plan, do not set out priorities and do not try to bring the employment rate, which is devastating this country, below 10 per cent". It is a policy of "continue to borrow money and throw it against the wall. Some of it will stick and maybe then there will be some good for the people of Canada from this spending".
The people who pay for this Bill are the taxpayers of Canada. They will pay an additional $5.7 billion in tax increases over the next four years. The next Government and the next generation will inherit this burden, this legacy of debt, which this Government has put upon us.
The Government talks about fast-tracking. It is certainly fast-tracking when it comes to spending. In the past 15 years under this Government spending has increased almost 700 per cent. Since the re-election of the Liberal Government in 1980 spending has increased 84 per cent on a national accounts basis. Government spending now is equal to 26 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product. Over one-quarter of our productivity is channelled directly into Government and spent by the Government. What has been the result, Mr. Speaker?
In 1970-1971 the deficit was $370 million and the unemployment rate was 5.7 per cent. In 1975-1976 the deficit was $5.4 billion and the unemployment rate was 7 per cent. Today, with a projected deficit of over $31 billion, the unemployment
Borrowing Authority
rate tops 12 per cent. If we look at the projections of a $25 billion per year deficit over the next four years and the unemployment rate projected at well over 10 per cent for the same period; we see that the way this Government has been spending its funds and the way it has been abusing the power has not decreased unemployment. It has not helped those who wish to have jobs.
A $30 billion deficit works out to about $1,200 per man, woman and child. This Government is applying a debt of nearly $5,000 to each average family of four. That money is being borrowed on behalf of every average family in Canada. The people will have to pay off that debt through increased taxes.
Where could the Government have saved some money? Where was it not necessary for the Government to become involved and spend the money which taxpayers work hard to earn who would like to have a little bit left for themselves, a little bit to put away for a rainy day, and a little bit to enjoy on a holiday? This Government did not have to spend $350,000 on an advertising campaign in Quebec which gave out misleading information on the Crow. The Government did not have to spend an extra $300,000 on Crow ads in western Canada on a four-page circular to give different information that contradicted the $350,000 it had spent before along with a small brochure it sent to each permit holder of the Canadian Wheat Board. Over $1 million was spent on advertising the change in the statutory rate for grain. The Government could have brought the subject of the Crow into the House of Commons. The issue could have gone to committee. We could have debated the issue. Representations could have been made at committee stage. This process would not have cost the taxpayers of Canada. But it is not just the $1 million I have spoken about.
Let us examine some expenses of the Standing Committee on Transport. I would presume, because of the change in budgeting for the 1983-1984 fiscal year, that this Committee will have non-staff travel expenses, that is, expenses for professional services. The amount involved is $145,000 for travel. We did not have that expense last year. Let us look at the expense for Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence. Last year the Standing Committee on Transport budgeted for $57,000. That amount is now up to $98,000. The total for this coming year will probably be $110,000. Let us look at the cost of advertising for this Committee. It is $50,000. What about professional services? The amount there is $300,000. Now we come to this item of rentals. If committee hearings are held in Ottawa there is not a thing to rent. The amount opposite that category is $25,000. But look at what we have for miscellaneous. The amount is $115,860. Miscellaneous, just a small item.
I see that you are indicating my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the courtesy. Let me say once again that I feel a great deal of regret at the spending of this Government.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in four months that I have

Borrowing Authority
spoken on borrowing Bills. The first time, if I remember correctly, I tried to put across to the house the necessity in Canada of getting our interest rates down. The second time I put forward a couple of ideas about how to keep interest rates going down, and on this occasion I will simply use one technique that 1 believe is mentioned in the Bill.
Essentially, what we are at the end of is about eight years of a policy by all Governments to spend their way to prosperity and political support. Now we are paying the price.
In 1974 this Parliament accepted two budgets. Those budgets double taxation on the resource industries of Canada by the law of this land. That started us on the road to this tremendous borrowing. It was hoped inflation would come so that the borrowing could be paid back in cheaper dollars. This tend kept up. We applied in the year 1975, when I believe it started, a type of monetarism in our monetary policy that tried to control things by raising interest rates. Of course, this was the most fatal blunder of all. Interest rates were the inflation. Honest and sincere people in our various central banks around the world thought that if they could get interest rates up higher this would control the inflationary process. However, interest is the biggest cost there is today in large and small scale enterprises. The inflationary pressure of the cost push which comes from raising interest rates destroyed not only the little person, whether he was a farmer or a small-businessman, but the largest international companies all over the world. This is the situation we face. We were told several months ago that the Government wanted to borrow all these billions of dollars at a time when the country was striving desperately to get out of what was almost a depression, with many businesses going bankrupt and the cash flow declining. When the Government announced that it would borrow large sums of money, a terror went through the business world. When businessmen saw large amounts of deficits, not only in Canada but in other countries of the world, they thought that there would be no money for them to borrow themselves.
My warning has been constant-are there not other ways to get around the situation? I have tried to put forward some constructive suggestions. For example, on March 28 I suggested that we use the Bank of Canada like the Americans were using their federal reserve system. Their charts showed that since last July the money supply carefully put into circulation by the federal reserve had had increased by more than 10 percent. If we look at the charts for Canada, the money supply went up and down but now it is roughly the same as it was a year ago, if measured by the M-l figure. The point of my suggestion was to indicate that as the Americans used their federal reserve system to get a little more money into circulation slowly and carefully, not saying too much about it, inflation came down. According to the book, when more money is put into circulation inflation is supposed to rise. But the opposite happened because, as they put a greater amount of money into circulation slowly, interest rates came down with it. The real inflation was the inflation rate. This is why the
May 31, 1983
inflation rate dropped in the United States, and our country naturally followed.
We are at a very critical time. Our interest rates have come down a little, to around 10 per cent, using the bank rate and the prime rate. But they must come down another 2 per cent or 3 per cent to let us hang on. If we are to use the credit system in our business operations we must be able to do so at a reasonable cost which is not inflationary. Our country is beginning to struggle to rise to its feet again and the inflation rate is falling. If we want to check that gentle motion, all we have to do is to throw the big borrowings on to the Canadian markets and the United States. Then we will see inflation rise once again.
Again I suggest that we should look carefully at using the Bank of Canada. The law allows us to do so. It has been used by previous Governments to take advantage carefully of everything they could to save them from borrowing more money. As we know, this can be done under the Bank of Canada Act without interest.
My second suggestion, which I have been making in the House for two years, was that various Government agencies which have the power to lend money should use that power by accepting money from any source under the Farm Credit Corporation. They do not have to borrow it from the federal Government, but they could lend that money at half the interest rates. They could take away the tax rights of the borrowers and not apply tax to the lenders in order to arrive at half the interest rates. We could apply this suggestion to housing, to exporting and the Farm Credit Corporation, which covers a great section of our needs. The techniques of the Small Business Development Bond and of the income averaging annuity available, the people of Canada will provide all the money needed for these agencies outside the Government to supply the capital we need at a low interest rate in order to operate.
Bill C-151 has a clause which has been in other Bills. I would like to draw attention to it. Subclause 2(3) reads:
For greater certainty, any amount borrowed under this section may be borrowed in a currency other than that of Canada-


An Hon. Member:: It is always there.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: That is right, but the point is that it has not been used to the extent it should have been used. I know of one or two cases where it has been used but at high rates of interest. I am simply saying to the Government in all seriousness that with world banks overflowing with money it could go to any group of German or Swiss banks-and we know from where the money comes-and borrow money as low as 6 per cent as long as it is repaid in the currency in which it was borrowed. The Government could borrow all the money it wants, whether it be $14 billion or $20 billion. If it wants to be sure about the exchange rate, there is a special system whereby all banks work together to provide an insurance, for which the Goverment would have to pay a very small premium, in case of any future changes in the value of the currency.
May 31, 1983

Why should the Government go out and invade the markets of Canada and relieve the banks of their danger-they have too much money-by borrowing money at 10 per cent, 11 per cent and 12 per cent? It is almost criminal, bearing in mind that money is begging to be borrowed at 6 per cent for governments.
1 know private businesses found this out. They cannot obtain money as cheaply as 6 per cent, but they have discovered that they can go to these money sources and borrow huge sums with no interest. What they do in exchange is to give a share of their profits in the form of shares or in the form of an interest in the profits. Even though the Government cannot use this technique of giving a share of the profits, because rarely does a government show a profit, it can be used by various Government agencies to relieve pressure on the Treasury. Above all, the Government should not go out and borrow in the United States where interest rates are too high. All western Governments are appealing to the American Government to watch its money supply because theirs have been rising for almost a year now. They have probably gone too far, but there are indications that they are now levelling off. We should continue to attempt to reduce our interest rates because if we get the interest rates down, inflation down and prices down, we may pull ourselves up and let the present forward motion continue.
1 put this idea forward, not in the sense of trying to embarrass the Government but because it has the legislative power to bring it about. Ministers rise and say that they are all for it, but they never do it. In terms of all other Departments it is indicated that they can do this if they have the consent of the Department of Finance. I ask Government Ministers to assert themselves and use the muscle they should have and obtain the consent of the Department of Finance to get money into the country cheaper and to keep pressure on our money markets to get interest rates down further. I think this can be done. All the Government needs is the will to get off this suicidal course of borrowing more and more regardless of interest rates, which will send us back into a downward slide. We have had enough of that over the past eight years.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-151 along the line of those of my colleagues who have spoken today.
Some people in Canada are beginning to see the recovery in our economy that we all want and need, but more than 1.5 million persons will remain on the unemployment rolls in the near future. The truth is that more people are entering the labour market when there are jobs to absorb them. Arguments that say we created more jobs than last year or the year before have little meaning. What is needed is more long-term permanent jobs. That has to be our number one priority.
We cannot under any circumstances place in jeopardy the recovery that is under way at the present time. If we allow inflation to return, we are betraying those who have sacrificed their jobs, businesses, homes and future as part of the price for
Borrowing Authority
beating inflation. They live in hope that a better time will allow them to recover their losses and build a new life, hopefully on a more sound foundation.
They have learned the hard way that you cannot spend your way out of inflation. They hope the Government has learned its lesson. They are looking for evidence to confirm it, but the evidence is not there. We see the deficit as a percentage of the Gross National Product doubling and tripling over a ten-year period. We see the level of borrowing going beyond our ability to pay in the future. The people who have been the biggest losers in the recession are expressing their concern at the level of borrowing because they know it will find its way in the rate of inflation and into the interest rates that we project in the years ahead.
We see the long-term national debt doubling and quadrupling over the next four years, according to predictions presented to us. Many of my colleagues have commented that this is the seventh borrowing Bill that we have had in this session. The present Bill is for $4 billion more than the budget indicated is required at this time. Projected financial requirements between 1983-84 and 1986-87 are $93 billion. This indicates that this Government will continue to try to borrow its way out of our financial troubles.
Our real Gross National Product fell 4.8 per cent in 1982. It has fallen 7.5 per cent since the second quarter of 1981. The recovery growth is estimated to be approximately 2 per cent growth in the GNP of 1983. That level will not keep unemployment from rising. That is the dilemma we really face in this country.
The Government has said that the engine of the private sector will lead us out of the recession and into recovery and a reduction in unemployment. Let us examine that statement. Manufacturing capacity is only 63 per cent of its potential. Capital investment will fall in 1983, according to Statistics Canada, by $2.4 billion. That figure, added to the 1982 decline of $4.5 billion, gives the total decline of $6.9 billion in capital investment in a two-year period.
That is not a formula for recovery. The worry in the business community is that the recovery we are experiencing is led by short-term inventory purchasing. If you are concerned that interest rates will climb, you are not going to invest in anything but short-term. That is another side to the dilemma we face.
What we need is long-term capital investment. Industry will not react in any meaningful way to tax credits that may be reversed in the following year. The economic and financial environment in which we operate in the immediate future has to improve dramatically if we are to see a reversal in the decision by the business community to reduce capital expenditures to the extent that it has. Until we make the connection between capital expenditures and jobs and then put in place a taxation environment that will attract long-term investment, we will not begin to make a dent in the growing unemployment that we have in this country.

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Part of the taxation environment is better control of the spending practices. After all, inflation is a form of taxation from which no benefit accrues to anyone.
Part of our dilemma today is the fact that some expansion has taken place during high inflation and that inflated capital purchase is being paid for today. I cannot help but feel that we should look closely at the whole tax system, the way we value inventories, the way we depreciate assets and begin to rebuild our economy around a clear-cut tax system upon which longterm financial plans can be made. That is what we should be doing rather than throwing rhetoric back across the floor of the House of Commons. I believe we have the capacity in this House to do that.
Part of the reform would be a commitment to put in place better spending controls and a commitment to reduced borrowing. We need only read the daily press and the annual Report of the Auditor General to see the mess we have in financial control, or we can look at the mess in the control of Crown corporations to see the difficulty we face. The massive borrowing of Crown corporations, which in most cases is beyond the control of Parliament, certainly in almost every case beyond the control of Government, is one of our most serious problems. The contingent liability of the Government is rising dramatically directly as a result of the lack of control over the capital and operating expenditures of Crown corporations.
What all this leads to is a lessening of the amount of funds available to the private sector which could be used to finance capital expenditures needed to create long-term employment. I know there are some economists who will say it does not have that much effect. There is a mental hurdle that we must overcome, because it has an effect on the people in the private sector who closely watch interest rates and inflation rates. The fact that there is a continuous demand for funds by the Government with no meaningful attempt to reduce and control expenditures will surely drive up interest rates and fuel the resurgence of inflation.
In its recent comment on the budget, the C.D. Howe Research Institute said, and I quote:
The commitment contained in the budget to reduce the deficit is not a convincing one.
Canadians are not convinced the federal Government is really giving anything more than lip service to a reduction of the deficit. Until they are convinced that there is a commitment, there will be little change in capital investments that are so desperately needed in this country at this time.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share a few thoughts today regarding the supplementary borrowing authority which the Government is seeking through Bill C-151. The proper allocation of authority is vital to the survival of Parliament, but by whose authority are expenditures to be improved and laws made according not only to the traditions of this country, but also of other representative democracies throughout the free world? Is it to be done through Order in Council or in the lofty ivory tower of the Cabinet? No, Mr. Speaker, it should be discussed here in the House of Commons before people elected by the citizens of the country where
decisions are made with the safeguarding of the best interests of the people of Canada in mind. These decisions are not, and 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 manoeuvring instead of face to face negotiating on these very important points of borrowing authority and expenditure approval. I wonder if any self-respecting bank manager would lend money without having a fair idea of where that money was going and how it would be paid back. Of course not. Yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) refuses to disclose why $1.5 billion of his projected deficit cannot be accounted for. Not only that, but what contingencies does he have in mind when he asks for $14.7 billion through Bill C-151, yet only requires $10.7 billion for current needs? Is the clandestine setting aside of $4 billion for needs not yet known a responsible procedure? Where is the accountability to Parliament? Where is the accountability to the Canadian people? I believe that this is contempt of parliamentary tradition.
The word "tradition" is used by certain Cabinet Ministers who refuse to comment on allegations of scandal in major Crown corporations. Yet their colleague in the finance portfolio has, time and time again, broken the traditions of the House. Notably, he has broken the traditions by his refusal to resign over the budget leak and now by his release of budget figures that do not add up and borrowing estimates that are far too generous.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian public is tired of these kinds of shenanigans. The cart is losing direction because it has been going before the horse for too long. Why not do things in the proper order and let us know exactly how these moneys will be spent before requesting capital for "prudent financial housekeeping", as the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) once put it? Any of our nation's homemakers will tell you that he could never stay afloat with this kind of financial housekeeping.
Two months ago, the Government came before the House to ask for some $19 billion in supplementary borrowing authority through Bill C-143. We recall some of the vague remarks that were made about current demands on the public purse due to income tax refunds and other supposedly unexpected requirements. We now have before us a similar Bill, and we in the Opposition are still wondering exactly how the money that is requested will be spent. I must admit that the budget offered a few clues as to how taxpayers' money will be spent in the next few years. There is no doubt as to the specific allocation of a certain sum of $200 million. Indeed, that allocation could have been interpreted as a recovery measure to sustain employment levels in high Government positions. We know that it aided the Minister of Finance substantially in keeping his own job.
However, the real theme of the budget is expenditure, not recovery. As a past master of the art of spending taxpayers'
May 31, 1983

money, the Minister is simply adding capital to the tail end of many existing programs or modifying them slightly. He is imitating the techniques of car manufacturers who put new curves in the bodywork to make buyers believe that they have a new and redesigned vehicle. For example, the RHOSP program has changed, but not meaningfully. A really beneficial change would have been to increase the limit for contributions to $20,000, for example. After all, what is $10,000 when you are purchasing a home?
The Finance Minister expected his housing stimulus program to last until the end of May. So did the Canadian people. However, the funds for housing grants inexplicably ran out. So did the Government's credibility. And now the Government expects us to approve its borrowing requirements with the stroke of a pen? Not when we have a Government with a record for misleading the public such as this one has.
Can one talk about recovery without discussing efficiency and restraint in spending? Common sense tells us that one cannot. But "Commons sense" is something different, especially when the Finance Minister speaks in the Commons. Billions of dollars are about to be spent, but no mention was made of cost cutting or restraint in public spending. Obviously, the Minister is content with the way the Government is managing things. Who is he fooling but himself? He must be content with the massive bail-outs of Crown corporations and with the blank cheque borrowing authority, not to mention the lack of accountability to Parliament evidenced in the Liberal regime.
However, the Minister of Finance is aware of discontent among Canadians for these and other reasons. That is why we saw him on national television last month with his Christmas goody bag and Santa Claus smile handing out voter freebies, including the extra $100 million to the Farm Credit Corporation and the new ruling that farmers can spread their losses out over a ten-year period. Realistically, though, will this help out the farmers who face bankruptcy right now?
Yes, there is spending, but there is little mention of how the money will be raised for the Minister's program. There is some minor tinkering with tax credits and increased taxes on alcohol, tobacco and construction material. The rest will be left for future generations to pay off. When the time comes to pay the piper for these lavish spending programs, the orchestra and its director will have been replaced. The Minister must be aware of the fact that he himself will probably not have to deal with the long-term and disastrous side effects of his actions.
We cannot operate indefinitely on such a huge deficit. Where does it end? There are too many hand-outs and too many golden handshakes. Until they stop, the deficit will continue to grow until our citizens are eventually taxed to death, the nation goes bankrupt and our dollars will become worthless souvenirs, like the deutschemark of bygone days when a full wheelbarrow would buy only a loaf of bread.
Adjournment Motion
It was indicated earlier this Spring, supposedly in defence of Government spending practices, that Cabinet committees were 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 were in place and functioning, why did the Auditor General have so much to say in his recent Report? As Hon. Members will recall, there were many indictments of over-spending in that Report. Bill C-151 with its inflated requirements for capital is a good example of how much attention has been paid to the noble efforts of Mr. Kenneth Dye.
In the past weeks, we have heard abundant eloquence from Government benches justifying the supplementary borrowing authority on the grounds that it is inevitable spending and that somehow they have done their best and we should accept that. Well, their best is just 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. Let us not turn this country into another Sweden where free enterprise is virtually dead and where the tax burden is unbearable. Yet that is where we are headed because of a Government that borrows increasingly and expects carte blanche to do so.
In conclusion, the Government must exercise more responsibility in dealing with the financial affairs of the nation. One way for it to do so is to determine right now that it will make an effort to cut down on the deficit by cleaning house and following the recommendations of the Auditor General. The second way for the Government to exercise more responsibility is to encourage the increased participation of Parliament in fiscal affairs. That is a tradition that all Members would like to see unheld and which would be of benefit to all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-Correctional Service Canada- Polling of employees-Role of management; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Labour Relations- Eastern Provincial Airways dispute-Enforcement of safety regulations; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Medical Care-Request that Minister introduce new health care Act-Inquiry respecting date of introduction.
25906

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cosgrove that Bill C-151, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with Bill C-151, let us first of all see what the Bill does. It gives the Government authority to borrow on behalf of the taxpayers of this country a further $14.7 billion. This is in addition to $16 billion in authority that it already possesses for this year through Bill C-143, for a total of no less than $30.7 billion. However, the financial requirements for this year are only $26.7 billion. The Government is thus seeking authority to borrow $4 billion more than it says it needs. What is this additional $4 billion for? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has never come into the House and explained what this further requirement of $4 billion is required for. Is it required for a Government slush fund? Is it the world's most expensive safety net, or just what is it? The Minister of Finance has never said.
Moreover, $2 billion of the authority granted in this Bill and $2 billion of the authority granted in Bill C-143 does not have to be used this year. It does not lapse until it is used. Parliament is being asked to grant authority today that might not be used until the year 2000. Think that over very carefully, Mr. Speaker. It is a long time ahead. Why is the Government so anxious to get this additional money that it may not use for a very, very long time?
This year's deficit has been 15 years in the making. It is due partly to slow economic growth and partly to irresponsible fiscal policies. The deficit has climbed from $491 million in 1968-69 to $31.3 billion this year. Spending has climbed from $12.6 billion in 1968-69 to $100.2 billion, on a national accounts basis, this year. Yet in August, 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) warned, and I quote his words, "We'd be on the road to financial disaster if nothing was done to bring spending under control".
What has the Prime Minister done to bring spending under control? Absolutely nothing. Hon. Members opposite have been spending as though life is one great spree-spend, spend, spend-and the taxpayers of this country will make up the difference.
What are the costs of all this reckless spending? The growing interest burden is $1,800 per taxpayer or $700 per capita per year.
I should like to deal for a moment with the question of reduced fiscal flexibility. One revenue dollar in three today is used to service the debt, as opposed to one dollar in nine 15 years ago. For every $3 the Government spends, it must
borrow $1. If there had been no deficits since 1968 the cost of servicing the debt this year would be $2 billion, not $18 billion. That is a shocking thought, Mr. Speaker. It shows the complete financial irresponsibility of the Government.
Let us look at the fact that private sector spending has been crowded out more and more by what the Government has been doing. This year the financial requirements of the Government will be equal to 84 per cent of expected personal savings. Interest rates could rise this Fall if private sector loans pick up as a consequence of recovery. As for confidence, the investment community does not trust a Government that continues to live so far beyond its means. That is one of the reasons it is so difficult for the economy of this country to get on its feet and produce the jobs our people so badly need.
Now let us look at the future. To date the Government has come to Parliament seven times in this session to ask for more borrowing authority in the following Bills, Bills C-30, C-59, C-111, C-125, C-128, C-143 and C-151. In fiscal 1982-83 alone, the Government came to Parliament, hat in hand, four times to seek borrowing authority.
The fiscal projections tabled with the April 19 budget would suggest that Parliament is in for a steady stream of borrowing authority Bills over the next few years. The financial requirements of the Government of Canada over the next four years will total $93.2 billion, so Bill C-143 and Bill C-151 are just the tip of the iceberg.
Over the four-year period extending from 1983-84 to 198687, the Government projects total spending of $438.1 billion on a national accounts basis or $390.5 billion on a public accounts basis. The deficit will total $112.3 billion.
The Government's Fiscal mismanagement is hurting the business community very much indeed. Interest rates have been higher than need be the case as a consequence of heavy Government borrowing. The Government has tried to raise revenues through measures that will hurt the business community. The "half-year convention" will hurt the cash flow of business. The 12.5 per cent small business dividend distribution tax will punish small-businessmen who dare to become successful enough to pay a dividend.
The Small Business Development Bond has become a "bailout" bond with an interesting Catch-22 situation-you cannot apply unless you are in trouble and if you are in trouble, the bank will not lend you the money. Is that not a shocking situation, Mr. Speaker?
Small-businessmen are no longer able to participate in new deferred profit-sharing plans. Increased taxes on employee benefits will place increased wage demands on employers and make it hard to recruit employees in remote areas. There is a need for less Government red tape and paperwork.
The April, 1983 budget does not go far enough in undoing the damage of the 1981 budget, particularly as far as small business is concerned. The investment tax credit and share purchase tax credits are, in the words of CFIB President John Bullock " .. . much too restrictive ... 90 per cent of business
May 31, 1983

startups in labour intensive industries like retail, service and distribution are ignored."
The indexed security investment plan will be of use in attracting equity investment in large firms but no offsetting measures are offered for small business. The Liberal's national energy policy has virtually destroyed the oil and gas industry. It has brought energy investment to a halt and stopped megaprojects which would have created thousands of jobs across Canada. The Special Recovery Capital Projects are a drop in the bucket compared to the lost megaprojects.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it does not give me necessarily a great deal of pleasure to participate in the debate here this afternoon because I believe this Bill is a rather shocking record of the Government across the floor from us. We are in second reading of Bill C-151, the borrowing authority, where the Government is asking us for $14.7 billion to continue its general business of running, or lack of proper running, of the Government of Canada. This is in addition to $16 billion for which it still has borrowing authority approved under Bill C-143, which was passed by Parliament in February.
The reason this is so shocking, Mr. Speaker, is that since June, 1982, the Government has come to us, the Parliament of Canada, to ask for borrowing authority, including this time, on five separate occasions. There was Bill C- 111 in June, 1982, in which the Government asked for $6.6 billion. Then it came back with Bill C-125 and asked for $7 billion. Following that there was Bill C-128 in which it asked for $4 billion. Then there was Bill C-143 in which it asked for $19 billion. Now there is Bill C-151 in which it is asking for $14.7 billion. That is an accumulated amount of $51.3 billion, Mr. Speaker, since June, 1982, until the present time, a period of one year. That is an average of over $4 billion a month which this Government is asking to borrow so that it can sustain the general operations of the Government which it has created. 1 maintain, Mr. Speaker, that part of the problem is that there is a real lack of planning by this Government. There is certainly no long or medium-term planning. At best, there may be some short-term planning which comes into practice in the programs.
The Government purports to be doing good for the Canadian people, but I would suggest it is doing very little by way of good for the Canadian people when one looks at the horrendous amount of the national debt which has accumulated over the years from the deficit budgets of this Liberal Government. We are finding that an ever increasing amount of the general revenue which is coming in is going toward paying interest on the national debt. It is coming to a point where the taxpayers of this country can no longer afford to sustain a Government which goes on a spending spree which can be compared somewhat to that of a drunken sailor. Unless we start doing some long-term planning in this country, we are going to find ourselves in a position of not being able to maintain any sort of decent standard within the federal Government.
Borrowing Authority
If one looks back to the time after the February election in 1980, one finds that we in western Canada were promised a Western Development Fund of some $4 billion. 1 would like to find out where that Western Development Fund is today, Mr. Speaker, because we have never seen it come into reality in western Canada. It is just the same as many of the programs promised in eastern Canada which have never come into existence. There have been false and empty promises, and that aggravates me and it is why it does not give me a great deal of pleasure to even participate in the debate today in this House of Commons on this borrowing authority Bill. When we asked questions about the Western Development Fund, we were told that it is still in the planning stage. When we asked where the money was, they said it had not been appropriated as yet. When we asked which Minister was in charge of the Western Development Fund, they knew not which Minister was in charge of it. When we asked which programs fall under the Western Development Fund, they could not tell us. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that there never was a Western Development Fund. It was an attractive bit of verbiage which was put into the Throne Speech when this parliamentary session first started back in the Spring of 1980.
That Western Development Fund, which was much talked about, was dreamed up in order to grab some headlines in the press for the present Liberal Government. Some people thought that maybe it would be at least a patronage program for some areas of the country, but it was not even that. The Western Development Fund did not exist. There were no special appropriations set out for a Western Development Fund. Instead of that, the bolstering up of the economy in western Canada has gone in reverse. Government has taken away from the economy of western Canada, particularly from farming.
In our agricultural sector we find that farm bankruptcies this year are up 130 per cent over the same period last year. In addition to that, an increased burden is being placed upon the farmers, the producers in Canada, by removing the statutory Crow rate. Just what does that mean? I will pick two delivery points, Mr. Speaker, one being that of The Battlefords, where, by the year 1990, just the cost to the farmers who deliver to that delivery point alone would be an additional $1.15 million per year. For the town of Meadow Lake, a population of only 4,000 people or a little less, to deliver to that one delivery point would take out of the pockets of the farmers $1.43 million per year. Depending on which agricultural economist you want to listen to, that agricultural dollar has a multiplier effect of between four to seven times. Therefore, in the Meadow Lake area alone, for the farmers who deliver to the elevators at Meadow Lake it could cost very close to $10 million a year out of that community. In The Battlefords it would be almost an equal amount. So instead of saying the Government is helping us by these great programs which it is putting into place, it is actually helping our country deteriorate in an economic sense. I believe that the consequences of that will have social repercussions which this Liberal Government will grow to regret in the years to come.

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
The Government takes away also from the fishing industry under the guise of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. In what should be a thriving fishing industry on the East and West Coasts, we find that fishermen have to go out to look for other areas of work, work that does not exist because of the way that this Government has run down the fishing industry as jwell. Lake Athabasca in the northern part of my constituency, which operates under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, no longer has anyone fishing in the lake. This is the largest lake in the Province. It is now costing the fishermen more to transport their fish to the Strathcona plant in Winnipeg than the price they are receiving for their catch from the lake.
1 believe, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we are in very bad trouble. We are finding industries such as agriculture, fishing and manufacturing going down. Those people, especially in fishing and farming, are looking to other places for employment, either leaving agriculture and fishing, or looking to other areas to augment or supplement their incomes. But those jobs are not there in other areas as well, Mr. Speaker. I think that speaks volumes for the poor record of this Liberal Government.
I have many letters and, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, petitions which come in every week from my constituency asking that this Government do some sort of long-term planning that people can rely on for their own planning for the future. Canada should have a very vibrant economy. We have an abundance of natural resources and a very small population. If this Government cannot plan in such a way that our wealth can be distributed more equitably among the population of this country then I think the Government should go to the people of Canada and get the real message that people want to give to this Liberal Government.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). That is probably the closest that side of the House has come to moving over to a conservative stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: We are finally getting some wisdom from them. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, the whole world is going conservative. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has decided that his socialist programs are not working so he has turned over and is trying to go conservative. But 1 think it is too late for him and I hope we in the Opposition can build our support and become the next Government. I believe we will because we have been consistent, whereas the Liberals are inconsistent; they are up one day, down the next. So I commend the Hon. Member who just spoke. He hit on a number of very important points.
The Hon. Member referred to fishing and farming. That is a concern in my riding but not a large one because it is predominantly industrial and suburban. But we have the same problems in Ontario that they have in the West. There is no
difference between what is happening in our Province and what is happening in the Hon. Member's Province. Perhaps in his Province things may be moving ahead a little more with the aggressive policy which has been established out there, but this federal Government is not addressing the major problem of a lack of long-term planning. The last time I spoke in this House, and I have spoken so often on this-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is true.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary knows how often I have had to speak against additional borrowing, five times in one year, and I think four of those were in about four months.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We are accountable to Parliament.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: What you need is a good accountant.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Does the Government not know it should have a plan that will last at least one fiscal year?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Tell that to your finance critic.


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Government brought in its budget and now it keeps hitting us with additional borrowing. Where is it going to stop? This is a sham. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) set our deficit this year at $31 billion. He now indicates he does not expect it to be that bad. The game the Government is playing is very simple. It was going to be $31 billion but, ladies and gentlemen, we have done such an excellent job of getting this economy back on the tracks that it is only $25 billion. Well, Mr. Speaker, whether it be $25 billion, $30 billion or $50 billion, it is too much and the country cannot stand it.
This will have a negative impact on future generations. We are not going to be taxing the present generation because all this money will do is to cover 50 per cent of the interest expense on this Government's debt. In 1968-69 when the Prime Minister came to office, there was an annual expenditure of about $12 billion. I cannot get my hands on these figures, but I understand the debt was less than 10 per cent of what it is today. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Parliamentary Secretary across the way should, if the Minister of Finance is unable to, develop a schedule of how much money we owe, to whom and when it is due.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Read the budget.


Thomas Scott Fennell: My concern is with the deficit, Mr. Speaker, because I have five children. I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of children in my constituency will be faced with this debt. The borrowing goes on and on and it does not reflect any over-all Government planning. I call it a band-aid, but it is a hodge-podge where everything is sort of thrown together.
I believe an election is coming, Mr. Speaker, because the Government is paying off all these areas across Canada with make work projects. That is not solving our criticial problem.
May 31, 1983

The Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) has acknowledged that we have an unemployment problem. These small, short-term programs are not going to solve that problem. We put $5 billion out here, $5 billion out there. I do not think many people in this country can comprehend how much $1 billion is, let alone $30 billion. Well, it is thirty thousand million. It has nine zeroes after the number. That is an immense sum of money and no one in this country can comprehend it. If our total debt is $135 billion and we divide that among the 24 million people, you have around $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
We really cannot go on with this. I expect another borrowing Bill will be brought in in September when we come back or during the Summer, if we sit in the Summer. Where does it stop? We do not know why this money is needed now. Is the Government replacing previous high interest borrowings? If so, I can accept that. But I do not believe they have to come to the House for that. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), who spoke just before me the last time on this Bill, has developed, along with one of his colleagues, an excellent program which would really assist us in the House in dealing with our over-all expenditure. It would be a great benefit, but he cannot get the formula accepted by the committee in which he is working. That to me is a shame because we must look at Estimates, we must get them long before the budget, and we must know how each Department is going to function, where the money is going to go, and we should know this well in advance. Instead, all we get from this Government on where the money is going is press releases every day about giving more money away to the different sections of the country. It is very difficult for an MP to keep track of all these numbers. I have a file on them all and I will be using it in the next election because it will show where the money is going.
One thing I am very worried about, Mr. Speaker, is that the private sector has had a very short time to do some equity financing. If we go into the marketplace and start competing with the private sector, that opportunity will be eliminated. Again we will force the private sector cost of interest up and up. The higher it gets, the more the private sector must capitalize its interest costs and the less productive it is. This is the one point to which I am really violently opposed because I am sure that following this borrowing authority Bill our interest rates will rise. It has already been seen throughout the U.S. market, which is experiencing the same problem, but we are just following the Americans. We could have done something better, but we did not. Our interest rates will rise and the country will be in the same morass that we were in less than a year ago.
I understand that my allotted time has almost expired. I have enjoyed the opportunity of speaking to the House on the subject. I regret that we will not be able to stop this borrowing authority with our numbers; otherwise, we would. I am against it. I need more explanation. I need more reasons for the need for this money.
Borrowing Authority


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it seems as if it were just yesterday that 1 was standing here in the Chamber debating a Bill in which the Government requested the right to borrow $19 billion, the largest borrowing authority Bill in the history of Parliament. Now, just a few short weeks later, I find myself rising again to debate what the Government is asking to borrow, an additional $14.7 billion. So little time has elapsed since then that I clearly remember well my concern. At that time the Government was requesting to borrow $19 billion. It seemed that my concerns had fallen on deaf ears. I was concerned about the wasteful Government spending which has been going on for the past 15 years. Tax dollars have been spent on advocacy advertising, $70 million to tell us, among other things, of the wonders of the six and five program, to tel! us what a good job the Government is doing. Billions have gone toward bailing out Dome Petroleum and Canadair. I was also concerned about the effects an accumulated deficit of $134 billion would have on the youth of today and on each and every taxpayer who will have to bear this heavy burden year after year.
It is just a few weeks since I rose in the House, and nothing has been done to alleviate those concerns I expressed. Those concerns still stand today, but they have an even greater effect because the figures have changed. For the seventh time, we are debating the right to borrow additional money. We are now facing an accumulated deficit of nearly $150 billion and a deficit for this fiscal year of $31.3 billion. We cannot expect much change in the next four years with a predicted yearly deficit averaging $25 billion.
Since this time last year, the Government has received authority to borrow $41 billion to meet such costs as those involved in operating various social programs which have skyrocketed because of the recession. Every three or four months the Government has come and asked the House to approve yet another borrowing Bill. The frightening trend has been established and this financial practice just cannot be allowed to continue. The Government cannot continue to operate under the impression that it will be given additional authority to borrow billions of dollars every time it feels the need to do so.
As was evident in the last Bill and with respect to at least $4 billion requested in the current Bill, the Government is not justifying the need to borrow funds. Since 1980, a total of $61.6 billion worth of borrowing authority has come and gone through the House. We are now asked to give authority for a further $14.7 billion. The Government feels that it should be able to spend and spend without any control over its spending. I strongly believe that the Government has lost all sense of fiscal responsibility it once had. It appears to have lost the ability to budget accurately and cannot work within the financial limits it has imposed upon itself. I am amazed and, at the same time, frightened by the "laissez-faire" attitude of the Government which treats billions of dollars without any concern whatsoever. Those billions are adding up faster than we could ever have imagined, yet the Government keeps

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
requesting more and more to add to our already escalating deficit figure. It is never ending.
Let us briefly consider the purpose of the latest request for borrowing authority. The Minister has indicated that the money will be used to cover the expenditures outlined in his recent budget. At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) told us that he would need $26.7 billion to cover his current expenditures. Of that sum total, the Government had already received the authority to borrow $16 billion under the last borrowing Bill, Bill C-143, leaving an additional $10.7 billion to cover the remaining expenses outlined in the Special Recovery Projects, additional funding for Summer Canada and other employment programs, and for the Home Ownership Stimulation and Home Renovation Plans. We can certainly provide our support to fund these projects provided they achieve the goals they are set out to achieve. However, recent experience has revealed that many of these programs are only a smokescreen and will not create the number of immediate jobs which the Minister indicated they would, to say little of meeting long-term employment needs, which is desperately required here. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) has already outlined those inadequacies in her excellent speech given four weeks ago in response to the Minister's introduction of the financial budget. Therefore, I do not wish to dwell further on those. Instead, I will go on to deal with the remaining $4 billion of borrowing authority which I have not mentioned.
The Government has indicated that it is requesting this additional money as a contingency fund, just in case. Just in case of what? Can the Government not predict its expenditures for the next six months? Does it not know how much it will have to spend on the present programs? If it is not able to do so, then perhaps it should not be running the country.
It appears that we as legislators are constantly being asked to approve requests for additional funds without ever knowing the justification or the reasons. We do not know whether, in actual fact, there is a requirement of the Government for these moneys or for whatever reasons. If there is not a justifiable need for additional funds, then we should not be burdening the taxpayer with greater deficits to shoulder through the addition of interest payments on money which was not needed in the first place. We as legislators should be concerned with the responsible dispatch of tax dollars and the Government must be accountable to Parliament for the tax dollars spent. We must ensure that we have control over the public purse. I fear that we are coming dangerously close to losing that control.
Government Departments spend as if there were a bottomless pit. There are no incentives whatsoever for them to curtail their spending estimates from year to year, thus reducing their budgets. Naturally, each year a Department estimates its spending needs. Rather than turning back any funds it has not expended, projects or non-essential programs are found to utilize those funds. If the money is there, it will be spent. That is why I believe the Government must only request borrowing authority for what is actually needed and justified. Funds should not be requested for what the Government only thinks
it may need. There is a big difference. Until the Government regains its sense of responsibility and justifies its request to Parliament, the country will forever be in debt, mortgaging away the future of Canada.
I appreciated the opportunity of taking part in the debate at this time.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt) in this debate in the House of Commons which is of some significance, and I will deal with it. I am glad that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bus-sieres) is present in the House, because I will consider the Bill in the light of a matter which was reported in terms of Government revenue today. I want him to be here to listen to what I have to say.
I very well remember the day the Leader of the Opposition and I had the privilege of bringing the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville into the House and introducing her to the Speaker. It was a very happy day. She has justified the faith of those of us who helped her in the course of events since she has come here. I think she has shown great concern for the senior citizens, the youth, the unemployed, and those among whom I would call the disadvantaged in the community today.
I am also very pleased to have heard the speech from my friend, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). He and I do not kick with the same foot politically. But I thought he was getting awfully close to putting on my shoes when he was worried about the size of the deficit. I want to congratulate him for his conversion, perhaps a death bed conversion, but a conversion nonetheless that warms our hearts when we listen to this kind of change that comes about when the House is considering further borrowing of $14.7 billion.
I do not know how the Government came to that figure. The Government said $14.7 billion and some cents. We would be no better than in the position we are. It is a mammoth figure. We have become so used to thinking in terms of billions that we have translated C. D. Howe's "What's a million?" into "What's a billion?". That is what has happened to this Government and its expenditures. Why, Mr. Speaker? It is because this Government forgot the biblical injunction that should hang over all governments that they should store up in the good years against the bad. What happened to this profligate Government through a whole range of Ministers of Finance from John M. Turner to the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), to Mr. Macdonald-what was his first name?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Donald.


Walter David Baker: Donald Macdonald, now the Bay Street baron who is looking after the interest of our country on that Royal Commission, to the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), to the former Minister of Finance who
May 31, 1983

has been sent to his resting place in External Affairs. What we have had is the policy of spend, spend, spend, no hard decisions, no choices, no priority giving at all, until we find ourselves in this position, that caused the present Minister of Finance to bow a little in the direction of some programs, which are important and which were contained in his last budget, and to defer the taxation and payment for those programs somewhere down the road when our Government will likely have to deal with the matter.
In the meantime, as the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake said, it has accumulated, up to and including this Bill, a borrowing record for any government per capita in North America an amount of $51.83 billion since June, 1982. That is $4 billion a month. That is what it amounts to. Why do I mention that figure, this grasping for borrowed money, this mortgaging of the future? Why do I mention that figure in relation to the Minister of National Revenue? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring to his attention a case of a small company that has been victimized by the Department of National Revenue for the sake of some $60,000. This is an amount the company owes because it did not pay withholding tax on salaries. The company admits that was wrong. It was balancing priorities. The Minister's Department moved in on this company. The story is in today's paper. The company involved is Kitcraft Enterprises Ltd. This company is located in the riding of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). Where was he when that company needed protection? Where was he? The Department moved in and tried to collect $60,000. The Department did this when it knew there was evidence that the company was negotiating-it had the support of the bank- with the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation for more funds. What is their position now? If the company goes bankrupt as a result of the move by the Minister of National Revenue, the Government will not get the $60,000. The 20 workers or others who might come along will not get any security of employment in that situation. That is not supportive of a small business doing its best to get itself out of a difficult problem. I suggest that when that happens and the Government in the same breath asks me to approve, willy-nilly, $14 billion in borrowing, I will have to say that the Government has its priorities all wrong. That $14 billion in borrowing and its addition to the deficit will not provide the atmosphere where small business or large business will look forward to an era where the deficits will become less and less a drag on investment opportunities and opportunities to expand.
I listened to the Minister of Finance's budget speech. I tried to find some place where he did what should have been done, not wipe the deficit out in a week, or a month, or a year, or two years, but at least begin as my seatmate did, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Crosbie), who began in his own way to attack the deficit in 1979. But the difference between 1979 and 1983 is that we have lost those years. Members on the Government side know that. It burns me up when I read in the paper about the Government's sweating the taxpayer, putting someone out of business for $60,000, which action will not do the Government any good. The Government will not collect the
Borrowing Authority
money. At the same time that the Government does that it comes into the House and has the guts to ask the House to approve out of hand a borrowing that is criminal in its size and sinful in its intent, because its actions do not do one thing to lower the deficit. They do absolutely nothing to lower the deficit. Then 1 read the same budget which, in human terms-


Mr. Lang:: Job creation.


Walter David Baker: The Parliamentary Secretary says job creation. If the Parliamentary Secretary had read the budget of the Minister of Finance, he would know that the unemployment rate during the period of time for which the Minister of Finance predicted is not going to change appreciably, and that he and other Members of Parliament are going to have day after day after day coming through their offices people whose legacies have been forgotten by this Government.
I am talking about the young people of the country, those between the ages of 14 and 25 years for whom, as any statistical analyst will tell you, there is no hope of any change. I am an optimistic person by nature. I heard that budget, the plaudits, the acclaim, but I saw those statistics in terms of employment. 1 read the column of Jack McArthur in the Toronto Star who argues:
It's true that the jobless rate for the 15-to-24 age group has bloated to terribly high percentages.
But then Mr. McArthur says:
But it hasn't increased any more rapidly-
Isn't that a comfort? Mr. McArthur does not say unemployment will go down. Mr. McArthur says it will increase, that it is going to maintain itself. We have become used to these high figures in this country. We have become used to sin. We have become immune to these figures and these things. But 1 am not immune to them. 1 think they are a shame. I believe that before a government comes before Parliament to ask it to approve this kind of borrowing it had better do something about those people, that small business to which I have referred and a host of other people and businesses who are finding they are disadvantaged at the end of a long Liberal tenure.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who 1 think has put a great case before the Minister. As a farmer I have been required to go to the bank quite often this last while to try to keep my enterprise going. The banker is becoming more reluctant to say yes. In fact, the next time he may say no. We all know that there are limits on individuals in society as to how much they can borrow, yet the Government in this session of Parliament kept returning to borrow more and more money for programs. I believe the Government came before us seven times in this session of Parliament.
I have listened to my grandfather and my father talk about the recession and Depression of the 1930s and how they grew

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
up with a feeling of frugality. They had to be cautious about their expenditures and plan their businesses well so that if times were hard there was a little something to keep them going. That generation grew up saving and preparing themselves for difficult times. Perhaps the Premier of the Province of Alberta had some experience in that regard. He set up the Heritage Trust Fund in the early 1970s when things were going well. Right up until 1980 there was revenue coming in. A decision was made then that perhaps the good times could not continue forever and that money should be set aside, which was not necessary at the time and could have overheated the economy, for difficult times. Now the Province of Alberta is reaping the rewards of that decision and is drawing on that fund to assist its people. In terms of unemployment, Alberta is suffering as much as other Provinces. Its unemployment rate has doubled in the last year, but at least that money was set aside.
As was pointed out previously, the Government of Canada set aside nothing in that period of prosperity. In fact, the Ministers of Finance established deficits in their budgets and added more and more programs, perhaps to gain another election victory or for whatever purpose. They saw no difficulty in going to Parliament to borrow. The same has happened to the generation in which I grew up. We were relatively pampered. Things went well in the early 1950s. It was easy for my generation to go out and borrow and prosper. Suddenly many of them have lost their businesses and homes because they went too far in that regard. The Government should recognize this.
In that same period of time young people were driving big cars and were not very concerned about the future when they left jobs. There was no problem because there were plenty of available jobs. But as the present generation leaves school, they find that the country has no need for them. They are faced with high unemployment rates at the same time as they reluctantly look to the Government for assistance. They find that there is not much assistance and that they cannot put their faith in governments to solve the problems. In fact, in many cases governments are causing the problems.
When I ask some of my young constituents why they are in despair, they say that they looked to a future in the oil industry but the Government took it away from them with its National Energy Program. Tens of thousands of jobs which should have been available to people in my riding have now been lost as a result of Government policy. They do not look to a bright future. I suspect they will grow up in much the same way as some of our ancestors, reluctant to invest and to help our country out of difficulties as a result of leadership which has not followed the best economic policies in the last ten years or 15 years.
The Government comes to Parliament requesting not only the necessary borrowing authority to take it through the next few months. No, that is not adequate. It comes with a request which is far greater than what is actually needed. If it provided leadership to the citizens of the nation and said that it would borrow what was needed this month and attempt to pull back on its programs so that it would not have to return for more
money next month, then I suspect Canadians would tell Parliament to pass the Bill. But that is not what the Government is doing; that is not the leadership it is providing. Not only have we passed a borrowing Bill a few months ago, it still has adequate borrowing and in fact a carryover of $2 billion. It is coming to Parliament before the summer recess and asking for another massive amount of money, some $14.7 billion, with very little justification as to how it will be spent or how it intends to be frugal in its spending practices.
We have had some success in convincing the Government that this theory is wrong. We have asked it over and over to come before Parliament with reasonable requirements and we would pass them quickly. We have indicated that if it had to come to Parliament more often, it would be fine as long as there was justification for it and it could show that it was attempting to cut back in extraordinary expenditures. But when Government comes before us requesting much more money than it needs for the next few months, it is very difficult for me as a Member of Parliament and for many others in this Chamber to say yes.
We have to show Canadians that we are capable of functioning without ever increasing deficits, without constantly borrowing and spending beyond our means. If we do not, we are not providing leadership to our young citizens, businesses and others that will encourage them to participate. We still have groups of people in Canada who are demanding far more than they require. If some group is successful enough to receive its demand, then other groups ask for the same even with massive unemployment, massive bankruptcies and so on.
If we do not get our spending under control, the programs which will suffer first are the social ones. Many people are now saying that we cannot afford these programs. I agree that there are some we cannot afford, but there are many others in times of recession which are absolutely necessary. I am sure in the next while they will be the ones which the Government and people will be attacking.
Rather than spending billions of dollars on establishing new Crown corporations, even one that does not spend much money but is superfluous, such as Canagrex, the Government seeks authority to borrow more money. Instead of pulling in its horns and offering incentives to the private sector that can provide jobs and help us out of the recession, we are faced with budgets that provide for larger deficits and more borrowing for federal Government spending.
I see my time has gone, Mr. Speaker; it goes by so fast.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here but I am not particularly pleased to be speaking on another borrowing Bill, Bill C-151 to borrow $14.7 billion, $4 billion of which the Government has given no indication as to how it will be spent or why it is wanted. This borrowing puts the borrowing per month over the last year at more than $1 billion per week. That is a fantastic record for the Government of Canada, probably a record among many countries of the world. Our friends opposite often challenge us
May 31, 1983

to be specific about where we in the NDP or those in the Conservative Party would make cuts if we were in Government. Such cuts could easily be listed because over the years the Auditor General has given us thousands of examples of where Government has badly managed its expenditures.
What does a Government have to do? Quite a number of practical suggestions have been made over the past number of weeks that this Bill has been before us as to how the deficit could be cut. Government Members must ask themselves whether they should continue to advocate the kind of deficiencies that appear in the operations of Government because deficits just do not happen. They are either planned or accidents of bad management or planning. In many cases, analysing Government spending turns up examples of bad management and bad planning.
My constituents ask me why this was allowed to happen, how the Government ever got in the situation in which it finds itself. They ask whether this kind of deficit financing and borrowing is of value to the country and whether it has been necessary over a long period of time.
For many years Canadian Governments did well in balancing their budgets. The first big spender in Government was Diefenbaker. Every year of the Diefenbaker Government there was a fairly large deficit. When we look at it now, it appears as though it were a small deficit. That was the beginning of the big spenders. The Pearson Government which followed balanced a couple of budgets. However, since this administration has been in power, this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been the second of the big spenders.
This Government is well assisted in the expending of money by Crown corporations which the Government says must operate at arm's length. We in this Party are often attacked by the Liberals and Conservatives who say we are the big spenders. However, the Government record in Saskatchewan proves that even though we put before the people of that Province good programs and expenditures, we did not plan large deficits such as this Government is doing.
Saskatchewan was the deepest in debt of all Provinces in 1944 when the first CCF Government was elected. After 30 years, with the exception of Alberta, it had the least public debt. Over those years, it had put in place some of the best social programs in Canada, if not the world, and paid for them. That is what I mean when I say that planned spending is what is important.
Last year the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan had a larger deficit than in the previous 77 years. The planned deficit this year will be higher than in the previous 78 years. If it continues in this way, it will soon catch up to the federal Government.
When we allow the Government to proceed with a Bill such as the one before us, Bill C-151, it is our responsibility to see whether the Government is a good custodian of the taxpayers' money. It is part of our responsibility to ensure that what the Government spends is well spent. For example, if in the past it
Borrowing Authority
was a good custodian and spent well, maybe then we could be expected to support it when it asks for more money.
Let us look at the record of this Government. Let us look at the last annual Report of the Auditor General. I could go through many such Reports of the Auditor General and pick out thousands of authentic examples of bad expending of money. It is interesting to note that the Auditor Genral said in his 1982 report. It will paraphrase rather than read the exact quote. He stated that the examples they chose to put in the 1982 Report were not the worst or the best examples. If they are not the worst examples, I would like to see them, because what he listed in his Report illustrates the weakness in Government spending and control.
I would like to list some of those examples. A number of people who appeared before the committee talked about how the Government could take control of its spending so that spending did not continue, absolutely out of control, as stated by the previous Auditor General. There are a number of obvious examples in the Auditor General's Report. Statutory expenditures over which Parliament has no control are quite often over-expended and are often indexed. They were set 15 years ago and have been indexed ever since without any need or effort to make those increases viable in any way. They just increased automatically. We have no control over expenditures by Crown corporations. We have no control over money put out by this Government in the form of letters of comfort. Parliament does not have control, nor does the Government it seems, over tax credits established over many years and never reviewed expenditures. Let us look at some of these. All of these together have led to a $250 billion deficit, $180 billion in the public accounts and the rest in areas over which Parliament has no control. It is time we got that kind of control over expenditures, that we had some input with regard to the expenditures of the Government.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, if I have caused some disappointment over there, I am genuinely sorry. It is my intention to join in the debate this afternoon. Rather than being somewhat repetitious by talking about what has been repeated many times, I think that it would be appropriate if my remarks dealt with the agricultural sector, a subject which I feel more at home with and which I think should be discussed at this time.
I want to talk about borrowing in the agricultural sector, and more particularly about the agricultural sector's repayment of borrowed funds. It is the repayment of borrowed funds that has brought on what I would consider to be a very serious crisis in the agricultural sector right across Canada. This crisis has been most noticeable over recent months.
I must say that it is one thing for the Government to come before Parliament and ask for borrowing authority for $26.7 billion but quite another to conscientiously explain how that amount may ever be repaid. If a member of the agricultural sector buys a farm or any part of a farm, repayment is a pretty important factor. The farmer dare not ignore the aspect of

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
repayment or he will be in trouble right from the beginning. Of course, farmers do not have the luxury of a national debt that can pile up indefinitely without any concern, and this is the impression with which we in Parliament leave the farmer, especially when we talk about a borrowing Bill.
Private Members' Bill C-653, at present before the Agricultural subcommittee, is attemting to address this problem of borrowing and the consequential repayment of borrowed funds that is faced by the agricultural sector right at this moment. Various witnesses who have come before this subcommittee have emphasized a number of facts that I believe we should talk about and discuss. As has been brought out in the subcommittee, most of the farmers who are in serious trouble are younger, and 1 think it is fair to say that, to a degree, they are less experienced. Many of them seem to be around the age of 30 which, when one spends a whole lifetime farming, is a rather young age.
A larger percentage of those farmers who are in trouble seem to be involved in my industry, the beef cattle industry, and perhaps this is understandable since the cattle industry has traditionally been a long-term type of farming operation. It takes many years to become established as a beef cattle farmer with a complete turnover in operation. It does not matter what sector of the cattle industry one is involved in, whether it is the cow-calf sector or the feeding industry or even the breeding industry, they are all long-term operations. The long-term nature of the cattle industry is perhaps understandable since I have always felt that it takes at least four to five years before a complete cow-calf cycle can fulfill itself or, by the same token, fail. This adds considerably to the financing of any cattle operation.
The year 1982 continuing into 1983 was easily the worst year of many years, and for many farmers it was a disastrous year. We are still accounting for that, and the subcommittee is making it rather obvious. The immediate explanation for this unsuccessful year is that dramatically increased operating costs have been so apparent over this period of time. Such increased operating costs include interest rates that have been as high as well over 20 per cent, record high fuel and fertilizer costs, record high farm land costs at least up to the end of 1981, and a major reduction in farm production prices such as all cereal grain prices, some of which have dropped well over $1 a bushel over the last two crop years. We have also seen continuing low cattle prices persist industry-wide over the same two years. We have seen all-time record high machinery and equipment costs, and we must not forget that repair costs for that equipment are also at a record high. A continuation of all these factors has created this crisis in agriculture for many of the younger farmers. Essentially, it is a crisis in borrowing and repayment on the individual farm level.
Very often during the subcommittee hearings I have received personal comments and letters from farmers outlining their particular crisis. They invariably make a statement which I have heard many times and which goes something like this: "Through no fault of our own, a series of disasters has brought on some final crisis or final demise of my operation." The
farmers emphasize that this occurs through no fault of their own. In many cases those farmers were probably alluding to such traditional farm hazards as drought, especially in western Canada, killing frosts, especially in the summertime, and various forms of plant pests and diseases. The same goes for livestock farmers.
These and many other farming hazards are more or less routine or standard hazards that any farmer must face. If the farmer is serious about engaging in the farming occupation all his life, then surely he must plan according to those risks. Certainly a serious drought or a killing frost is not the farmer's fault, and we all recognize that, but surely all farmers, especially successful ones, are well aware of this risk and must be prepared to acquire a philosophy of living with this possible difficulty. It is part of farming as a way of life. We must learn to farm in spite of these hazards, to forget about whose fault it is and to forget about trying to find somebody to blame it on.
One of the factors that has complicated agricultural financing is the dramatic changes that have occurred in Canadian farmland values. From 1971 through to late 1981, a period of about 11 years, the value of western Canadian farmlands, the only lands that I can speak for, has increased five and sixfold. This has occurred over the three Prairie Provinces and is now well documented. From late 1981 to the end of 1982, these same farmlands not only reached their peak in value, but dropped off dramatically. It is difficult to say how much the value dropped because farmland sales have fallen off so much and there are far fewer farms now being offered for sale and less available capital for such purchases. What the value of farmland has dropped to is rather difficult to determine.
As farmland values level off to new and, in my opinion, lower levels, we will perhaps see farmland values come closer to reflecting their actual or true productivity levels. Farmland financing will be more realistic and acceptable by all concerned when this happens. Surely there are serious lessons to be learned by both borrowers and lenders, and surely these are lessons that should have been learned from the example of history. 1 refer especially to the era of the drought and the Depression of the 1930s.
Over the almost 11 years from 1971 to 1981 while we saw a boom, it is also fair to say that we saw too much bad business judgment by both overanxious young farmers and overzealous and overly aggressive credit sources, mostly banks but also the Farm Credit Corporation and other leading agencies.
Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate on Bill C-151 and the request of the Government for additional borrowing authority, the voters of Canada and the taxpayers of Kitchener-Waterloo, whom I represent, will want to be reminded that in past months the Government has already come to the House for a series of authorities. This $14.5 billion will bring the authority to a total of $73.3 billion,
May 31, 1983

which in itself indicates the Government's failure to do what-taxpayers have had to do, and that is, bring its operations in line with reality.
As we begin to look at this request for borrowing authority we are reminded that since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to office some 15 years ago, federal spending has increased more than eightfold. The Estimates of the Government tabled some months ago are part of the continuum of economic mismanagement going back to 1968. As we are asked to give approval to this and as we seek to indicate why we will not vote for this authority, we are reminded that the federal budget was comfortably in balance when Prime Minister Trudeau and his Ministers took control in the 1960s. The years that followed brought a record of increased deficits.
The Government's expenditures have risen from $10.7 billion in the fiscal year 1968-69 to at least $88.9 billion in the 1983-84 fiscal year. Of this amount $2 billion does not have to be used this year and may be carried forward to the future. Thus the Government has a cushion of $2 billion for this year plus a cushion of $2 billion to be used in any year it may choose. This gives it far more flexibility than any Parliament ought to give any Government, let alone this Government with its track record of expenditures.
The authority granted through the borrowing Bill is only part of the picture. Many Crown corporations do not require special authority from Parliament to raise funds in the financial markets, nor must they tell Parliament what their financial requirements will be. I suggest there is no urgency for the passage of this Bill and that we as Members of Parliament have a right to give expression to the concerns of Canadians about the actions of the Government.
Part of that concern is reflected in the study undertaken by the Kitchener Chamber of Commerce on the matter of Government spending. It has undertaken a study of the Report of the Auditor General which was tabled recently and it has laid before the Treasury benches and local Members of Parliament copies of its comments. While these indicate that the Government seems to be paying some attention to the recommendations of the Auditor General in the March, 1982 report, the study contains this passage:
Notwithstanding the improvements in government control procedures cited above, we have continued concern, as does the Auditor General, with the significant waste and inefficiency in the federal government bureaucracy. In particular, we are much concerned with the very apparent use of Crown corporations for political purposes to avoid public scrutiny of government policy and ineptitude.
The study paper indicates concern about Crown corporations as a sub-Government and notes the effect of Government mismanagement and the climate for troubled companies, many of which are in the Waterloo regional area. At one point this report reads as follows:
Mr. Donald Johnston was recently quoted as saying that the current recession was responsible for eliminating a number of marginal Canadian companies and that we should alter our course and proceed with industries that are relevant and viable in today's economic environment. We believe that this policy should also apply to government ownership in the private sector through Crown corporations.
Borrowing Authority
The study deals with the management style of the Government in light of the management style that has been forced upon many small-businesses. The report has this to say:
In 1981-82, 33 per cent of the federal public civil servants collected a total of $219 million in additional wages as compensation for overtime and at the same time took time off in lieu of payment at additional estimated $25 million. Some public civil servants were paid more in overtime than their regular annual salaries.
This is at a time when the climate for investment and productivity was almost nonexistent, Mr. Speaker. The report
says:
We concur with the comments of the Auditor General for the need for better planning of overtime ... the control of absenteeism and the need for better allocation of overtime work.
In speaking against Bill C-151 for further borrowing authority, I suggest that not only are Canadian taxpayers concerned about the management of their resources but if there is to be expenditure, they are concerned about cost-effectiveness. As the same time as the Government wants great amounts of funds to use it is in the process of cutting off programs which could be of benefit and could be cost-effective in terms of our prison system, for example.
At the same time that it is seeking extra funds comes the penny-wise and pound-foolish announcement of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) that it is too expensive to continue educational programs for prisoners even though there is proof that as a result of these educational programs prisoners come back into society with much less recidivism.
Members of the House and the public will be interested in the case of Larry Cybulski. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record of May 2, 1983, reports as follows:
Larry Cybulski's university education was cut short this spring only a few credits short of his graduation.
Up to that moment, his education had turned an angry young man into a person who "appreciates that there's more to life," says one of his professors, Elliott Avedon-
But the 34-year old Cybulski is serving a life sentence in Saskatchewan's maximum security prison in Prince Albert. In January, federal Solicitor General Robert Kaplan cut off money for his correspondence courses at UW, saying prisoners must pay for their own education from now on.
Cybulski is one of 232 out of 10,000 federal prison inmates who are trying to improve themselves through correspondence and in-prison courses. He is proof that education is one of the most successful and cost-effective forms of rehabilitation that prisons have going for them-
This is the reason that university administrators, members of the John Howard Society, members of adult education associations and others have joined in condemning this shortsighted action. It is also why, in the light of no real plans for additional borrowing authority and the failure to be wise in the use of funds that are available, I will join with other Members on this side of the House in voting against the request of the Government for this authority.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, what we have before us today, again, is the Government asking Canadians to pay more money. It is asking the Canadian taxpayer, through the legislative process, to give authority to this Government to

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
go into the marketplace and borrow more money so it can cover the profligate spending for which this Government has become known. The Economic Summit on industrialized nations which was held at Williamsburg, Virginia, has just been completed, and it is interesting to note that in the economic communique there are two major principles which are expressed by the seven national leaders, he first is that the nations commit themselves to reducing their national deficits. The reason that they should commit themselves to reducing their national deficits is the acknowledgement of the effect these deficits have on international inflation and, of course, inflation within the given countries. This deficit results, just as we have before us today, in a Government which has to go into the money markets to get loans, and as Governments get into the money markets they affect the rates of interest which loans will bear. This obviously has an effect on business, on mortgages and, in fact, on any loans to which the average citizen wants to obligate himself in order either to increase his business or for personal use. The fear is that if these deficits increase, and if Governments continue to be so heavily involved in the money markets, interest rates will increase and thereby curtail the economic recovery which all of us are hoping will take place.
Therefore, the first principle of that economic communique has been to reduce the national deficits. The second aspect of the economic communique has been that these Governments, these nations, commit themselves to reducing their ever escalating expenditures. This, of course, is concomitant with the first principle, as ever increasing deficits are, but it is also a reflection of ever increasing Government expenditures. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, from the press conferences given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) that it was these two points which Canada was insisting upon at the Williamsburg Conference, that it was Canada which was in the forefront of insisting that Governments commit themselves to reducing their deficits and their ever escalating Government expenditures. If only that were the case in Canada. If only those words of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, given to the nations of the world, were in fact the case here. But their actions in Canada give lie to the words they express at international forums, because the evidence before us today, namely, another borrowing Bill, is evidence again that they have not made any serious effort to reduce either the national deficit or the ever increasing escalating Government expenditures.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What about the six and five?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, I am going to get to the six and five.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You voted against it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will get to the six and five if the gentleman will stop making the best speeches he does, and that is when he is sitting down.


An Hon. Member:: Why don't you stand up and make a speech?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: We will.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I heard one of my colleagues say that the Hon. Member should make a speech. I must inform my colleagues, in case they did not know, that those gentlemen opposite are not allowed to make speeches on this Bill.
The evidence in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is that the deficit in Canada is increasing. In fact, the Prime Minister indicates that the projected United States deficit is too high. President Reagan, and other members of the U.S. Government, agree and they are trying to reduce that deficit. However, if you take a look at the magnitude of their deficit, either per capita or relative to the GNP, you will find that the Canadian deficit on both counts is much higher than the American one. What we are saying here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is, "United States, get your house in order." For some reason the Government is trying to convey to Canadians that things are better in Canada than in the United States, the Government it condemns.
This Government wants a deficit of $31 billion. That is projected in this budget. If you take economies of scale per capita of ten to one to the United States, that would mean that the United States would have to have a projected deficit in the coming year in the order of $300 billion to $310 billion, when their projected deficit is somewhere in the order of $175 billion. How can this Government keep coming back to this House and saying to Canadians, "Look Canadians, we have our house in order, but our neighbour to the south does not"?
What about spending? It is said that expenditures should not be escalating as they are. 1 do not sit on the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. Speaker, but that Committee's record and testimony is replete with cases of legitimate programs having been brought into disrepute because of the lack of financial management of this Government. From 1968 to the present, on a public accounts basis, expenditures, since this Government has been in power, have increased by some 550 per cent, five and a half times. Yet it is going internationally and saying to its industrial allies, "Get your house in order". Let us start here. We can take an even more recent date; since its re-election in 1980, Government expenditures have increased by 78 per cent. That is in this Parliament. Yet it is trying to convince Canadians it is keeping its expenditures in check. The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) asks about the six and five.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You voted against it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If you will give me a minute, I will give you some detail. Just hang on.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You cannot hide. You voted against it. It is on the record.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just keep your blood pressure down. The Government says six and five, Mr. Speaker, and inflation is 6.6 per cent annualized now. That is great, but business, long before this Government ever thought it gave leadership, had already made decisions relative to the economic reality in business. If
May 31, 1983

the Government wants six and five, then why does its expenditures increase by double that amount?


An Hon. Member:: Why?


An Hon. Member:: Why? Answer that.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What a weak line of thought.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If that is the case, why does Government not hold its expenditures to 6 per cent? If it wants wage earners in Canada to keep at 6 per cent, if it wants all services to be kept at 6 per cent, why does the Government of Canada feel justified in doubling and increasing its expenditures by 12 per cent? If that program is to have validity, and Government wants to reduce the inflation rate, then why does it increase it by 12 per cent?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Surely you can use better logic.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is absolute logic, and you know it.


An Hon. Member:: "Six per cent for everybody but us".


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You are a man who could do his homework and yet you have not. That is shameful.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is interesting, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: You don't know the difference between $19 billion and $126 billion, where you will be a year from now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What is interesting, Mr. Speaker, is that when you raise the point with the Hon. Members opposite that they seem to be saying, "Don't do as we do, do as we say", that is when they become sensitive. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the Government is demanding from every Canadian a 6 per cent ceiling, but it will go to 12 per cent and tax all Canadians at that level.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There is no way those Members opposite can escape that fact. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, this Government, must come to grips with its deficit and must come to grips with the escalation of its expenditures, both of which are absolutely at variance with the words Hon. Members opposite say in this House, words they want to have Canadians believe, and the words they say in international forums. Until they are able to square those words with actions, we will vote against this Bill.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had not actually intended to speak on this Bill, but after listening
Borrowing A uthority
to the last two Conservative speakers I felt it important to rise and add just a modicum of sanity to the debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: The Member who spoke just prior to the last speaker was going on at some length about the plight of farmers. First of all, I want to acknowledge that he knows as much about that as anyone in the House. He spoke lucidly and intelligently about the difficulties that farmers face. There is no doubt in my mind that the overwhelming majority of the farming community will well understand the logic of much of what was said by the Hon. Member. I find only one minor problem with his presentation. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about this, that there is no doubt that the economic policy pursued by the Government of the day has wreaked havoc with all sectors of the economy, particularly the farming sector. The inability of farmers to match their cash requirements with their sales in many areas has resulted in many farmers going into default on their bank loans and being forced into bankruptcy. We have seen farmers so often, many of them not so young, having their equipment sold out from under them. I can remember when, not too many weeks ago in this House, there was a Private Members' Bill dealing with that very topic, supported by a significant number of farmers from all parts of the country. If I recalll correctly, it was Bill C-653, and it would have established a mechanism, albeit imperfect, for dealing with bank foreclosures. It was an intermediate step which would have allowed for consultation and apportionment of the indebtedness over a long period of time. But the Tories have locked it up in committee to the point where it will never become law. That is evidence of their commitment. When the farmers are really on the line they are standing shoulder to shoulder with them, only until they can stab them in the back.
We have seen so many other problems develop over the course of the last couple of years. The Government is its own worst enemy in that regard. There was the interest rate escalation which took place over the course of, oh, the 24 months preceding the last three or four months; in other words, starting back in 1980 and coming forward into the latter part of 1982. The Government not only allowed that rapid escalation of interest rates, it encouraged it. Had it not done so, then the cost of the borrowing that the Government undertakes so frequently would not have been so high. If that had been brought under control, the amount of money the Government is now asking for would have been considerably less.
So you cannot help feeling that on the one side we get the plaintive bleating of the Conservatives as to how they do not like what is happening, but when there is concrete action to deal with it, they refuse to do so. On the other hand you have a Government which has brought about much of this deficit because of its inability or unwillingness to come to grips with the usurious interest rates permitted to be charged in this

May 31, 1983
Borrowing Authority
country to farmers, small and large businessmen, and to private individuals or consumers who are trying to renew their mortgages, and of course to the Government itself.
I can remember that we argued from this corner of the House about high interest rates and the terrible toll they were taking on Canadians who were being driven out of their homes and businesses and off their farms. We sought the support of the Conservative Party in trying to push this Government to bring in an Act in order to take away some control of the Bank of Canada so we would not have high interest rates. I can remember when the then Tory finance critic, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), who is now ranked No. 5 in the Tory leadership race, said, when speaking in Montreal, that there was nothing that could be done other than what was being done by the Government. 1 even recall the previous leader, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), saying on May 4, 1982, that we have looked for a solution other than the current Liberal Government's solution and we could not come up with an alternative. That referred to the high interest rate problem.
We are opposed to this Government's economic policy, Mr. Speaker. We are opposed to the way it has mismanaged the economy. We are opposed to this Government's complacency in allowing the Bank of Canada to set interest rates which forced so many hardworking Canadians into poverty. We are opposed to the way this Government, together with their bedmates in the Conservative Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: -have devised and designed policies which have not been in the best interest of Canadians. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, in the minute remaining to me, that there is no doubt in my mind that the Tories are about to try to bring this Bill down a bit. Oh, they will probably be prepared to accept minor alterations to the Bill in return for quick passage, but I would not be surprised that the Tories might be prepared to allow the Government to go ahead with this borrowing if only it would borrow a little less. Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to this Government borrowing this money at this time. If the Tories want to sell out, so be it. If they want to join their friends in the Liberal Party and accept a somewhat smaller amount of borrowing in the interest of some short term political gain, then let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they can do that but we will not play that game. It is wrong, and the people of Canada cannot afford it. The Government has brought this on itself. I say to the Government: if you want to see the economy of Canada improve, then resign.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time. I might just point out that the NDP take up so much room in that Liberal bed there has never been room for us at any time. They sprawl out, spreadeagled from one side to the other, from top to bottom.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose in the House to ask a question of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with regard to the administration of the prison system in Canada. All of us have been made very aware of many of the problems existing in the prison system. Most of the attention has been devoted to the inmates of the prisons, and rightly so, I suppose. However, in the process of giving that attention to the inmate population, concerning whether or not certain people should be incarcerated, what kind of treatment they should receive and so forth, most of the time we have overlooked the administration of the prison system itself.
Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General why it was that he has commissioned a Gallup study to be done within the work force of Corrections Canada to examine its opinion of the work place. I did so because I had received in the mail the Notice of Attitude Survey which the Solicitor General has commissioned. It states in part:
The Correctional Service of Canada is planning a survey regarding staff attitudes toward their employment and work programs.
We have commissioned the Canadian Gallup Poll organization to undertake this project which will consist of several hundred telephone interviews. The survey will deal with your attitudes and opinions in general and will not touch on private personal topics.
That comes hard on the heels of a study that was already done within Corrections Canada, a welfare program category study to the tune of $250,000-the cost to the taxpayer, not including the service of employees on the payroll. That study which cost the taxpayer a quarter of a million dollars resulted in acceptance by the senior management of all the recommendations of the study which could proceed no further due to the national restraint program.
The obvious question, then, is: why should a study be conducted if the so called six and five program prohibits Corrections Canada from implementing the recommendations of such study? Having spent a quarter of a million dollars on the study, the Government now commissions another one to an outside organization, the Gallup Poll. It will presumably cost quite a few thousand dollars. What will happen to the results of the study when they again are subject to the guidelines of six and five?
My reason for asking the question yesterday however lies in the fact that presumably, with the growth of the managerial sector of Corrections Canada, there ought to be enough in house expertise to conduct such a study. To be sure, it has
May 31, 1983

already done so. It must therefore know something of the attitudes within the workplace.
I point out that in answer to a Question No. 3,505 on the Order Paper, I really received a wealth of information.
The Minister told me yesterday that there are 10,000 employees in Corrections Canada. 1 think that is probably accurate, because there are about 10,000 inmates within the federal corrections system, and we know that there is a ratio of about one employee to every inmate. That does not mean that there is one line officer to every inmate, but there is one employee. If we examine the return of the question as it was given to me some months ago, we find that about 50 per cent of the employees in Corrections Canada are somewhere in the managerial class. About 50 per cent-possibly as low as 40 per cent, maybe as high as 60 per cent, but in that range-of the employees of Corrections Canada are managerial and the rest are line officers. It is no wonder that the people at the CX level in Corrections Canada are nervous about the cutbacks in their program, because you can rest assured, Sir, that the cutbacks will not come at the managerial level. Cutbacks always seem to come at the line officer level, the CX class. That is why people are worried about whether or not the survey will continue.
1 point out, for example, in the Joyceville Prison there are 156 CX officers and 145 other employees. In Millhaven there are 224 CX officers and 164 other employees. At the Regional Reception Centre there are 155 CX officers and 121 other employees. At Drumheller there are 162 CX officers and 134 other employees, and so on down the line it goes.
If we have that proportion of management in the penitentiary system, is there not enough expertise to conduct this kind of a survey? Is it necessary to spend more tax dollars on another survey? It is bad enough to spend those dollars. I am not so much concerned about the taxpayers expenditures, but the fact that the managerial staff is so cut off from the line officers that it cannot get to the heart of the problem. It becomes a staff management problem rather than an inmate management problem. If there is not enough trust between management and CX officers that they are unable to find out where the problems lie, then the problems of management are worse than the problems of the inmates.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alain Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) why Correctional Service Canada was conducting a poll among its employees. Correctional Service Canada, which employs about 10,000 people, has, in fact, sent its employees a memo urging them to take part in a survey aimed at obtaining a better understanding of their attitudes toward the workplace and working conditions. All are free to participate or not.
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian Gallup Poll organization has been asked to conduct this survey which will consist of several hundred telephone interviews. The survey will cover general attitudes and opinions of employees and no questions of a personal or private nature will be asked. All the data collected will be strictly confidential, and replies of respondents will be compiled and analyzed in a statistical report.
Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has also indicated that the opinions and concerns of employees within Correctional Service Canada are very important to him. The results will be put to good use in labour-management relations. I hope the Hon. Member will be interested in seeing the results of this survey. As the Solicitor General said, the questions along with the answers will be available when the survey is completed.


LABOUR RELATIONS-EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS DISPUTE-ENFORCEMENT OF SAFETY REGULATIONS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, once again my purpose is to review the labour-management dispute at Eastern Provincial Airways. Let me begin my remarks by providing some background material.
On January 27, 1983 the pilots of Eastern Provincial Airways, represented by the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, exercised their right under the Canada Labour Code to strike after failing to reach an agreement through collective bargaining. Over the intervening weeks and months it became apparent that the pilots were willing to accept more onerous working conditions in order to return to work, provided their jobs would be reinstated on the basis of the existing seniority rules common to all Canadian airlines.
The management of EPA made it clear that any back-to-work agreement must provide for the retention of pilots promoted or hired during the course of a strike. This led to an impasse that precluded agreement on the terms and conditions under which the pilots would work. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the legalization of strikes, all Canadians must acknowledge that the right to strike exists under federal statutory law approved by the Parliament of Canada. Consequently, a denial of the right to strike when legal conditions are observed or interfering with the rights of strikers cannot be justified.
Faced with this situation I sought on two occasions, on April 29 and on May 25 of this year, to raise the matter in the House of Commons. My purpose was to ensure that the Canada Labour Relations Board would review carefully and quickly any matters in dispute so that a settlement could be reached at the earliest possible date. A second even more important concern was the safety of the public and its protection through the officers of the Department of Transport in carefully monitoring and enforcing the safety regulations that exist. Safety measures could easily be neglected when an

Adjournment Debate
airline operates during a legal strike with personnel who may not be familiar with the equipment or are overworked.
The Canada Labour Relations Board has made its decision on the matters in dispute between EPA pilots and management. The decision is public knowledge, but in basic terms it finds Eastern Provincial Airways management in breach of the Canada Labour Code and provides for a quick return to work by directing the restoration of seniority rights for pilots.
Let me say that I am not the only Member concerned with the settlement of the Eastern Provincial Airways strike. My colleagues in the Official Opposition, particularly the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), have discussed the issues and have offered assistance. Members representing the Government, including the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), have publicly stated their concerns and sought satisfactory solutions. But the Canada Labour Relations Board has rendered its decision. I sincerely believe that all Members of the House of Commons from Atlantic Canada desire the strike settled and full service restored to the travelling public.
Many of us view with alarm the indication by the management of EPA that it will not abide by the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board. The President of EPA has stated publicly that he will appeal the Board's decision. Yet Section 122 of the Canada Labour Code indicates clearly that the Board's decision is final and cannot be reviewed or questioned by a court. There is the possibility of an intervention by the Federal Court of Canada, but this recourse is reserved for technical errors and is not an appeal on the merits of the case.
Today in the House of Commons we had an assurance of the Acting Minister of Labour to the effect that the Government expected compliance with the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board, notwithstanding any reference to the Federal Court. In fact the Acting Minister said in the House today, that these orders of the Canada Labour Relations Board cannot in any way be delayed even if some kind of appeal is put forward by the President of EPA. Those were the words of the Acting Minister, and I take him at his word. I hope the Government will take every action possible to ensure immediate compliance with the decision of the Canada Labour Relations Board so that full service on EPA can be restored.
There are one or two other points which have arisen during the course of this labour dispute at EPA that are of real concern to myself and other Members. One is that the Canadian Transport Commission in the midst of this strike situation approved a merger between EPA and CP Air. Not only did it approve that merger, but apparently it took no offence with the fact that EPA announced the merger the day before, as far as 1 can determine, it was actually approved. For the CTC to be so insensitive to the rights of the employees involved in the operation by deciding an important issue like that, virtually without reference to the employees involved, is not a proper interpretation of the mandate of the CTC. It was bound to
May 31, 1983
prolong the labour dispute. It was bound to encourage management to resist settlement of the dispute. I think the Canadian Transport Commission owes Parliament and the public an explanation of its action.
We from Atlantic Canada have always recognized that Eastern Provincial Airways is a community corporation, a corporation which contributes in a very important way to the economy of the Atlantic region. There are over 900 EPA employees in the area of Halifax which I represent. EPA contributes something in the area of $10 million to the local economy on an annual basis. We all have an interest in the continued success and viability of this air transport business and operation.
I can only repeat that we beg the management of Eastern Provincial Airways to recognize that the time has come for settlement of this dispute. I can virtually state on the basis of my many conversations with the pilots involved in this strike that they are more than willing to go back to work and cooperate, with all the reasonable demands of management.
One concern that should be important to management and the pilots is that the confidence of the public in the operation of the airline is essential to its continued success in the future. Any questions about safety will result in loss of consumer and customer confidence. I warn the management of EPA in a fair-minded way that if they do not sit down with the pilots and reach an immediate settlement of this dispute on the basis already approved by the Canada Labour Relations Board, this may in years to come affect the viability and success of the airline operation.
These are difficult times for all Canadian businesses. I can understand why any company would be concerned with its collective bargaining agreements, but I have every assurance from the persons involved that what is at stake here is that viability of the airlines and the continued interest of the employee in that commercial success for the airline. The Management of EPA have little to fear on the part of all their employees, particularly the pilots, if they commence to bargain in good faith, as the Canada Labour Relations Board has directed, and reach a settlement so that this matter can be put to rest and the airline put back into full operation.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reply on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) and his Parliamentary Secretary. I should also thank the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) who has given me some advice. I know that the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate has taken a very deep interest in the welfare of the pilots and the company in the management of this issue.
The Canada Labour Relations Board ruled that EPA violated provisions in the Canadian Labour Code, and stated that EPA had failed to bargain in good faith and to make every reasonable effort to enter into a collective agreement; had unlawfully interfered with the internal affairs of the union; and had negotiated to an impasse provisions of the
May 31, 1983

return-to-work agreement discriminatory as to the reinstatement of striking pilots.
The board ordered EPA to cease and desist from bad faith bargaining and from interfering in the union's internal affairs. EPA must cease from conferring permanent status to the replacement pilots hired during the strike. EPA must cease discriminating against striking pilots as to their re-instatement.
EPA is directed to remove from its proposed collective agreement a clause which added a third year to the two-year term earlier negotiated. The union has been directed by the board to submit the proposed collective agreement to its membership for ratification. If it is ratified, the union is to inform the board whether it is ready to sign the agreement. If ratification is confirmed, the board has ordered that a collective agreement is deemed to be in effect. The parties must further meet within five working days from the date of the board's order of May 27, 1983 and negotiate a return-to-work agreement.
Each striking pilot with seniority standing on January 27 who wants to return to EPA is directed by the board to confirm his desire in writing to the company and to send a copy to the board within 24 hours of the termination of the strike. The striking pilots, under a revised return-to-work agreement, are to be reinstated to their former positions or substantially equivalent positions. The board will retain jurisdiction to deal with any problems arising out of the implementation of its order.
Current media reports suggest that EPA intends to challenge the board's decision through a court appeal. While this is not a matter for which the Minister has responsibility, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to Section 122 of the Canada Labour Code which states:
-every order or decision of the board is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with paragraph 28(1 )(a) of the Federal Court Act.
The latter provision does empower the Federal Court to hear and determine an appeal concerning a decision of a federal board where it is alleged that the latter has failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction. I again thank the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate for his invaluable advice and support in settling this matter.


MEDICAL CARE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE NEW HEALTH CARE ACT-INQUIRY RESPECTING DATE OF INTRODUCTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pursue a question 1 put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) yesterday about the status of the proposed Canada Health Act. I would like to elaborate on why I think it is so very, very important to see an actual proposal for a Canada Health Act in the very near future.
I believe that the events in Alberta in particular, where we have seen the proposed introduction of user fees by October 1, make it incumbent upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to act and to act very soon to do something about the
Adjournment Debate
erosion of the principles of medicare which the action taken in Alberta represents and which I predict will only be the beginning of many, many actions of that kind should nothing be done about what is happening in Alberta. 1 have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to bring forth a Canada Health Act and so far, her answers to me have been unsatisfactory. She either argues that she has powers within existing legislation to do something about what is happening in Alberta and so she likes to ask me why I am calling for a new Act, or, alternatively, she says that the Canada Health Act will be coming forward when it is ready, but there has never been any indication of when it might be ready.
My argument, Mr. Speaker, is that the present legislation puts the Minister in a position where she has no viable political options. She can only continue to lecture the Province of Alberta until October 1 at which time, if the Province is unpersuaded and brings in the user fees, she will have only one alternative other than simply complaining about it and that will be to withdraw all federal health funding to Alberta. In my view, that would not only risk interruption of health care services but would also contain a great many known and unknown risks. One of the known risks would be that it would provoke a federal-provincial political crisis of great magnitude,
I am sure.
I suggest to the Minister that if she brings in a Canada Health Act which clarifies and strengthens the five basic principles of medicare but which also provides the federal Government with more flexibility in responding to Provinces which are seen to be in violation of the principles of medicare, she will accomplish two things. One, she will indicate to the Minister of Health in Alberta and any other Minister in any other Province which is considering these kinds of actions, that she is really serious about being able to deal with the problem. She will also give Canadians who are in favour of preserving medicare a more real and viable political option around which to rally and give support, providing that the Act does these things which I have mentioned.
Right now, she only has the negative option of literally kicking Alberta out of medicare, and this is not something around which, I believe, she can as effectively rally promedicare Canadians. Whereas, she could rally pro-medicare Canadians around a Canada Health Act, because it would be a positive action. That is why I suggest this to her and why I wanted to take this opportunity to elaborate on the reasons that I believe it is so very, very important that by the end of June, we see something around which pro-medicare forces in Canada could gather. Otherwise, if the Minister fails to indicate her intention to remove herself from the box that the federal Government put itself in as far back as 1977 went it adopted block funding, then the Minister of Health in Alberta and all the others who would erode Medicare, will know that the federal Government and the Minister are not serious about trying to do something. The federal Government will have failed to indicate its intention to give itself the capacity to

May 31, 1983
Adjournment Debate
respond to the crisis. As, within the existing legislation, it does not have the capacity that it needs in order to respond effectively.
I think the Government should go along with the recommendations of the Special Parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements that any new funding arrangements-and this is presumably what the Canada Health Act would bring in-would provide the federal Government with the capacity to gradually withhold federal funding from Provinces that were seen to be in violation of the principles of Medicare.
If we had a Canada Health Act which gave the federal Government that kind of flexibility and provided for a gradual withholding of funding, and provided that extra billing and user fees, and profit-oriented hospitals, and various other things that have been on the increase lately which threaten Medicare, were in violation of Medicare, then the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be living up to her responsibilities.
If we do not get an Act in the very near future, I am afraid the Minister will be quite justifiably open to the accusation that she fiddled while Rome burned by doing nothing except talk while Medicare went to pieces before our very eyes.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) who
points out very clearly the threat that faces Medicare in Canada. It emphasizes the importance of a careful consideration before the Act is drafted.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has stated on several occasions, and as recently as yesterday, it can only be restated that work is progressing as quickly as is possible on the new Canada Health Act, and that as soon as it is appropriate she will be meeting with provincial Health Ministers to complete the consultation process before introducing the new Act to Parliament. This is a very important program to Canadians with very large amounts of money involved and it is essential that the time be taken to develop the Act properly.
The Minister has received a great deal of mail in favour of maintaining and improving our universal Medicare system- the best in the world-and in support of her efforts to develop a new Act. She is grateful for this support. It is hoped that all Members of this House would put similar pressure on provincial Governments to likewise support these efforts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adapted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 6.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


ENDOF VOLUME XXII