1983-02-25

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, on February 26, 1976, seven years ago, I tabled in this House the report of the Special Committee on Employer-Employee Relations in the Public Service. This report was the result of 18 months of hard work by a Committee which listened to witnesses from unions, management groups, and other interested parties from all parts of the country.
The Special Committee had a mandate to study a report produced by Mr. Jacob Finkelman who was the chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board since the legislation was enacted in 1967, and had presided over employer-employee relations in the Canadian Public Service. Thus, our Special Committee report became popularly known as the Finkelman Report. It contained 72 recommendations, of which recommendation No. 4 reads:
Certain revisions to the Public Service Employment Act be made immediately to allow the Public Service Commission to operate efficiently.
I underline the words "be made immediately".
Recommendation 5 reads:
That Parliament consider the proposed changes to the Public Service Employment Act as soon as possible, bearing in mind their relationship to changes recommended in the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
No action whatsoever has been taken on any of the 72 recommendations in the report.
Since then there have been two further studies, one on personnel management and one on accountability in the Public Service, the D'Avignon Report and the Report of the Lambert Commission.
In my over ten years as a Member of Parliament-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL PROPOSAL
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, it has been said that the wheels of bureaucracy turn exceedingly slowly.
Nowhere is this saying more true than in the case of the peace officers' memorial proposal, which I initiated on December 14, 1981, as a result of a motion put forward by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Madam Speaker, this is not a complex proposition. It does not involve the expenditure of great quantities of the taxpayers' dollars. Surely it is a project worthy of consideration. Yet, all I have been getting on this is consideration, no action.
I have written many times on behalf of the Association of Chiefs of Police in the hope of receiving a simple answer such as, "Yes, we are placing the memorial book in such and such a room in the Centre Block today." Instead, I have been getting pat answers, indeed the same pat answers two and three times in succession, such as, "The matter is being brought to the attention of the Executive Committee." I would rather not receive letters indicating that the matter will be dealt with shortly, but a letter indicating action will be taken now.
Last week, I again sent a memo to check on the status of this issue which could have been resolved months ago. It was brought to my attention that a room in the West Block would be considered. Surely this is inadequate. The West Block is not a public area. Therefore, how many people will be viewing the guest book in that obscure location?
I believe that our nation's police forces are among the best in the world. The gallant men who died protecting our society's best interests from those who would-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, it is time for us to get back to work on positive economic issues. Over the past week we have detoured into false issues by demanding the retirement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). That does nothing to help Canadians find greater prosperity or to restore the country's economy.
In today's editorial The Toronto Star has written an important reminder to us about scandalmongering. I want to quote parts of it for our consideration:

February 25, 1983
Lalonde's forced resignation would be more than a personal tragedy. It would deprive Canada of a dynamic, progressive-minded politician at a time when they're in short supply. The budget would be delayed many months-a budget crucial to spurring the economy toward recovery and creating jobs-
The Opposition has made much, throughout this debate, and non-confidence vote, of the need for honor and accountability in government .. . Marc Lalonde abused no fundamental public trust, in breaching the guidelines; there is no compelling public interest in seeing him driven from office.
The Government has brought vital economic issues into the House over the past month for debate. We must continue the debate on the Income Tax Act if we are to get refunds out to low-income people who need the money. We must debate the-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, nearly half of all single parent families headed by women in Canada live below the poverty line. An important reason for this economic distress is the lack of enforcement of court ordered maintenance payments for child support. In Ontario, for example, 75 per cent of orders for child maintenance are not paid after two years.
The problem, Madam Speaker, is that the responsibility for collecting the money owed them is left to the mothers who have been abandoned by the fathers of the children. If the father does not pay, the mother must incur legal costs and return to court to request enforcement. If the father has left town, the mother must try to trace him. In many cases the cost of enforcement exceeds the value of the order.
As a solution I urge the federal Government to introduce two amendments to the Divorce Act. The first amendment would empower the courts to enforce and collect child maintenance payments through the issuance of continuing orders. If a parent defaulted, a Crown attorney would be appointed to trace the parent and compel him to pay.
The second amendment would permit the court to use Revenue Canada records and social insurance numbers to trace spouses who default on their child maintenance payments. Appropriate safeguards could be applied to ensure that only the courts had access to this information. This system already operates successfully in the United States.
The economic situation of single parent families today is so desperate that immediate Government action is imperative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the administration of the United States cancelled seat sale air fares offered by Air Canada, affecting 56,000 Canadians who planned to travel to the United States. Obviously that administration wants to collapse the convention on air travel arrangements with our country, because Canada had given approval to United States airlines to charge similar fares on travel to Canada. What the U.S. administration really wants to do is put Canadian airlines out of business hauling Canadians to Pacific Rim destinations, by allowing U.S. carriers to funnel our travel around the Pacific via California. Canada must take immediate action to counter this blatant interference in our affairs.
This is nothing more than another action in a series where the United States has broken faith with Canada: obstruction to the showing of National Film Board films, one of which is nominated for an Oscar award; stonewalling solutions to acid rain problems; refusal to ratify a fisheries treaty; failure to meet commitments on the Northern Alaska pipeline; attempts to emasculate FIRA; blackmail to force us to test U.S weapons systems.
Canada must be firm and forthright in its dealings with the United States and stop its supine acquiesence. We must stop acting like mendicants on our hands and knees in our dealings with that country.


CORRECTION OF MISLEADING STATEMENTS
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday both the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), as reported at page 23188 of Hansard, called for the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on the grounds he had misled the House. Clearly these Hon. Members are demonstrating rank hypocrisy by failing to distinguish between an honest mistake and a deliberate misleading of the House. No one on the opposite side suggested that the Minister of Finance intentionally misled the House. They know his reputation, and they know that such a suggestion would be unthinkable.
On October 15, 1979, the Minister of State for International Trade in the Tory Government, the current Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), rose to correct an answer given by him in the House three days earlier. He said:
Since making that statement, my officials have made me aware of three contracts which have been cancelled, one in the amount of $4.2 million and two other smaller ones, one contract for approximately $350,000 and the other one for approximately $60,000.

February 25, 1983

Obviously that Tory Minister clearly misled the House in regard to deals worth over $4 million. If we are to apply the logic of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, he should have demanded the resignation of his Minister for misleading the House. Did he? Of course not. Why? Because it was unintentional. Did Liberal Members demand the Minister's resignation? No, because we know the basic and fundamental difference between an honest mistake and a deception.
I would suggest that Members opposite should stop this hypocrisy, stop applying double standards, and show some consistent application of parliamentary principles for a change.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, Canadians are proud of the independence and international reputation of the National Film Board. Its documentaries have won acclaim in film festivals around the world.
The decision of the United States Justice Department to declare three recent documentaries offensive and brand them as political propaganda, is unacceptable. Those in the United States who show National Film Board films "Acid From Heaven", "Acid Rain: Requiem or Recovery", and "If You Love This Planet", must record their names with the Justice Department as if they were taking part in a subversive activity. Incidentally, the latter film which warns of dangers in the nuclear arms build-up, has been nominated for an Oscar.
It is not enough for officials to make statements across the border about this unfortunate incident. It is imperative that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) make a clear statement to the American administration that the treatment of these films is unacceptable to the people of Canada and the Government of Canada.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast have been following the Gillespie-Lalonde affair with jaundiced eyes. There are too many deals, patronage, and appearances of pay-offs by Liberals to their friends.
For three years now, on behalf of all Canadians I have attempted to reveal the truth about the Amax affair. These same frontbench Liberals have fought every move, have sought to hide material from the public view. Documents delivered in an unmarked envelope this week add one more chapter to the book on why Liberals are unfit to govern.
Oral Questions
The documents reveal that two Liberal Cabinet Ministers met together with Amax officials and their respective lawyers before the Government's own environmental review was complete. The results of the meeting are now clear-Amax's own lawyers participated in the drafting of marine disposal regulations, which were ultimately signed by the then Minister of Fisheries, the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc), in the middle of the 1979 federal election. The two Cabinet Ministers, Len Marchand and Iona Campagnola, can take credit for circumventing the Government's own review process, for saving Amax $23 million, for allowing dumping 8,000 times above the Government's own regulations, and for lowering the level of trust the average Canadian can put in the political and legislative process in Canada.
Can we forget, Madam Speaker, that four out of five on the Government's scientific review panel opposed the marine dumping proposal by Amax? The Gillespie affair is shameful. The Amax affair is political corruption at its apex.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance with regard to what would seem to be a leak of the October 28, 1980, budget. The Minister will know that the documents tabled in this House this week indicate a million dollars was set aside in the planning stages of that budget for the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project. The Minister will also know that, one day after the budget was announced in this House, the consortium agreement was signed, that agreement obviously having been negotiated and prepared weeks in advance, indicating that the consortium was aware and intended to apply for that $1 million. How was it that the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project consortium knew that money was in the budget?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the infusion of the funds for research on coal liquefaction was and is part of the National Energy Program which was tabled in the House at the same time as the budget on October 28. Second, I am advised the agreement between the consortium was actually signed at a later date than the one mentioned by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Broadbent:: A day after the budget.


Marc Lalonde: Third, I am advised that the project is one that was considered for a long time by the Nova Scotia Government under the 1977 agreement. It had nothing to do with the budget.

February 25, 1983
Oral Questions
Fourth, I am advised that no one in the consortium knew that there was to be anything in the budget about this or even in the National Energy Program specifically. That is the advice I got. Certainly Mr. Gillespie was not aware that there would be any specific sums allocated for that purpose in the National Energy Program itself.


CONSORTIUM'S CONTEMPLATION OF FUNDING
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the memorandum of understanding was signed October 29, 1980. How could that memorandum include the following words:
It is contemplated that the Consortium will be able to obtain, directly or indirectly, a contribution or grant of 40 per cent of the Study Project Costs, up to $1 million, from the Oil Substitution Fund-
And then comes the key word "or", and it continues:
-or from other sources of Government funding-
Unless there was reason to believe, as the then Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated that a million dollars was, in fact, being provided, as the Deputy Minister said in the memorandum to the Minister dated January 15, how can the Minister explain that a document could be prepared for signature on October 29 that clearly refers to moneys included in the October 28 budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again I have to repeat what I have said before. Obviously there must have been discussions between officials and members of the consortium in which this issue was considered. Again, the sum of $1 million must have been anticipated under the Oil Substitution Program that existed since 1977. The mention of it in the National Energy Program that was tabled at the time of the budget should be no surprise.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER QUESTION OFFICIALS
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. He seems not to be aware that there is at least the potential or the appearance of a budget leak here. Will the Minister undertake to question directly the officials involved and, if appropriate, bring them before a parliamentary committee? It is imperative the House know-that the House know, Madam Speaker-the consortium did not have what it appears to have had, and that is advance knowledge of what was in the budget.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to check if my hon. friend makes this request. It is obvious by virtue of what I have already said that there could not have been a budget leak. It is part of the National Energy Program that was tabled at the time of the budget. Discussions obviously must have taken place and there must have been consideration of this particular project. But there was no budget leak here.


ROLE OF PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister knows that this project is mentioned on page 84 of the National Energy Program which is a part of the 1980 budget. He will also make himself aware that on November 25, 1980, before the Alternate Energy Committee, the Minister of Finance, then in the position of Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said that there is not one word in this program that he did not approve personally. Therefore, the references on page 84 were personally approved.
We knew at the time of the budget that Mr. Joel Bell, senior Vice-President of Petro-Canada, had a hand in drafting the budget. That was confirmed here in the House. The very next day Petro-Canada signed a deal, a memorandum of understanding with Gillespie and Associates, that mentions the SI million.
If in fact there was not prior knowledge by Mr. Bell, other officials of Petro-Canada and Mr. Gillespie, if we are asked to believe this Minister whose word I find difficult to believe in view of his conflicting letters, what possible explanation can he provide to the House for that overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Bell, other officials of Petro-Canada, Devco, and perhaps others in the private sector, were aware of what was in that budget before it was presented to the House at 8 p.m. on October 28?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend should read the budget of October 28. He will find that there is no reference to this project in the budget of October 28. At the time of the budget the Minister of Finance tabled the National Energy Program which contained a large number of measures and a large number of allocations of funds, including funds for Atlantic energy development. That was all made public at the time.
I am advised, if I remember well, that Mr. Bell worked on the Canadianization aspect of the National Energy Program. I have never heard that Mr. Bell worked on any part of the budget.


Harvie Andre: The Minister is asking us and other Canadians to believe something that is totally unbelievable. He should examine his own conscience in view of his responsibility as a Minister of the Crown and Minister responsible for bringing down a new budget.


STATEMENT IN UNDATED MEMORANDUM
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the Minister has just repeated in the House something that the Prime Minister has said in the House with regard to where this money is coming from. It is, namely, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Nova Scotia, the $9.2 million that was set aside as a result of the 1977 agreement which Mr. Gillespie drafted.
February 25, 1983

Would the Minister tell the House how this explanation coincides with an undated memo to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources from Marjory Loveys which says that the $9 million has already been completely committed and, "the $1 million slated for coal liquefaction consortium is in addition to the money in the fund; it is being passed through the fund for administrative reasons." What is the explanation for the conflict between this memorandum to the Minister and what in fact the Prime Minister and the Minister have been telling the House this morning?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member were really as honest as he pretends he would like to be, he would read the full file. He will find a memorandum written by Mr. Walsh, I believe, that is in the file that has been tabled, and which states quite clearly and categorically that, having seen the Treasury Board submission, the Minister gave a directive that the $1 million should come from the Oil Substitution Agreement with Nova Scotia without reimbursement. If the Hon. Member wishes to address this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am sure he will be able to refer him specifically to this memo.
So, the money was to be taken out completely and fully from those moneys that were under the control of Nova Scotia and part of the consolidated revenue of Nova Scotia, not from the other funds that were provided for under the National Energy Program. It was for a very simple reason; that fund had been setup and was under the control of Nova Scotia. There was money there and that is where the money should come from. I invite my hon. friend to have the honesty to look at the file, read the documents, and see what indeed transpired. At this point it was made quite clear that, under the Minister's instructions, it had to be taken out of the Nova Scotia-Canada fund for oil substitution.


Harvie Andre: Supplementary, short supplementary!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


Harvie Andre: How come Treasury Board is needed for the Halifax Consolidated Revenue Fund? Continue to lie.


DEPUTY MINISTER'S MEMORANDUM OF JANUARY, 1981-TIMEFRAME FOR PLANNING PROJECT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows, or at least everyone on this side of the House knows, that that change was made so that the very appearance of conflict of interest involving Mr. Gillespie would be evaded. Everyone knows that.
I would like to ask a question concerning the likelihood, it seems to many of us, of foreknowledge of the contents of the budget on Mr. Gillespie's part. According to documents which were tabled in the House the other day, he met with the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Cohen, six months before the budget, specifically to discuss the project. Now I want to refer to another document and ask the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance to listen with care, and then give me a straight answer in relation to it.
Among the documents tabled the other day was a memorandum dated January 15, 1981, sent by the Deputy Minister, Mr. Cohen, to the present Minister of Finance. The following specific reference to Mr. Gillespie was made:
You will recall that Mr. Gillespie has organized the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project whose object is to study the possibilities for the liquefaction of coal in Cape Breton-
Further down are what seem to be the key words:
In anticipation of this development, provision was made during the planning stage of the National Energy Program for a maximum of $1 million to be available for federal participation in this project.
It is stating that in the planning stage of the National Energy Program, which was announced in the budget, Mr. Gillespie's proposal, including dollar amounts, were taken into account. Will the Minister please comment on that? Does that not give us the clearest possible reason for believing that Mr. Gillespie had foreknowledge?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I reviewed the file, and the way I understand the problem is that the program in relation to coal liquefaction had been under way for many months with the Government of Nova Scotia.
If the Hon. Member had listened yesterday, he would have heard me state all the chronology of the work done by Mr. Gillespie. He started first with Mr. Barkhouse, the Minister of Nova Scotia, and they discussed the matter for months. Of course the money was to come from the funds under the control of the Treasury of Nova Scotia. At one time they might have considered another possibility, because I am informed that Nova Scotia wanted the federal Government to pay for it. We decided that the money was to come from the funds which were established before, and this is probably where this kind of confusion has arisen.
However, the reality is that Mr. Gillespie started with Nova Scotia, the money was available in Nova Scotia, and at one time Nova Scotia had indicated that it preferred to keep its money for something else. At that time the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources decided that, if the program was to go ahead, it would go ahead with money which had been allocated to the Treasury of Nova Scotia in 1977.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that does not deal with the question at all. I am not referring to the cute rearrangements which were made by the federal Government in terms of paying Mr. Gillespie.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Cute, cute.


Mr. Ouellet:: Not paying him.


John Edward Broadbent: I am referring to the foreknowledge as to what would be in the budget. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is now going to answer the question instead of the Minister of Finance, that is fine, but I would like an answer.

February 25, 1983
Oral Questions


KNOWLEDGE OF ALASTAIR GILLESPIE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in the memorandum sent to the present Minister of Finance, who was then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, there is reference to the National Energy Program which was announced on budget day. We now know that the consortium brought about by Mr. Gillespie was announced the very day after the budget-right? That is the sequence of those events. No one disputes them. The memorandum dated January 15, 1981, states:
In anticipation of this development, provision was made during the planning stage of the National Energy Program for a maximum of $1 million to be available for federal participation in this project.
Could the Minister tell us how anyone could possibly believe that Mr. Gillespie did not know that that would be in the budget?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I have great respect for Mr. Gillespie-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: You sure do!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -but I find it a bit surprising that he would be so proficient that from one day to the next he would be able to find five partners to form a consortium. The fact of the matter is what I said in the House, that he tried to put these associates together in the summer of 1980, after he had met with Premier Buchanan.


An Hon. Member:: Why did he do it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because he knew that there was a fund set aside in 1977 for that very purpose, and it was after he got the agreement and the enthusiastic support of Premier Buchanan that, in the summer of 1980, long before the budget, Mr. Gillespie met with Petro-Canada, met with the Gulf Company and so on, to try to persuade them to have a consortium.


Mr. Clark:: They all knew about it then.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They knew that there was money available for that sort of project.


John Edward Broadbent: It was put in after it was put in the budget.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I will allow the Minister to finish his answer, but I am addressing myself to the Hon. Member for Oshawa. He will have an occasion to ask further questions, but please let the Minister answer.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I repeat that throughout the summer of 1980, there were negotiations between Mr. Gillespie and the various companies that formed this consortium.
Therefore, Mr. Gillespie could hardly have formed the consortium on the very day or the day after the budget was announced. That is impossible, because it took him weeks and months to persuade his partners and convince them that it was a good project. That could not be done after the budget was brought down. In fact, Mr. Gillespie and Premier Buchanan had known for some time that there were funds available to the Government of Nova Scotia for oil substitution research projects. I feel that has no connection with the budget that was announced the day before. It was a program that Mr. Gillespie suggested, first of all to the Government of Nova Scotia as early as the spring of 1980.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister is absolutely right. Mr. Gillespie was organizing months ahead, meeting with Deputy Ministers, meeting with all kinds of people, and he made sure, along with the Ministers co-operating, that what he wanted to achieve would be included in the budget. I think everyone who looks at the evidence, on this side of the House at least, knows that he knew that it was going to be in the budget and was able to announce the consortium the next day.


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S AWARENESS OF PROJECT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the smiling Deputy Prime Minister a question. Since he was in Cape Breton in his riding as Deputy Prime Minister, along with Mr. Gillespie, proudly announcing this project, could he tell the House, as Deputy Prime Minister, when he first became aware of Mr. Gillespie's involvement in this consortium?


Madam Speaker:: I would think that a question to the Deputy Prime Minister of this nature would be allowed if the Prime Minister were not present, but since the Prime Minister is present I suppose the question should be addressed to the Minister responsible, but not to the Deputy Prime Minister.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I suspected that the Deputy Prime Minister would use his former role not to answer, so I will ask the present Minister of Finance to check with his colleague four seats down, the Deputy Prime Minister, and find out when he first became aware of this project, and report at some early date to the House.


Marc Lalonde: I will be very happy to, Madam Speaker.


DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS-ROLE OF TREASURY BOARD
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the question asked by the Member for Calgary South, and direct my question to the Minister of Finance, or to the Minister of Energy, who makes such a point of using Nova Scotia to clear any possible ambiguities here. I want to direct this question to either one of those Ministers. If Nova Scotia was in total control of the funds, why did the
February 25, 1983

agreement have to go to Treasury Board for approval? Secondly, if Nova Scotia was in total control of these funds, why did the project require approval from the Joint Federal-Provincial Management Committee, which Nova Scotia did not control. Would you tell us that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it was because it was part of the agreement of 1977 that the money was to be used for projects in Nova Scotia in that field, not to put asphalt in the riding of the Hon. Member.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There has been no federal asphalt in my riding lately, Madam Speaker, as those Ministers know very well, and they should know that that is a provincial matter.


APPLICATION BY ALASTA1R GILLESPIE FOR FUNDS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On January 7, 1981, Madam Speaker, Mr. Gillespie wrote a letter to Phil Read, the Co-Chairman of the Management Committee, in which he said, "I wish to make application for a matching grant of $1 million". On January 13, 1981, Read replied and said, "The Management Committee agreed in principle to the project to a maximum of forty per cent of the project cost and to an amount not to exceed $1 million." It just took him six days to get $1 million. That is a pretty good performance. Can the Minister of Energy elucidate that a little bit and explain why the great haste?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Madam Speaker. It was because both Governments had discussed that before the Management Committee. The Member from Nova Scotia evidently was quite aware of the problem because the first discussion in the spring of 1980, for many weeks, was only with the Nova Scotia Government. At that time Nova Scotia was ready, and according to the agreement, they came to the federal Government to get approval, but all the programs were always initiated in Nova Scotia, and one that was approved was from the riding of the Hon. Member. Nova Scotia felt that it was its program, but in the agreement of 1977 there was a provision that the money was to be approved by a joint board because we wanted to make sure that the money was to be used for oil substitution and not for other provincial purposes.


CONFIDENCE OF FINANCIAL COMMUNITY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I was wondering if the Minister of Finance, who is now asking this House to approve going to the country for $19 billion, would not agree with me that the financial community must have a great deal of confidence in the Government if it is expected to lend to the Government $19 billion by summertime. I would like to know how he felt that the financial community would have that confidence in the Government in view of the Minister's lack of memory as to detail as shown in the Gillespie
Oral Questions
matter, or his lack of attention to how his Crown corporations are operated, as shown in the way he supervised Petro-Canada's involvement with lobbying by a former Minister.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would deplore the allegations made by the Hon. Member at the end of his statement, which are quite wrong.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except the record proves them correct.


Marc Lalonde: Secondly, I would like to ask my friend whether he can tell me what he was doing on June 3, 1980, or September 12, 1980, or August 15, 1980. If he can answer that question today in the House, right away, by standing up and by telling me what he did that day-


John Carnell Crosbie: He was not helping Gillespie that day.


Marc Lalonde: -I am sure the business community will have great confidence, but to reassure my hon. friend I can tell him that in the last week I have received dozens of phone calls from people in the business community supporting me and supporting the stand I have taken-


John Carnell Crosbie: Alastair Gillespie called; Judd Buchanan called.


Marc Lalonde: -and asking me to carry on.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I would tell the Minister that it would not be difficult to keep a diary and know where he is going.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE RESIGN
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance is this. Does he not agree that it is most important to a country in serious financial difficulty that the financial community and the business community have total confidence in his ability to manage, and does he not feel that, for the good of the country, he would be better off to resign?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I stated yesterday in this House that politics for me was not the end all and be all, and that I have a lot of other things that are attractive to me.


Some Hon. Members:: Go, go.


Marc Lalonde: If I felt that any good was going to be served, I would have resigned immediately.


Mr. Nielsen:: For God's sake, go.


Marc Lalonde: If I felt that there had been any wrongdoing or any cause for believing that anything wrong had been done, I would not have needed the admonition of my hon. friend. I would have assumed my own responsibilities, without delay, and immediately.
23216

February 25, 1983
Oral Questions
However, at the same time I believe I would not be rendering a service to the political life of this country, to our system of governing in this country, or to the country-


Charles Joseph Clark: To honour standards.


Marc Lalonde: -if I were to allow the kind of smears we have heard from the other side to prevail and to lead to decisions by Ministers in the future-


Charles Joseph Clark: To honour your own guidelines. What a contemptible response.


Marc Lalonde: I think that would be a very, very wrong precedent to establish.
1980 BUDGET-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER UNDERTAKE INVESTIGATION


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It has to do with the statement made earlier today by the Minister of Finance when he said it is obvious there was no budget leak, referring to the 1980 budget. That is the same Minister who, on February 17, informed the Prime Minister that he had no knowledge of anything to do with the Scotia Synfuels Project prior to September, 1981. We found we could not accept his word in that case. We certainly may not be able to accept his word today when he says it is obvious there was no budget leak.
Because of the sensitivity of this issue and because of the importance of the budget at any time to Parliament and to the economy, will the Prime Minister undertake a full investigation to assure this House and the people of Canada that there was no budget leak in October, 1980?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member goes back to the fact that there had been a correction of dates resulting from the Minister of Finance's letter to me. If the Hon. Member arrived late, I would suggest that she read the statement made by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East before Question Period today. I know that Members opposite usually do not listen to statements from this side, but he cited a specific case where the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, while a Minister in the previous Government, had done the same thing. He had given some wrong information to the House, information amounting to some $4 million, I think the Hon. Member said, and some days later he came back and corrected it. He said that he had misled the House. There were no howls on this side and no cries on that side for his resignation.


Charles Joseph Clark: There was no violation of the conflict of interest guidelines.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Member had merely misled the House. The former Leader of the Opposition seems to think that is not important. 1 wish he would get together with the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands on that, because she seems to
think it is. And stop smiling a silly smile and look at the reality.


RELEVANCE OF DATES IN OCTOBER, 1980
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister who said that his Minister of Finance had merely misled the House previously. This morning he may "merely have misled the House" when he talked about no budget leak in 1980.
Yesterday in response to a question the Prime Minister replied:
The Minister this morning, and certainly the Deputy Prime Minister and myself have all conceded that the dates are irrelevant-
I would suggest to the Prime Minister that two dates are very relevant. One is the date of October 28, 1980, when the budget was brought down. The other is the date of October 29 when the memorandum of understanding between Mr. Gillespie and the consortium was signed. I would ask the Prime Minister once again whether he has the courage and the sense of responsibility to undertake a full investigation to ensure that there was no budget leak or previous information passed with regard to the budget of October, 1980.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Energy answered that yesterday when he put all the dates before the House, all the transactions, all the moments in history when Mr. Gillespie and the four other eventual members of the consortium were trying to put this together on the basis of funds which were available since 1977. Once again, Premier Buchanan was the one whom the corsortium members saw first. They did not even come to the federal Government. They went to Nova Scotia because they knew he had control of the funds. They put the thing together with him.
Does anyone suspect that there was a budget leak which was brought to the attention of the Premier of Nova Scotia? Does someone suggest that Premier Buchanan was suddenly enthusiastic about this consortium and said to go ahead and sign it, because somebody had given him a budget leak? That is preposterous. We had funds available since 1977. They were applied for in the years that followed. They came to fruition after long negotiation sometime in the Fall of 1980 on the basis, once again, of funds available since 1977. Why is the Hon. Member trying to contrive some suspicion here when there is none at all?


REQUEST THAT TREASURY BOARD MINUTES BE TABLED
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: of April 13, 1981, where Mr. D. Johnston and Mr. A. Mac-Eachen were there in Treasury Board. Would he table the minutes of that Treasury Board meeting, because that would clear up the situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, would it really clear up the situation? Would the Hon. Member stop worrying if those minutes were tabled? Would that settle the matter? If I knew this, I might even be prepared to consider his question.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF PETRO-CANADA DOCUMENTS, AND TELEPHONE BILLS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the question to the Prime Minister is how can we know? It appears that the Prime Minister is withholding or hiding information. This is the 18-minute gap in the tapes, if you like.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I direct this supplementary to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister wants to come clean, will he table those minutes, and will he table the minutes of the Petro-Canada documents from May 27, 1980, to October 29, 1980, and, third, the telephone bills that are referred to in these documents that are not appended? Those are the missing documents in this case. If the Prime Minister wants to clear this matter up, as he said, is he prepared to table those particular documents?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks of telephone bills. If there are telephone bills which are available and they are relevant, 1 will make sure they are tabled. However, if he is asking that I table a minute of Cabinet, a minute of Treasury Board or a minute of the Committee of Cabinet, the answer is no. There has never been any precedent for tabling minutes of Cabinet, and I do not intend to create it. There was one exception when access was given to a non-member of Cabinet to Cabinet minutes. That was the McDonald Commission. There was an allegation of criminal action there, and none was found, of course. If the Hon. Member wants to allege criminal action, if he wants to go outside the House and make that allegation-


John Edward Broadbent: Come on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand. The Leader of the NDP never was and never will be in Government, so he can't-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I wouldn't sell out and join the Liberals like you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He would have liked to in the Spring of 1980, but that did not come to pass.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That trick has been tried before, to ask Government to table minutes of Cabinet, and it won't succeed.
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS


EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS DISPUTE-REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, I would like to return to the question of the economy in the Atlantic area, having to do with a very serious transportation problem which affects millions of Canadians in that part of the country. I would like to ask for the support of the Minister of Transport on this very serious matter. It has gone on for some weeks, far too long. What is his disposition and that of his officials as to what can be done to bring some early resolution to the conflicts that appear to be going on between the machinists and the pilots and Eastern Provincial Airways?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I have sworn to the Minister of Labour that I will not answer this sort of question any more. Ladies and gentlemen, the Minister of Labour.


Erik Nielsen: Pass the ball, boys!


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, this matter has been followed by Labour Canada over the weeks with great concern and, very closely, as we always do, with labour disputes. The dispute began on January 6 and it is my understanding that it is continuing despite our efforts and despite the fact that we are available for mediation services.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's guidelines to his Ministers state that they should not lobby their former Departments within two years after they leave Government service. To "lobby" is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "to solicit the support of'. Would the Prime Minister tell me what he thought Mr. Gillespie was doing, with the knowledge of Ministers in December of 1980, when he wrote "Dear Mickey", to Mr. Cohen, a person of influence in the Government, "We need your assistance and support for the project", which afterwards was to realize him many, many tens of thousands of dollars in fees and payments, as we have seen last night? Does he consider that to be lobbying, or is that not lobbying, or is it discussions with Mr. Read of the Department-would that be lobbying, or discussions with Ministers? Are these activities lobbying, or are they not?

February 25, 1983
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did attempt to deal with that question and I did indicate that lobbying was a question of fact, and the persons who lobbied or who were lobbied, are the best witnesses of whether it was lobbying or not. If there are some objective standards, Madam Speaker, I am prepared to apply them. And I put to the former Leader of the Opposition, the Member from Yellowhead North-Yellowhead-that Members of his Government are dealing with their former Departments. Are they lobbying or are they asking for information? I assume they are asking for information.
Lobbying I see as something that does happen in Ottawa, and it is a form of constant and insistent pressure. What is the margin, Madam Speaker, between asking for information about some government program, asking the Government to support that program, and actually seeing former Ministers, putting pressure on them, and calling on party loyalties and so on? That would be lobbying, but I repeat-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who is the Member from Mount Misery.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUBMISSION MADE TO TREASURY BOARD
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, of course, has looked at the correspondence he has tabled, I feel sure, and he may find in it a memorandum which went first to the Treasury Board and the project came back again because of concerns about conflict of interest, which shows that those in the Treasury Board have more sensibility than the Prime Minister. Then some finagling was done to get around the problem that Mr. Gillespie was to get $600 a day, or $30,000 a year, and so on, from this project. Does that not indicate to the Prime Minister that there is something in this whole transaction which is wrong, if the Treasury Board had to refuse the project when it first came, and go back to the Minister of Finance who had to have knowledge of that?
Would the Prime Minister also say if his guidelines are now only to be left to the consciences of Liberal Ministers to decide whether they are broken or not, when those consciences have already acquired a great deal of scar-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in the instance he talks about the document did not go to the Treasury Board. It was changed by officials. What he calls "finagling", I think a more respectable person would have said that the officials wanted to make sure there would be no appearance of wrongdoing. And that is why they made sure that in the case of a former Minister he would not have any access to public funds. That is what they did. That is what
they did without consulting me and without consulting the former Minister of Energy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Permit wrongdoing, but not the appearance of wrongdoing, is that it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly it is to get rid of the appearance of wrongdoing that they did that. If they had thought there was wrongdoing, they obviously would have reported to the Minister and the transaction would have stopped. Once again, when the Hon. Member insists on the appearance of wrongdoing, I repeat what has been said by several Ministers on this side. There was a public announcement with the former Minister, Mr. Gillespie, there, in the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister, made with the Premier of Nova Scotia. If someone wants to do something wrong, they would not have gone on a platform, Madam Speaker. If it had been wrong, or even had the appearance of being wrong-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order.


ACTIONS OF ALASTAIR GILLESPIE-REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I also would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to lobbying. The Prime Minister indicates that if there had been the appearance of lobbying, the officials would have brought that matter to the attention of the appropriate Minister. Quite clearly in a document dated April 14, 1981, it is stated there is also a question of Mr. Gillespie's participation, whether Mr. Gillespie's participation is in variance with the conflict of interest guidelines, and it goes on to say that Mr. Schulte, the counsel, " .. . replied that he would refer this question to the Privy Council Office". This memorandum was sent to the Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Energy, which is tantamount to sending it to the Minister, as the Deputy Minister has an obligation to bring such matters of political importance to the Minister's attention. I ask the Prime Minister, given what is now known about the documentation which has been tabled, the series of meetings between-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. The Hon. Member realizes, I am sure, that it is a few minutes only to twelve o'clock and he must more brief in his question.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope it is only a few minutes to 12 o'clock. With the benefit of all of the information now available, does the Prime Minister not agree that Mr. Gillespie did in fact lobby? Does he not agree that, given what we now have, there ought to be a further inquiry into this matter in order that Mr. Gillespie can be called as a witness so that the people most involved can be questioned, in order that we can get to the bottom of this for the sake of the parliamentary system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member goes back to the premise which
February 25, 1983

was stated by the previous questioner. He talks about a document of April, 1981, which was changed because the officials said, "Well, this is a former Minister. We must be careful that he does not get any special treatment. We must make sure there is no breach of guidelines". In order to ensure that, Madam Speaker, they changed the form of the submission. But why did they change it? Not to privilege Mr. Gillespie, not to give him any special access. They changed it to be sure he would have no access to public funds. That is the point. That is why it was changed, and that is appearing in the documents.


QUERY RESPECTING ACCESS GRANTED TO ALASTAIR GILLESPIE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, is it not reasonable to conclude from all of the evidence that we now have, including the change to the submission, that the reason for the change was to give Mr. Gillespie access to what he otherwise would not have been entitled to?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I ask the Hon. Member-


Ian Deans: I cannot answer, so do not ask me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member said that Mr. Gillespie had access to something to which otherwise he would not have been entitled. Under what section of the guidelines or of the law would Mr. Gillespie not have been entitled to put a project together which was based on government policy, which was asked for by the Premier of Saskatchewan-the Premier of Nova Scotia-and which was beneficial to the people of his Province? Why would that have been refused to him?


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege with respect to the documents tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this week, specifically the last letter dated February 23 from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), the former Minister of Energy. The point at issue is whether Parliament was given the true facts, not as a matter of debate but as a matter of documents tabled by the Prime Minister.
I have five items to refer to in making my argument. As part of the National Energy Program, on page 85 there was direct reference to "A utility boiler fueled by Cape Breton coal; prefeasibility study recommended site at Port Hawkesbury, N.S., commissioning expected in 1987".
In the budget of October 30, 1980, on page 10, there appears the following statement:
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
New funds will also be available to find ways in which the large reserves of Cape Breton coal can be used to enhance energy security-
When the Minister of Finance, formerly the Minister of Energy, appeared before the Committee on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution on Tuesday, November 25, 1980, at page 52 of the report he commented as follows:
Yes, I can tell you that on this program-
That is the National Energy Program.
-there is not one word in this program that I did not approve personally. The officials worked, but it is a government program. The decisions and options that were retained were those retained by the federal government-not by officials as such.
On February 17, the Prime Minister tabled in this House a letter from the Minister of Energy which contained the following statement:
-I can state that between my appointment as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on March 3, 1980, and the signing of an agreement between the Government of Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia and Scotia Coal Synfuels Project on September 25, 1981, 1 did not have discussions, at any time, with Mr. Alastair Gillespie concerning that project.
As we all know, that letter was superceded by another letter dated February 23, 1983 from the Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Energy. He referred to the previous letter and then stated:
Pursuant to that review, I was informed yesterday, that on January 1981, a memo on this project was sent to me on behalf of my Deputy Minister and that on April 3, 1981, 1 had signed a Treasury Board Submission in connection with this project.


Madam Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member because I gather that he is making a case about some information which he thinks is not exactly adequate. That might be a grievance, but unless he tells me more about exactly what he is seeking to argue concerning his briefer question of privilege, it will be difficult for me to continue to hear him.
I am willing to hear him if he tells me straightforwardly what his question of privilege is about. If it is about some information which, in his view, is inadequate, I think he knows that that is not the basis for a question of privilege and unfortunately I will not be able to continue to hear him.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I appreciate your comments. You have allowed me to put on the record the linkage we need to get to this point.
It is not a question of information being inadequate and it is not a question of debate; what it is, Madam Speaker, I respectfully submit, is a contempt of Parliament for documents to be tabled in this House by the Prime Minister, given the force and authority of his office, and to have another Minister of the Crown know that when that letter was tabled the facts contained in it were not correct.
I submit that is a leaving on the record of incorrect facts which I have pointed out are there. It is the leaving on the record by the Minister of Finance of that incorrect fact which is the comtempt of Parliament. It is not specifically that the Prime Minister knew, although I would suggest to you that the authorities state he is taken to have known that the facts were incorrect; what I am suggesting to you is that the contempt of

February 25, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Lewis
Parliament lies in the Minister of Finance sitting in his place while those incorrect facts remain on the record. That is where our privileges are being abused.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Finance should do the honourable thing and correct the record now and state that there is no question, based on his own statement, that he knew when the budget came down, when he bragged that he had personally been in charge of the entire national energy project, when he personally approved everything-that is the point when the Minister of Finance, then the Minister of Energy, really knew of the involvement of Gillespie in the consortium.
We have spent a week and a half on that matter, Madam Speaker I suggest to you that the very fact that both Opposition Parties have concentrated on this matter in Question Period has to be evidence enough for you, through the fact that we represent the entire country, that despite the suggestions that we should be debating the economy, this goes to the very essence of what this place is about. If incorrect facts are tabled and if a Minister knows they are incorrect, surely that Minister must come clean and admit that they are incorrect.


Madam Speaker:: About this development which the Hon. Member has just given to the House, what is he suggesting? That I should determine whether those facts are correct or not? The Hon. Member knows that the Chair is not in the position to determine whether documents placed before the House are correct or not or whether some of those documents, if the Hon. Member feels there is some contempt because of the fact that a document states a falsehood-if that is what I understand from the Hon. Member-could have been taken out of the record. I do not know if the Hon. Member would have thought of that, but the Chair is not in a position to determine if the facts tabled by the Hon. Minister or the Prime Minister are adequate. The Chair would be in a very, very difficult position having to determine a question of privilege on that basis.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would agree with the comments you have made, but the Chair is in a position to find that there is a prima facie case which should be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for review.
If you find from my remarks and my submission that there is sufficient evidence for a prima facie case, which I suggest to you does not mean enough to convict at this point but is just enough to substantiate what we have been arguing for a week and half-not all of the evidence that is in front of you right now but that we have brought forward enough evidence in this submission in the last two weeks for you to be sufficiently concerned-then as Speaker, as our equal among equals, you could find that there is a prima facie case to send to that Committee. We would be prepared to make that motion if you find there is prima facie evidence.
I have not had many opportunities to argue these questions of privilege but I suggest that we take a hard look at the words "prima facie". In a court of law they mean that a judge feels
there is enough evidence to warrant a full judicial review- enough evidence, not for conviction, but to make it sufficiently important in the eyes of that judge to review the matter. Similarly, I suggest to you it is sufficiently important in the eyes of Members of the House to send this question to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for review, so that we can get at the truth of this matter.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, my learned colleague does not seem to understand the nature of a question of privilege. For his information I would like to point out that to determine whether the question may be raised and whether there is a prima facie case for privilege, the Chair must have a minimum of facts on the basis of which it can conclude that the freedom of speech of Hon. Members and their ability to discharge their duties as Parliamentarians have been restricted. However, that is not the point my learned colleague is trying to make. He is trying to claim that the documents that were tabled are not complete and that they do not correspond, according to his interpretation, to statements that may have been made, in answer to questions, by the Right Hon. Prime Minister or by other Ministers of the Crown. That has no connection with preventing a Member from exercising his freedom of speech or from discharging his duties as a Parliamentarian. He may not be satisfied with the contents of the documents or with the number of documents tabled, and he may not be very pleased with the interpretation given these documents by some Ministers or Hon. Members or the Prime Minister, but that is a matter of opinion, a matter for debate and interpretation. It is not up to the House of Commons to bring people to trial for any wrong doing.
To have a question of privilege, we must determine whether circumstances, or facts indicate that a Member has been prevented from exercising his right of free speech. That is the very essence of privilege. However, there is absolutely nothing in the facts submitted to the Chair by my hon. colleague that would justify the Chair examining whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege.
In the circumstances, I feel that we have here a flagrant example of abuse of a procedure that should be used sparingly, according to Beauchesne and according to parliamentary practice relating to questions of privilege that are recognized as valid. In the circumstances, Madam Speaker, I submit, with due respect, that my learned colleague has absolutely no grounds for seeking a ruling from the Chair as to whether or not there is a prima facie case for privilege, because nothing the Hon. Member said indicates that Hon. Members have been restricted in their ability to discharge their duties as Parliamentarians in this House.


Madam Speaker:: Considering the persistence with which the Hon. Member for Simcoe North is defending his position, the
February 25, 1983

importance of the question he is raising and his emphasis on that point, and considering the number of times it has been raised in the House, Hon. Members will understand that I intend to take this matter into consideration.


MR. SIMMONS-ALLEGED FAILURE BY CHAIR TO RECOGNIZE
Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I submit that today, during the first hour of proceedings, my privileges as a Member of this House were tampered with. I submit further that this is just the latest incident in a consistent pattern of such tampering with my privileges as a Member of this House. I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that today's incident is the straw that breaks the camel's back for me.


An Hon. Member:: Let's have it.


Roger Simmons: Allow me now to document briefly my matter of privilege, and I inform you, Madam Speaker, that should the Chair-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would be delighted to hear the Hon. Member's plea for privilege, but at this point I do not know what it is all about and I did not get any notice of his question of privilege. If it has to do with the deliberations today, then I can hear him; but he must tell me in the first sentences what it is all about, otherwise I cannot follow the argumentation.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised; there was no argumentation. I had begun the sentence "Allow me now to document". I said in my opening statement that this question was based on something which happened during the first hour of proceedings. For that reason I understand no prior notice was required.


Madam Speaker:: No prior notice was required, but the Hon. Member knows that in the first sentences he has to tell the Speaker what it is all about. I have been listening now to the Hon. Member for three minutes and I still do not know what his question of privilege is all about.


Roger Simmons: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, please allow me to document it ever so briefly, and I inform the Chair-


An Hon. Member:: What is the question?


Madam Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member is playing with words. I do not want the Hon. Member to document the question now. I want the Hon. Member to state what the question of privilege is all about, and then he could document it.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, allow me to state the matter of privilege. My affirmation is that my privileges have been breached, and that affirmation arises from the failure of
Privilege-Mr. Simmons
Madam Speaker to allow me the floor during Standing Order 21 proceedings.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Roger Simmons: It is based on two related but distinct issues. The first the Chair may find debatable, but I invite the Chair to hear both. First-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The fact that the Speaker did not recognize the Hon. Member surely does not constitute a question of privilege. It might be a point of order, and I would welcome the Hon. Member raising it. However, if he is raising it now under a point of order, I must tell him that I recognized most of the Members who rose today, namely the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) and two others. At any rate, there were three on this side, three on the other side, and two from the NDP. If Hon. Members had been in the House at eleven o'clock sharp, there would have been an extra one on both sides. But they were not, and at 11.15 I started the Question Period, as I am bound to do by the Standing Orders.


Roger Simmons: Allow me, Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege to state my matter of privilege-


Erik Nielsen: No.


Roger Simmons: First, I have said that the privilege is based on the failure of the Chair. It is not the failure itself of the Chair that constitutes the matter of privilege; it is based on that failure. Allow me very briefly to state the two issues which-


Madam Speaker:: No, no. I have just ruled that that is not a question of privilege. I have ruled on a point of order in case the Hon. Member transforms this into a point of order. Furthermore, I must remind the Hon. Member that it is the privilege of the Speaker to recognize Members in the order- and I usually use that order-in which they rise. Now, I cannot always say; sometimes two or three rise at the same time. The Hon. Member was unlucky today. I hope that he is luckier another day. I will certainly, as I do in all cases, put his name on a list which I bring back into the House every day and I watch whether that Hon. Member is rising. If the Hon. Member is here on Monday, I am sure that I will be more than happy to recognize him.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's is rising on a matter of privilege?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege. I submit, with respect, that the Chair has not yet heard what my matter of privilege is. It is not the failure of the Chair to recognize me. I have said that very distinctly. I said that it was based on that failure, but that is not the matter of privilege. The matter of privilege is first-and I believe most important-that I rose in my place from the very beginning of the proceedings today, yet the Chair recognized other Members

February 25, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Simmons
from both sides of the House who had risen subsequently to me. What happened today is part of a consistent-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, please. The Chair is the sole judge of who will be recognized at any time. How can the Hon. Member-and can he prove it to me-say that several Members did not rise at the same time? At any rate, it is still the privilege of the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, on a matter of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from Standing and Special Committees.


Roger Simmons: On a matter of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's on a new matter of privilege?


Roger Simmons: I said "On a matter of privilege", Madam Speaker. I have not been allowed to state my matter of privilege. That in itself is an abuse of the rules-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. I think the Hon. Member knows that he is presently abusing the rules-


Roger Simmons: As is the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: Withdraw!


Madam Speaker:: He has stated his case, the Chair has ruled on his case, and I have suggested that he might transform it into a point of order but he refused to do so. The Hon. Member does not have a question of privilege. He should read the definition of privilege very carefully, and he will realize that he does not have a question of privilege.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that during your recent remarks, when you suggested that the Member was abusing the rules of the House, the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) said "And so is the Chair", or something similar. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I did not hear the Hon. Member say those words.


Erik Nielsen: Hansard did.


Madam Speaker:: I will ask him if he did say those words, and if he did say them, of course he will have to withdraw them. 1 did not hear them, but I will ask the Hon. Member to tell me on his honour whether or not he said them.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, 1 believe very deeply that in this matter the Chair abused the rules, and 1 said so. However, if the Chair finds that statement of my belief to be in unparliamentary terms, then I withdraw without equivocation. But you cannot hang me for what I am thinking.


Mr. Wilson:: Shame.


Madam Speaker:: Of course, in the strict sense that is acceptable. I do feel the words of the Hon. Member were unparliamentary. In a strict sense he has withdrawn them. 1 cannot help but say the way in which he has withdrawn them with regard to the Chair is really with a great lack of courtesy.


Erik Nielsen: It is disgraceful.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to present a petition today on behalf of constituents of Grey-Simcoe concerning their strong opposition to the gross overpayment of officers of the Macdonald Commission during this time of economic restraint.
The petitioners state that when this Government asked all Canadians to tighten their belts and to define their priorities, the Government should have been the first one to set a good example. The petitioners are very concerned, as I believe all Canadians are concerned, by this Government granting astronomical salaries to those individuals who are earning far more than perhaps 99 per cent of all Canadians.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,429 and 4,511.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Under the oil and gas exploration and development foreign aid programs financed by CIDA or Petro-Canada International, what criteria are used for selecting recipient countries and what conditions are attached to the aid provided?
2.	Have the funds been used by foreign countries to hire oil companies other than Petro-Canada International and, if so, which companies were hired, by whom were they hired and at what cost?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canadian Interna-
February 25, 1983

tional Development Agency and the Petro-Canada International Assistance Corporation as follows:
1.	The criteria used for selecting recipient countries are as follows: (a) the recipient must be a developing country eligible to receive Canadian bilateral development assistance; (b) the recipient must be dependent on imported oil; (c) assistance must be consistent with the Government's international development assistance objectives and programs. The condition attached to the aid provided is that a maximum use of Canadian goods and services be assured.
2.	No.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was a $219,531 design contract for the midlife refit of the C.S.S. Parizeau recently awarded to Eyretechnics Ltd. without tender and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Were any West Coast firms given the opportunity to bid for the refit contract of this West Coast ship?
3.	For the 12 months prior to August 31, 1982, what was the total value of government contracts awarded to Eyretechnics Ltd.?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. A
design contract was issued to Eyretechnics Ltd., without tender on March 9, 1982 for $219,531.25. This firm was involved in the preparation of the statement of requirements and the correction of the drawings of the ship under a separate local contract for $24,574.29. The contract for the final design was issued on a sole source basis as it was considered to be the most cost effective and time saving procedure in view of the fact that this firm was fully acquainted with the ship as a result of the initial contract.
2.	Requests for proposals were restricted to the three West Coast ship repair firms which had the facilities to carry out the required work. (1) Burrard Yarrows Corporation (which later submitted the lowest bid and won this $1.7M refit contract.) (2) Rivtow Industries Ltd. (3) Vancouver Shipyards Co. Ltd.
3.	The total value of the contracts awarded to Eyretechnics during the 12-month period from August 31, 1981 to August 30, 1982 was $4,786,367.
Note: Question 1 above refers to the design contract and question 2 refers to the refit contract.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Borrowing Authority



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 22, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Skelly (p. 22957).
Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, on Tuesday last, I spoke on Bill C-143 and pointed out the impressive decline we have seen in recent weeks in the inflation rate in Canada. We know that inflation was a very serious problem in 1982 and that it had some disastrous effects on our economy. I am pleased, and I am sure most Canadians are, that as I speak today the inflation rate in Canada is down to 6 per cent.


Mr. Nickerson:: No, it is not.


Maurice James Harquail: I want to take this opportunity to bring additional good news to Canadians, particularly to consumers. The Bank of Canada rate as of this week is at 9.43 per cent. The prime rate for borrowing at the banks is 11.25 per cent. In my view, this is excellent news for the turnaround in the economy that we are all hoping for.
On Tuesday I also mentioned the increased housing starts. I mentioned that my friend, the Minister responsible for housing, the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc), had laid out some very impressive statistics to prove this point. That has to be another aspect of encouragement. We know that these increased housing starts will create many, many jobs which we are all interested to see come into the work force in Canada.
Having laid that groundwork, I want to talk about confidence in the country. We know that the Conference Board has indicated in its recent analysis that there will be a continuation of the upturn in our economy. Senior business executives have been more optimistic about this turnaround in the Canadian economy. For instance, in The Globe and Mail recently, Mr. Ron Lawless, President of CN Rail, was quoted as saying that he sensed an uptrend and is optimistic about increased business that CN Rail will be able to enjoy in terms of the operation for which he is responsible within the group of CN companies.
In addition to Mr. Lawless's statement from CN headquarters in Montreal, there was a statement made by the President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. George Urquhart. He is a fellow New Brunswicker. He expressed confidence and has praised, according to the article I have here dated February 15, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) for his sincere and honest work in bringing back that confidence we have all been working so hard for in recent months.

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
When we read statements put out by the Conference Board of Canada, by the President of the Chamber of Commerce and the President of CN Rail, to name just a few of the business leaders in the country who have confirmed and are prepared to state publicly their conviction that the good work of this Government is resulting in lower interest rates and a lower inflation rate, it has to be very good news for Canadians.
I want to put some additional facts on the record. Sales of passenger cars have increased, to which I alluded the other day. But something has been lost in our discussions in recent months. I am speaking of Canada's trade surplus. It jumped to $21.6 billion in December, 1982. That is a 157 per cent increase from the previous record surplus of $8.4 billion in 1980. These figures and facts are not only significant but they are very impressive. Yet from time to time, because of heated debate on other topics, this news gets brushed aside, so I am highlighting it today.
In addition, corporate profits increased in the third quarter of 1982 after having declined for five consecutive quarters. This is another indication of an upturn.
The last time I spoke I referred to the CPI. The Consumer Price Index declined 0.3 per cent in January, 1983 after registering no increase in December, 1982. This marks the first decline in CPI since September 1978. As a result of the monthly decline, the year-over-year increase between January, 1982 and January, 1983 fell significantly, to 8.3 per cent from the 9.3 per cent increase recorded in December, 1982.
All of these pertinent facts support our position in bringing forward this important Bill now. The $5 billion is required to cover spending commitments in the current fiscal year. The additional $14 billion of interim borrowing is needed to meet the heavy seasonal cash requirements in the first fiscal quarter and to ensure the Government has flexibility in its debt management program.
The 1983-1984 Main Estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) this week detail all the planned Government expenditures and spending for the upcoming fiscal years. As I said on Tuesday, the fact that the President of the Treasury Board brought forward those Estimates last Tuesday gives all Members of Parliament and all Canadians an equal opportunity to assess the plans and the indicators of the Government as to what its spending will be.
We all have very many serious and important projects that we want to see proceed in the various sectors and regions of the country. Obviously, I speak of the Atlantic region and particularly of my own Province of New Brunswick. I discussed this subject the other day and have had occasion to bring it to the attention of the various Ministers concerned with economic development in Canada. I was talking about the very important megaproject in northern New Brunswick. It is not only important because it will create an estimated 1,500 person-years of employment during its construction stage, but it will result in over 500 permanent jobs which tie in very nicely to the mining sector developments in the northern part of New
Brunswick. This project is estimated to cost $360 million. Those jobs will complement the 1,800 in the mines plus the 600 people who are presently employed in the zinc plant that is in operation in that area now.
When we think of projects, we think of such things as upgrading and continuing expenditures on highways which need to see improvement. I am sure everyone feels that we have spent enough time talking about highway route 11 and 17. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will be familiar with this topic that I am identifying. We have encouraged and tried to insist that the Government responsible for the construction of highways in New Brunswick will have its planners, engineers and its Minister finally agree to put the highest priority on the completion of the network of highways leading from Moncton and Campbellton over to St. Leonard and Edmundston and down to the borders of the United States. These projects have been put on the backburner for far too long.
I submit that a reason for stressing and emphasizing the importance of proceeding with this project is that there are very substantial sums of money that we transfer to the Provinces. We know that the Canadian Government has every reason to implement this measure at this time, when one considers such questions as transfer payments to other levels of Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I must inform him that the time provided for his speech has now expired.
Questions, comments and answers.


Mr. Huntington:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) has suggested that since the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) has tabled the Estimates, Members should be able to judge and determine how the $14 billion requested for the first quarter of the next fiscal year is to be spent, could he point out to me where in the Estimates that information is available? As well, could he point out where the annual calendar of cash flow would be able to tell me and other Members just what the need is for the programs presented in the Estimates for the first quarter of the coming year?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that when one continues a speech from a previous day, ten minutes certainly does not give one adequate opportunity to cover all the aspects that I, at least, would have liked to cover.
In response to the question, I have great respect for the experience and the knowledge which the Hon. Member has. He knows that the Estimates have been tabled. He will also know that there have been discussions about an upcoming budget. I would submit that the specific answers to his question will be contained in that budget once we receive it.
With respect to his question concerning any indication of the expenditures, we all realize the importance of continuing the social programs that, in fact, we on this side brought to Canadians. The Hon. Member will know that one of the areas where we will have increased expenditures is in the transfer of
February 25, 1983

federal moneys to other levels of Government. That increase in cost is estimated to have risen by S2.5 billion, an increase of 17.5 per cent.
That was a point I was getting to in my speech. Now that I have an opportunity to put it on the record, let me say that this is an area where there will be a significant increase in costs. These funds will help pay for necessary programs such as health care, university education and others. We also know that there is an increasing number of elderly people in Canada. The pay-outs alone in old age pension, supplements and spousal allowance are forecast to increase by almost 10 per cent, or over $1 billion. We also know that there has been a heavy increase in cost as a result of our attempt to deal with the unemployment question in Canada. Those costs have jumped by 133 per cent to approximately $3 billion, as compared to the $1.25 billion last year.
In response to the question dealing with the budget, I am sure that Ministers concerned with the Treasury will be able to respond to the Hon. Member's question with more specific details. However, I have attempted to respond in some manner to his question.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's answer obviously is that there is no cash flow projection within the Estimates whereby a Member of the House, no matter how diligent, can recognize just what the first quarter cash flow needs of the Government are.
In reply to my first question he did say that the budget would be coming down. Would the Hon. Member not then agree that Members would be far more informed and knowledgeable about a $19 billion borrowing requirement, requiring $14 billion for the first quarter, if the budget came down before this Bill was presented to us?


Maurice James Harquail: Again, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the Hon. Member will agree that we need some consistency in order to have an orderly and consistent flow in fiscal management. This gives me the opportunity again to point out the declining interest rates and the lesser cost of money recently. All Members and that Hon. Member in particular would have to agree that lower interest rates will afford the Canadian Government the opportunity to obtain money at less cost. That is a point which must be emphasized. That fact will obviously put us in a much better position in the coming weeks and months than we were in at the beginning of 1983.
As far as the cash flow is concerned, there must be some built-in flexibility, as I am sure the Hon. Member realizes. I have tried to highlight some of the spending programs that we will have to spend the money on as a Government. I have tried to present some of the projects that are of concern to me in the Atlantic area which certainly pertain to the continued economic and industrial development in northern New Brunswick which we would all want to see.
I repeat that this just proves the remarks I made when I commenced my speech-
Borrowing Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. There are other Hon. Members seeking the floor. I must interrupt the Hon. Member.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, 1 too would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). I must say that I was encouraged by the over-all tone of his presentation; I appreciate hearing that kind of optimism.
I would like to pursue a point that he raised in his speech on Tuesday of this week. I was not in the House at that time but 1 have had the opportunity to read Hansard. He made reference to the fact that we have seen a turn-around as well with respect to the economy. This was after he had indicated that there had been an increase in housing starts, as modest as they are. At least it is a positive direction. He went on to say that we have seen a turn-around as well. Could he elaborate on this turn-around that has occurred?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, 1 would first like to make the observation that I also think it is encouraging to see the Hon. Member has returned to the question of the economy and to his responsibility to deal with economic questions in the House. I congratulate him on that.
I did not have the opportunity to complete my remarks about the good news. I was talking on Tuesday of this week about the decline in interest rates for borrowing money at the banks and the decline in the inflation rate. The good news was also about the housing starts at $1.5 billion. Any properly informed person would agree that this is good news.
I laid on the Table and on the record all the other aspects of the increase in sales of passenger cars. There was an increase of 37 per cent from July, 1982, to 66,800 units in December, 1982. That is something else which has been put forward by your own Party, and has been a very important indicator.
Concerning housing and the construction of cars, your very Leader, the Leader from Oshawa-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chair, please.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Yes, and they should be short.


Mr. Cosgrove:: There is so much good news. You should hear it.


Maurice James Harquail: Yes.


Paul James Cosgrove: Listen and learn. Clean out your ears.


Maurice James Harquail: I think Your Honour will agree with me that the important items involving billions of dollars, as Hon. Members opposite have pointed out, and which I consider very serious and important, cannot be dealt with in 30 seconds. I am only following the lead given in the past week or so, when people have gone on to speak for five or ten minutes into the Question Period and other times-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Practise answering questions!

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority


Maurice James Harquail: Now that we have dealt with the intrusions and interruptions which are unfair, and which-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Restigouche should know that the Chair is charged with establishing order in the House. I would invite him to complete his answer, please.


Maurice James Harquail: Yes, I would be delighted to complete my answer, and I thank Your Honour. I would only tell the Hon. Member that I think the evidence is very clear as to why I made that statement about the upturn in the economy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I would like to ask the Hon. Member a supplementary question. If he studied the record, he would find that I have not asked a single question in this House in the last six months which did not relate directly to the economy. Therefore, I am a little bit confused by the reference he made in his response. Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, I regret to interrupt Hon. Members again, but the time provided for questions and comments has expired. Debate?


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. In light of the importance of this matter, I am wondering if the House would give unanimous consent to allowing a couple more questions to be asked of the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Paul James Cosgrove: We want to hear from others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the question period to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: There is not unanimous consent.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the speech by the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), we now know where some of the $19 billion will go. It will go to Liberal pork barrel schemes in New Brunswick.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: That is intelligent.


Dave Nickerson: Perhaps the Liberals are considering a coal liquefaction plant there to complement the one which will be put in the sister Province of Nova Scotia.
However, that is not what I want to discuss today. I want to discuss the principles behind the huge borrowing authority Bill requesting $19 billion. This Bill really amounts to two Bills in one, two Bills which have been combined for the purposes of debate which should not have been combined. The first one is to allow an additional $5 billon to be borrowed during the course of this fiscal year. That would bring the borrowing authority for this year up to a total of $26.2 billion.
If one reviews the history of the accumulation of this borrowing authority, one finds a serious indictment of the Government in that it does not know what it is doing and is incapable of producing a reasonable financial plan. In addition to the $3.5 billion or so of previous unexpired borrowing authority, the Government had to come back to this House with Bill C-111, requesting another $6.5 billion, and then it came back with Bill C-125, requesting another $7 billion. Then it came back a few months later with Bill C-128, requesting another $4 billion, and here it is today with Bill C-143, requesting an additional $5 billion for this one year. If this does not prove that the Government cannot get its financial act together, 1 do not know what does.
As I said before, the Bill is two Bills in one. What we should be doing is dealing with this $5 billion requirement for this fiscal year now, and if the Government is in such poor shape that it really cannot get by without borrowing those additional funds, then the House might be prepared to deal with that matter expeditiously. However, the other $14 billion-and I strongly suspect that there will be much more to come later- is not required until the next fiscal year.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why we cannot vote in favour of the amendment put forward during this debate by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), deal with the $5 billion, and then examine the request for the additional $14 billion for the next fiscal year in the Standing Committee on Finance.
It is unheard of in the history of Parliament that a Government would come to Parliament to seek authority to borrow those sums of money without presenting the necessary projections telling us why it needs the money and how it intends to spend it. These are the types of issues which should be studied in detail in the Standing Committee.
The Government is mishandling its financial affairs, as we have seen from the Bill. Further, the way in which it puts House business together is so bad that it is forced into smuggling in important Bills, combining them, bringing in omnibus Bills, because it does not know what it is doing. It is wasting so much parliamentary time that it is not taking care of the necessary business of Canada. We have seen numerous illustrations of this. I suggest that all Hon. Members of the House consider voting in favour of the very reasonable amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.
I listened with great interest to one of the better presentations during the course of the debate made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He condemned the Government for seeking this borrowing authority-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Dave Nickerson: -and quite rightly so. He pointed out some of the things I have pointed out as well. In fact, he used the 20 minutes or so available to him almost exclusively for that
February 25, 1983

purpose. It was a very good speech, but it missed one of the fundamental questions: Why does the Government need all this money?
I suggest that it needs it because it has been following the lead of the New Democratic Party. It has been introducing all these new spending programs. We have a little game going on here. We hear the NDP suggesting more ways to spend Government money, necessitating increases either in taxes or in borrowing. Gradually, after a time, these suggestions are picked up by their friends over in the Liberal Party.


Paul James Cosgrove: They voted with you last night.


Dave Nickerson: Then the time comes to count the cost, and that is what we are having to do today. The cost in this Bill is $19 billion on account of those socialist policies put forward by the NDP and followed by the Liberals.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Absolutely right.


Dave Nickerson: On the very few occasions when measures have been put forward in the House to reduce Government expenditures, what has happened concerning the NDP? Its Members have voted against them.


Paul James Cosgrove: They voted with you last night.


Dave Nickerson: Not too long ago a Bill was presented for the purpose of reducing expenditures by cutting the salaries of MPs. It called for Parliamentarians to show the way, and with the support of this Party it eventually passed. However, the NDP voted against it.


Paul James Cosgrove: But they voted with you last night.


Dave Nickerson: On a more philosophical level, I now want to challenge some basic assumptions which have become part of the conventional wisdom of this country. I initiated this matter in the House on February 15, and I do not think I was the first one. I recall in a series of presentations by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) that he also broached such matters, although perhaps indirectly.
On February 15, under S.O. 21,1 brought to the attention of the House that in 1968 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office the federal deficit was some half a billion dollars and at that time there were 350,000 unemployed Canadians. In 1975 the deficit had increased to some $5.5 billion and unemployment then stood at 700,000. In 1981 the deficit was $13.5 billion and unemployment at that time was 900,000.
If you study the figures for the last 20 years or so and plot them on a graph, Mr. Speaker, you will find that there is almost a linear relationship between the number of unemployed and the federal deficit. The conventional wisdom is that if you are faced with the problem of unemployment you go into a deficit spending position, and this is supposed to take care of your unemployment, the so-called Keynesian theory, although the way I read what that hon. gentleman said, he never did suggest that one could get anything for nothing.
Borrowing Authority
If you were faced with the undeniable fact that there is an inversely proportionate ratio between the number of unemployed and the federal deficit and were unfamiliar with the so-called conventional wisdom, you would obviously come to the conclusion that it is the deficit that is causing the unemployment, rather than the deficit being the cure for unemployment, as is the position of the Government. If you look at the figures in other countries you quite often find that countries which over the years have had a smaller annual deficit in comparison to Canada, or have broken even, have experienced much less unemployment than countries which have indiscriminately increased their deficit. So there is not only a Canadian example to go by, but international examples.
Given that, it would be my suggestion that the cure for unemployment is not a continual expansion of the federal deficit. Indeed, it is the very opposite. It is a contraction of that deficit that will lead to reduced unemployment in Canada. If we can work towards a balanced budget, such as proposed by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in 1979, that will bring about a reduction in unemployment and eventually will bring about full employment in Canada.
If this is examined in another way, the reason that is the case will be apparent. If we have a well-run system of finance in Canada, that will lead to stability. It will lead to confidence, something that is sadly lacking at the present time. With stability and confidence in place, that will lead to investment. Canada will be a safe place for Canadians and other people to invest in. Investment will bring about employment. That is the relationship, and that is why we should get away from what we are doing at present.
What we are on now is a treadmill approach to things. The deficit gets bigger and bigger. It is supposed to reduce unemployment, but it does not; it increases it. We do not want to give up the theory so we increase the deficit some more, which leads to more unemployment. "Try some more spending" is what the Government has been saying for years and years, and we now know that this does not work. In the past we have borrowed up to our necks. Canadians are taxed up to the hilt. They can hardly bear any more taxation. There appears to be practically no capacity left to tax more or to borrow more.
Let us look at what that is doing to our nation. I have read several ancient authors and they have said: "How do you judge the strength of a nation? How do you judge its capacity and capability to fight back?" If you see a country that has low taxes, that does not owe very much, that has its affairs in order, in the case of a military situation they know that if that country were invaded it would be able to fight back, because it would have the capability of raising taxes, of getting more money, of borrowing money elsewhere, either internally or externally. That would not be a country that you would choose to invade because they would be capable of fighting back. They would have the capacity to do so.
I suggest that the same thing happens economically. When a country is faced with an economic crisis, as many countries are

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
in the world today, if over the preceding years they have taxed themselves to death, have borrowed until they are unable to borrow any more, then they are easy victims and do not have the capability to fight back. That is precisely what is happening in Canada today. We are now paying for the mistakes and the faults of Government going back to 1968, and even before that. Canada is an easy victim of the recession because of past Liberal policies.
I would strongly suggest that the institution of Parliament and all of its Members, not just those on this side but also a good number of those on the other side, have some real doubts about the request the Government has put forward to us today for some $19 billion of borrowing authority. Many Parliamentarians here are scared to say no, because they do not know what would happen if Parliament said no and there was no more money to be made available to the Government, or the amount of money was severely reduced. But if this Parliament does not say no, there is no stopping these fellows on the other side. There is no stopping the Government. We have seen what has happened in the past, and it is the same old treadmill. They will continue in their reckless and abandoned way.
If Parliament says no, then we will force the Government to put its house in order. We know it will be difficult to do that and we know that there will be political repercussions, but some day we are going to be faced with that and it might as well be now as some time in the future when the problem will be even worse.
Just look at what has been happening of late in the Province of Quebec, the fiscal calamity of that Government-that is a familiar term; I heard it used by somebody on the other side some time ago, before he was a member of the Privy Council. However, the situation in which the Government of Quebec has got itself into is proportionately worse than that of the federal Government of Canada. Unlike the federal Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec cannot print money. It does not have the same recourse to the printing press as the federal Government has. So it has been forced into the crunch, forced to take actions that undoubtedly it wishes it did not have to take. And look at the result. There is almost rioting in the streets.
1 suggest the same situation is going to catch up with us federally unless we take action now to anticipate those things to come.
I wonder if I might call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: 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. Deputy Speaker:: Order. When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) had three minutes remaining in the 20 minutes allotted to him.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, in the three minutes that remain to me, I will briefly put an end to what I was saying before lunch. I was describing the treadmill upon which we have got ourselves, the treadmill of unemployment, deficits, borrowing, more unemployment and yet more deficits. I was suggesting that Parliament has it within its power now to put a stop to that. I do not suggest it would be easy to do that. I do not suggest there would not be a period of difficulty, but I can assure the House that people would readjust and that Canada would come out of this period of readjustment lean, strong and fit and without the accumulation of Liberal baggage which has grown up over many years.
Members of Parliament now have it within their power to put a stop to this. We can vote no to this Bill. We can put an end to the Liberal financial ineptitude and stupidity and we can put Canada back in shape. It has to be done some time, and I suggest we do it now.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Hon. Member has to do with comments he made earlier today. He indicated that the reason we have a deficit in this nation is that the NDP have been advocating the expenditure of public moneys and the Liberals have been following our advice.
I want to point out that the Hon. Member has at least conceded the fact that the NDP is an effective Party in this House and that we can affect public policy. I want to point out the kind of things that we have fought for in this House. We have fought for Unemployment Insurance so that people do not suffer in times of economic depression such as we have now. We have fought for pensions for old people in this country so that they can lead a decent life in their old age. We have fought for Family Allowances, a fight in which the Tory Party has not joined hands, the six and five debate. We also fought for the development of medicare. Which of those items-Unemployment Insurance, pensions, Family Allowances medicare-does the Hon. Member decry the NDP for having fought for in this House?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do agree with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) that the New Democratic Party, in conjunction with the Liberal Party, has been effective. It has certainly been effective in putting Canada on the brink of bankruptcy.
Where do we start cutting down the costs of Government? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James is quite right in pointing out that some of the social programs we have in this country are very expensive. If you examine the budget, you find that we spend much more on these items, which are really
February 25, 1983

within the provincial domain, than we do on national defence, for example.
Let us take medicare. Not long ago I talked to a group of doctors. They pointed out that 50 per cent of medicare payments are in respect of families with medical expenses of less than $250 per year. There is one obvious item where we can cut down our expenditures. If a family in Canada was obliged to pay the first $250 of any medical bill, we could cut by 50 per cent the amount of money paid to doctors under the medicare scheme. That is a very good example of how we could at least commence this process.
ed3112;-1 Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address a question to the Hon. Member. Is he enunciating official Conservative policy when he makes that kind of statement?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has always been known for its responsibility in the field of Government finance. What I said today was said in the very same way by the Hon. Member for St. John's West when as Minister of Finance he brought in the Conservative budget. If the Members of the New Democratic Party want to know where we stand on financial affairs and financial responsibilities, I suggest they pull out the 1979 budget and have a look. They will see how, without causing undue difficulties to Canadians, the expenditure of revenues of the Government of Canada can in a period of years be brought into line.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a short question to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic regarding PIP grants. The Government has set aside $1.5 billion in the last year to assist in frontier oil development and exploration which goes primarily to the foreign multinational oil companies, not Canadian oil companies. Does he agree with the principle of that kind of support to these kinds of companies?


Dave Nickerson: No, sir, I do not support the way in which the Government of Canada has gone about the idea of PIP grants. The Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party have said many times that the solution to the oil and gas supply problems in Canada would be the nationalization of the companies engaged in that business. I certainly do not agree with that approach, as I do not agree with the approach taken by the Liberal Party.
The approach which I would like to see would not be PIP grants. I would like to see a simplified system of taxation in Canada whereby Canadians could gather themselves together to form oil and gas companies and explore for and produce oil and gas. If they were successful in a very risky undertaking, as the oil and gas business is, then they would derive profits from that venture and would be able to keep a fair amount of those profits. It would not be a confiscatory taxation system like we have today. If the taxation system was amended, then there
Borrowing Authority
would be no need for PIP grants. I do not like PIP grants any more than my colleagues to my left.


Cyril Keeper: I have a supplementary question for the Member for Western Arctic. I asked the Hon. Member whether he applauded or decried the fight of the New Democratic Party for Unemployment Insurance, pensions, Family Allowances and medicare. He indicated those are provincial responsibilities, and that we really needed to spend more on national defence at this level of Government. Does the Hon. Member not realize that those are precisely the priorities and policies of Ronald Reagan, the President of the United States, the gentleman who has dragged us all into this depression today?


Dave Nickerson: That, Mr. Speaker, is a misrepresentation of what I said. I was comparing the amount of money contained in the federal budget for national defence, for social programs and other areas. I did not advocate an increase in the national defence budget.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I still did not get an answer to the question 1 asked the Hon. Member for Western Arctic a few moments ago. In fact, he has been giving answers which are nearly as good as the slippery ones we get from his bed partners across the way. Is it official Tory policy that individuals in Canada would be required to pay $250 in medical fees first before they would become eligible for medicare payments?


Dave Nickerson: No, Mr. Speaker, that has not been adopted as the official policy of the Conservative Party of Canada, but it will be as soon as I am made Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on the last supplementary question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, a quick question to my hon. friend for Western Arctic. The Hon. Member referred to his concern about unemployment which we in this Party share wholeheartedly. He also referred to the solutions of the Progressive Conservative Party back in 1979. I wonder if the Hon. Member would support the application today of the programs which the Conservative Party brought in when they were in power, and that was to terminate all of the direct job-creation projects in Canada? In other words, every single job-creation project which had been restored to this country was terminated. Is that the kind of approach to job creation he would suggest?


Dave Nickerson: That, Mr. Speaker, is absolute nonsense. That never was the policy of this Party. It was not advocated by our Minister of Finance when he was in office. The approach which we would like to see taken is to get the economy healthy in all areas, and once you do that and once you have the citizens of Canada productively engaged, you do not need all those make-work schemes. That is the policy which we advocate in this Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher). The time is running out.

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Very good, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to compliment the people on the other side and tell them how good they are when they get off scandals and back on to the economy.


Cyril Keeper: I wonder if the Hon. Member for Western Arctic does not realize that when his Party was in office it eliminated direct job-creation programs, and in fact a fellow Member of his Party, the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie), has admitted in a press conference that his Party eliminated the direct job-creation program when in office.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Western Arctic. A very brief comment.


Dave Nickerson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it might have eliminated them in the riding of Winnipeg-St. James, and I can well understand that, but it certainly did not eliminate them in the federal constituency of Western Arctic.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and answers has expired. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae).


Maurice James Harquail: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and answers has expired.


Maurice James Harquail: That is what my point of order is about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail).


Maurice James Harquail: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not raising a point of order; he is entering into debate.


Maurice James Harquail: You cannot rule on it before I state it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is engaging in debate, he cannot make the excuse of a point of order. If he has a legitimate point of order, he may state it.


Maurice James Harquail: I would be delighted to state it. Thank you Mr. Speaker for your courtesy. My point of order is with respect to the fact that three Members of the New Democratic Party consecutively had the floor. We did not-[DOT]


Ian Deans: You did not rise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is, perhaps, the fifteenth or sixteenth borrowing Bill which I have participated in over the last ten years. I feel there are some features of this borrowing Bill and of the Government's demands which are very common to all of those years. When we are looking for $5 billion for this fiscal year, 1982-83, and then another $14 billion for the next fiscal year, as a portion of what the estimated requirements may be, we are doing what we were doing for many, many years. We are
borrowing because we require to transfer large amounts of money to Canadians in one form or another, basically, and this keeps the economy at least going at some rate.
I believe we should really try and understand what the Government's Estimates mean. Of the total $85 billion or $86 billion required, 72 per cent is in the form of a transfer to Provinces or municipalities and to the Canadian people. Twenty-eight per cent, in round figures, is to be used by the Government itself. In other words, it is what economists sometimes call "money spent on goods and services". That includes Defence as well as the whole operations of the Government. I have included transfers in that 28 per cent to Crown corporations because I think they legitimately are part of the Government's operations. However, the other 78 per cent is a transfer to Canadians in one form or another, either through another level of Government or directly.
The large increases this year, 17 per cent or 18 per cent in those particular expenditures, are in the areas of transfers to people and transfers to the Provinces. Basically, these are caused by the world recession. The big additional costs are not caused by inflation but by the fact that we have much larger expenditures because of Unemployment Insurance, the need for welfare and so on.
There is no one in this House who would not say that unemployment was one of the major problems of our time. Perhaps, next to the danger of a nuclear holocaust, it is the most pressing problem that faces Canadians.
We have to find ways of creating more jobs. In all our communities people are despairing because they cannot find work. In Thunder Bay, 17 or 18 per cent of the population is unemployed and the situation is becoming desperate for a lot of families. It is not simply a matter of being unemployed for a short while and drawing Unemployment Insurance; some people are running out of benefits and are not able to make housing payments and so on. This can be a disaster for them. It seems to me that the Government has to spend more money and increase the deficit if we are to solve the problem.
We should look at the deficit itself, which is what the borrowing authority Bill deals with, and see if it is a short-term deficit that we are concerned about. In other words, whether, if we had a period of growth free from pressure, the deficit would go away or it is a long-term deficit that would continue no matter what happens to growth.
A group at the University of Toronto headed by Professors Bossons and Dungan has conducted a fairly extensive study of the problem and I received a draft of their report in December. It was also given a good deal of prominence last weekend on the first page of the business section of The Globe and Mail. The study indicated that with the tax regime that we put into place in 1978-79, and if the economy had continued with the
February 25, 1983

growth expected for 1979-80, we would have had a small surplus this year. This is very different from what we find to be the case in the United States, where the congressional office of the budget indicated that the American deficit, with no recession, would be in the area of $90 billion. A Wall Street estimate puts it at $60 billion. It would be a long-term, structural deficit. The University of Toronto study indicates that our deficit would not be a long-term, structural deficit.
It would be interesting to look at the statistics for 1979-80 when the deficit was 4.8 per cent of the Gross National Product; by 1981-82 it had gone down to 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product. Then the recession came along.
One of the interesting things about the recession is that the real reason for the growing deficit is not major Government spending-although it is perhaps a factor in 30 or 40 per cent of it-but declining revenues as a result of so many people being unemployed.
If the study is correct-I think it is, and certainly the size of the deficit as a percentage of GNP between 1978 and 1982 would indicate that the study is correct and that we would have a surplus today if we had not had a recession-then we are talking about a relatively short-term type of deficit and not a structural one. That being the case, the economists are saying that it is not a dangerous thing for us to increase the deficit if we do so in order to create work.
This is the fact that I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) ought to consider very carefully. The deficit, as a function of the Gross National Product at this point, would be somewhere in the area of 8 per cent. During World War II it ran as high as 25 per cent in one year, so 8 per cent is not an undue amount, given the strains on the economy. If the deficit were allowed to rise to 10 or 11 per cent of GNP, in the short term only, it would not be a very dangerous thing. I think a lot of economists might say that it is necessary at this time.
There is another factor that is related to unemployment and the deficit and that is the rate of personal savings. Personal savings as a function of gross personal earnings are something in the order of 13 per cent, about double that of the United States where it is about 6.9 per cent. If is of some consolation to those concerned about inflation and higher interest rates that this figure is so high and that gross personal earnings are about three-quarters of the GNP.
With this large amount of saving, there is some room for manoeuvre in terms of putting pressure on the economy as far as inflation or interest rates are concerned. The very high level of savings is a significant factor in slowing the economy down. So much money is going into savings and not into consumption at this time that I think most economists would say that the problem is that not enough of the GNP is going into consumption. People are not buying. We will not get increased growth in the economy until there is growth in consumer spending.
I think there are two basic reasons why the personal savings ratio is so high. In the sixties it was about 3 or 4 per cent; now it is 13 per cent. One reason is that real interest rates are very high. If you subtract the inflation rate of 8.3 per cent from the prime rate of 11.5 per cent, you get a real interest rate of 3.2 per cent. That is not very realistic, of course, because inflation
Borrowing Authority
is much lower than that. For the last six months it has been running around 6 per cent, so you have real interest rates in the order of 5 and 6 per cent which are inordinately high. They would normally be below the 3 per cent level. Because real interest rates are high, people tend to put money into savings rather than spend it.
The other reason for the savings ratio being so high is that people are afraid of losing their jobs, so they are paying off their bills or reducing their mortgage at a faster rate. All these things point to personal insecurity.
It seems to me that the Government has to demonstrate to people who are afraid of losing their jobs that it will create more jobs. I suggest that we could do so by increasing the deficit. If people had the feeling that their job was not going to disappear or that there would be another one for them, then I think some of that insecurity would be dispelled. People would tend to feel they could consume more durables, such as cars, refrigerators or housing.
Again, lower interest rates would stimulate the housing market. What are the options open to the Minister? I know there is a reluctance among many Canadians to expand the deficit, but more and more members of the business community are saying that this may be necessary. I think we should keep in mind the situation which I mentioned, that the deficit is a relatively short-term one, not a structural deficit. Therefore, it can be expanded without creating some structural problems if we do it on a short-term basis. I am suggesting a fairly massive amount of spending to create fairly short-term jobs.
There are some factors which should be taken into consideration in the area of spending to create employment. The projects on which we spend should be fairly large in labour content. This is pretty obvious. Perhaps many of them could be in the public sector, but they should trigger a great deal of activity in the private sector. Again I am thinking of things such as the construction of homes. The projects should be valuable. I am not talking about make-work projects; I am talking about infrastructure in terms of sewage and what communities need; valuable things which must be done. As a matter of fact, if we think about this over a long period of time, we should have a good inventory in the country of the kind of things which could be done when unemployment rises.
A few days ago when I asked the Minister a question, he replied by indicating that these should be very short-term projects. We are not talking about long-term megaprojects because we do not want to create long-term structural increases in the deficit. We want to ensure that these are fairly short-term. Assuming that the world picks up-and things appear to be doing so both in Canada and in the United States; our foreign trade picture is very good at this point, indicating that this is happening-in the long term all of us must share a great deal of concern about the whole unemployment problem. If we had a growth picture of 4 per cent to 6 per cent in the

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
next year or so, I think it would have a good effect upon the economy but might not do very much for the labour market or create jobs. The idea of giving people meaningful work to allow them to be part of the Canadian economy is tremendously important.
What will we do about this in the long term? If it becomes impossible to create a lot more meaningful work, perhaps we should take a look at the total labour force, the amount of available work, and do some adjusting. Over the last hundred years, the adjustment has been done by shorter hours. It seems to me that this stopped at a certain point. Perhaps a 40-hour week is reasonable; perhaps it should be reduced; perhaps there are other ways of doing it. It does not seem to be a reasonable proposition, in terms of equity to Canadians, that one segment of the population would work eight hours per day for 40 years and another smaller segment would never get plugged in at all. Working and being part of the nation are synonymous; they are very closely related. We must talk about some form of work-sharing over the long term.
This does not necessarily mean that Canadians will take home less. Perhaps some of the productivity gained might be distributed differently from taking home more money. Perhaps it could be in terms of doing less work. This is the kind of thing about which we have to think over a long period of time. There is no question that technology is moving at a very fast rate and that we are getting into a situation where it is becoming more and more difficult, no matter what the growth situation, to create necessary jobs.
In conclusion, certainly the studies I have seen indicate that we are talking about a short-term, non-structural deficit. It is very, very large; it is 8 per cent or 9 per cent of our Gross National Product but certainly nothing like the 25 per cent of the GNP which was used during the war. It can be expanded to create jobs in a meaningful way over a short period of time. Over the long period of time, we must look at different approaches toward ensuring that Canadians in Thunder Bay and in all cities throughout the country are part of the entire national wealth-making process. They should share in part of it and become part of the work force. There is some equity in that area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions for the Hon. Member?


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. In his introductory remarks-and I believe it was in the first sentence-he mentioned that this was his fifteenth or sixteenth borrowing Bill. I have shared those 15, 16 or whatever the number is with him.


Paul James Cosgrove: And your constituents too.


William Herbert Jarvis: I do not need any help from the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove)-


Paul James Cosgrove: I think you do.


William Herbert Jarvis: -nor does the country. During that period one thing which we shared in common was that those borrowing Bills either followed a financial statement or followed within a reasonable time a budget. I think the Hon. Member will agree.
Also he will be familiar with the statement of the previous Minister of Finance. He was a Minister with whom I had occasion to disagree on almost every item, but 1 think he enunciated what the Hon. Member and I experienced during those 15 or 16 borrowing Bills. In committee he said:
I would not expect the House to act upon an additional request for borrowing authority without providing it with detailed information on the economic situation and the implications of that situation on the Government's fiscal situation.
Then he went on to elaborate. He enunciated what I thought was completely familiar, if not a convention or principle. Is the Hon. Member comfortable with what I consider to be a very dramatic departure from what he and I experienced during those 15 or 16 Bills?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find this period of our economic history to be one of great discomfort. I am not comfortable at all about the situation, and I am sure the Government is not comfortable as well. We are in a period which is sort of without precedent. We are not quite in a recession and we are not out of a recession; we do not know whether it is a depression or what it is. Most of the normal Keynesian and other approaches to monetary policy are working as they should.
I am not sure but it seems to me there were several times when we asked for certain amounts of borrowing which did not immediately follow budgets. I sympathize with the Hon. Member's problem, but one must put oneself in the shoes of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) at this particular point. He is not sure-and I think correctly so-just what is the situation at the moment. One would assume from the United States figures and from some of the figures for the last quarter which we received this week that things are on the mend and that we may not have to do that much stimulating.
On the other hand, we have had indications of this kind before. The United States went into the recession about two quarters before Canada. The U.S. seems to be out of it. However, Wall Street and analysts in the U.S. do not seem to be quite sure about that. Canada is about six months behind the U.S. in coming out of the recession. This is a natural phenomenon given the relationship between our two economies.
I believe the Minister is showing some wisdom by not bringing in a budget when we are not quite sure what the direction is. I defy Hon. Members opposite to tell me whether Canada is coming out of the recession, going back into recession or staying level. It is not a clear situation. The next budget will have to be a major effort. I do not see how the Minister can really do the job he should do in what I call a transition period.
February 25, 1983


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) in the early part of his address mentioned that the major reason for the need of $19 billion in borrowing was declining revenues. Could the Hon. Member substantiate that statement with figures, particularly those given in the address of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he introduced the Bill?


Paul Edmund McRae: As 1 recall reading the address, 1 did not see a figure. However, when we had an increase in the deficit in the June 28 budget, it showed that the deficit would rise to $19.1 billion from $9.6 billion, I believe. The difference between the two figures is approximately $9.8 billion. I have forgotten what it is exactly, but it is something in that order.
The difference between the numbers, the projected November number and the number projected in June, is $9.6 billion. By breaking down that number you would find that $4 out of every $5 was caused by decreased revenue. I do not have a later figure. I am saying now that the figure is probably $3 out of every $4. I could put some time into the calculations and produce a figure. It startled me at the time in June. I went over the numbers very carefully and found that $4 out of every $5 of the increase-not of the deficit but the increase-was caused by declining revenues.


Mr. Gamble:: I have a question for the Hon. Member. He has been in this House since 1972. Does he view the current deficit as not being long term and structural, having regard to the fact that since the Hon. Member has been in this House the deficit has steadily increased? Today we are shocked by the prediction of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) himself that next year the deficit will be even greater than this year. The Minister suggests it could be $29 billion. We could, of course, anticipate that figure to be lower than what it will be.
We now have a national debt of something in the order of $120 billion to $125 billion. We know the Auditor General has advised us that added to those figures must necessarily be the realistic appraisal of letters of comfort and guarantees which have been given to Crown corporations. If they were properly valued, it would show that there is in the neighbourhood of another $40 billion to be added. We know from the Minister of Finance himself that next year we will have a potential minimum deficit of $29 billion.
Having regard to the Hon. Members' service in this House since 1972 until today, and even anticipating next year, have we not seen a long term, persistent structural deficit manipulated by the Government that he has served?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I will have to call upon my memory for the earlier years, but it seems to me that from 1972 to 1975 we ran small surpluses or very small deficits, something in the order of half a billion dollars one way or the other.
The deficit took off when we indexed exemptions. This was done at the strong suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition Party at that time. We also indexed old age pensions and so
Borrowing Authority
on. We created a decline in revenue and an increase in expenditures. That caused a fairly large deficit increase which grew from 1975 to 1979.
Earlier when I spoke I said that in 1979-1980 the deficit was 4.8 per cent of the Gross National Product. That deficit, however, as a function of the Gross National Product-and unless we talk about the Gross National Product, there is no point dealing with this-declined by 1981-1982 to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product. We put a tax regime in place in a period which caused some decline. For instance, one of the nice borrowing bills I have had to talk about was one where we actually had to borrow less than we anticipated in the previous budget.
I refer also to the paper produced by the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto. The group that put out that paper took 1979 figures and projected them. They show a small surplus. The amount of that surplus will vary, depending upon how you take the study. I saw a figure of about $1.3 billion, but it would be a figure in that order, a very small surplus.
Compare that with the American situation. The Americans have two components which we do not have. The Americans have a very large tax decrease and a very large increase in defence spending. Those two factors have created a structural component to the deficit which is very dangerous. From all the figures I have, I do not think we have that kind of structural component in our deficit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of questions and answers has expired. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). I see the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is rising on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party wish to ask questions of Members on the Government side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is reflecting on the Chair's decision with regard to this period of ten minutes, or he appears to be. I call the attention of the House to the very difficult position of the Chair. The Chair has attempted as fairly as possible to apportion questions. The Hon. Member's Party had three questions. The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) complained, although he had not risen himself, and again reflected on the Chair in so doing.
I am appealing to Hon. Members to recognize that the Chair is trying hard to be fair and will continue to do so, but it is difficult.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not questioning your decision at all. I simply want to draw to your attention and to the attention of Members of the House that, in the interests of

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
fair play, I believe that if the present policy were followed Members of the New Democratic Party or backbenchers of the Government would never have an opportunity to ask questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Flon. Member is reflecting on the Chair. The Hon. Member should know better than to do that. With all due respect, the proportions that are normally respected are three questions for the Official Opposition to one question for the Hon. Member's Party. Had there been a fourth Member recognized, the Hon. Member's Party would have been recognized. Every opportunity is offered to Members on the Government side. In a previous exchange the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher), the only Member who rose on that side who caught the eye of the Chair, was recognized. The Chair appeals to Hon. Members to recognize the difficult position of the Chair and the attempt to be impartial.


Cyril Keeper: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) has a legitimate point of order, he will be heard. The Chair appeals to Hon. Members not to raise false points of order.


Cyril Keeper: To put my point of order very briefly, Mr. Speaker, without reflecting on the Chair whatever, could we seek unanimous consent of the House to allow one question by this Party?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this stage, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to clarify the matter of the exchange. Perhaps you could help us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member raising a point of order or entering into debate?


Maurice James Harquail: I want to make it clear. My point of order is no reflection on the Chair. That is my first point.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has reflected on the Chair. The Chair now recognizes the Hon. Member for V ancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, now that I have the floor, and it being Friday afternoon, I hope that at the end of my speech all Members can be treated alike and perhaps we should have no questions.
I am pleased to speak on this Bill. In my remarks I wish to deal a little with the recession that was mentioned by the previous speaker. I want to say something about the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I would also like to talk about Government spending priorities and its economic policy, or lack of it. As well, I want to say something about Government waste and the jobs it gives to its boys like the Pitfields and the Gillespies. I will also deal with the jobcreation program and, if time permits, 1 will point out the contradiction of the Conservative alternative. Finally, I would like to make some suggestions about what should be done in both the long and short term in order to get the Canadian economy back on track. Time permitting, I will deal with some of the remarks made by the Bishops which I consider important and thoughtful.
We have before us another borrowing authority Bill. I have not had a chance to talk about 16 borrowing authority bills as the Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) said he has. I think this one is enough. It is the fourth Bill of its kind in eight months. Other borrowing authority Bills were introduced in June, 1982 for $6.6 billion, in July, 1982 for $7 billion and in November, 1982 for $4 billion. This Bill is asking for $19 billion, $5 billion of which is to be used to get through the fiscal year. The remaining $14 billion is to be used as interim funds for the period ending October, 1983.
In effect, the Government is asking for this money without producing a financial statement. That is tantamount to writing the Government a blank cheque. That is hardly a policy that our Party could endorse.
While this amount is relatively high when compared to other borrowing requests, it is not unprecedented. However, the manner in which the Government is proceeding with this Bill is noteworthy. Thomas Walkom wrote in The Globe and Mail.
While it is not unheard of for a Government to ask for some interim borrowing authority, a $14 billion request without a budget is unprecedented.
This is why our Party has proposed an amendment to this Bill. The amendment asks that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for further study before we give the Government a blank cheque. I believe that is the only reasonable and proper thing to do. I urge Hon. Members to support the amendment.
I said that I would talk about the recession since it was referred to by the previous speaker. If I had been able to ask him a question, I would have asked how many were unemployed in his area of Thunder Bay. I do not know how many are unemployed there but I know how many are unemployed in my Province of British Columbia. In that Province, 16 per cent of the work force is unemployed. That is a shameful figure.
We must remember that it is the Government that created this recession. It just did not happen; it is a Government-created recession. While it is partly true when the Government says that there is a world recession, it is not completely true. When one reviews the statistics, one sees that Canada had the worst rate of growth last year of all the OECD countries, that is the industrialized countries in the western world. Our rate of growth was minus 5 per cent, which is last in the list of those countries. We should be near the top when we consider our natural resources and our skilled labour force, but we are last.
We are last because the Government zapped the economy. As a result of the action of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Gerald Bouey, and successive Ministers of Finance,
February 25, 1983

interest rates were raised so high in order to squeeze inflation out in the economy that the economy was zapped. That policy is called monetarism. We have monetarist policies in Canada as well as in the United States and the United Kingdom. As a result of this policy there have been 600,000 jobs lost in the last year and a half. That is a real tragedy.


Maurice James Harquail: Privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wish the Elon. Member would sit down and let me finish my speech. He can ask me questions afterwards.


Maurice James Harquail: I have a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor. I suggest that the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) seek the floor at the end of the speech or at some other appropriate moment if he has a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Maurice James Harquail: Those are the rules, Mr. Speaker. A question of privilege has to be heard if a question of privilege is requested. I request that you hear it.


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


Maurice James Harquail: That is the rule. Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to the Standing Orders and Procedure Committee, specifically Issue No. 7 which clearly states that the Chair should give priority during the ten-minute question period to Members representing Parties other than that of the Member who has just spoken. It states: "Your committee recommends and emphasizes that it sees these ten-minute periods as being used for questions and answers and critical exchanges."
I regret very much to have been drawn into this, except for the fact that you just stated, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that three Members of the NDP had held the floor for those ten minutes and we were on this side of the House. The previous speaker was the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). This is the very point we are having difficulty with.
I would only conclude, in begging your indulgence for a favourable decision on this, that you should not assume when a Member is going to stand up. You cannot know if a Member is going to stand. I submit that you will never be able to anticipate whether I am going to stand up or not. However, when I do stand, I do request that I be given the same fair consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member resume his seat. If the Hon. Member had a question of privilege, it should have been raised at that moment. He should not wait and then interrupt another Hon. Member's speech at a later point in the proceedings.
If there is a question about the order, the Chair has scrupulously attempted to observe a fair distribution of questions in the ten-minute period. The Chair noted at one particular point that only Members of one Party in the Opposition were rising.
Borrowing Authority
The Chair looked and did not see any Members on the Government side. The Chair did see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) and recognized him at the appropriate time. When the Parliamentary Secretary rose, the Member for Restigouche may or may not have attempted to rise. He had not risen previously.
It was the discretion of the Chair to recognize the Member who caught the Speaker's eye. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, there is no question of privilege and there is no point of order. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 wish the Member would settle down. I say in good faith that I know there is a lot of tension in the House. I am trying to make-


Maurice James Harquail: I do not need the Hon. Member's help. You are one of the smart guys around here. You have the reputation of having the mouth and being the smart guy.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member for Restigouche to resume his seat. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Maurice James Harquail: You are just a smart guy. Don't try to tell me.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is disgraceful.


Maurice James Harquail: You talk about the eight-minute tape.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member observe the decorum of the House of Commons.


Maurice James Harquail: I always do.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to analyze what I thought were some of the problems with respect to the Government's present approach to this terrible recession we are in. I was making the point that I thought that the Government's spending priorities were wrong. The Government has, in fact, cut back on social programs through its six and five program. This six and five program is making those people who can least afford it fight the battle. It is the wrong battle. In other words, pensioners, women, children and retired civil servants, retired RCMP and so on, are forced to receive less money than they would normally receive from the Government. This is happening at a time when the Government should be putting more money into their pockets, which would cause them to spend more and would stimulate our economy. The main fight is not against inflation, and I think anyone would recognize that if they looked around. The main fight now is against unemployment.
Let us not have a Government policy, namely the six and five policy, which is mainly meant to fight inflation, because it is using the wrong people to Fight it. The Government has also

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
abdicated its responsibility. The Elon. Member for Restigou-che might want to listen a little bit and he might learn something.


Maurice James Harquail: You have nothing to tell us. You have never had anything to say.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder why there are so many unemployed in New Brunswick.


Maurice James Harquail: I would not want to listen to you or hear anything you have to say.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think one of the problems is that the Government has an economic policy which has allowed the Bank of Canada to focus on inflation in a single-minded attack on inflation which has, in fact, brought down the economy. In the last year, there have been 11,000 business bankruptcies. The economy is running at 70 per cent capacity and approximately two million Canadians are out of work. I am saying that the Government should focus on job creation and no longer on inflation-fighting matters.
Concerning job creation, the Government is in real trouble. It gives the appearance to the people that there are jobs for the boys, like Mr. Gillespie and Mr. Macdonald. There are all sorts of other examples-


Mr. Sargeant:: Mr. Pitfield.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -like Mr. Pitfield, and so on. These people are paid really inflated salaries when the average Canadian, such as people in Vancouver-Kings way and other people in ridings of other Hon. Members, are suffering. We do not like to see this. In the long run, it will be absolutely fatal to the Government. This Government is finished, morally and politically, if it continues operating in that manner.
I want to say something about what should be done. We should make jobs the first priority. Second, I do not think we should be asking people to lower their expectations, as the Government has been doing. We must ask the people to raise their expectations, to think about working in decent jobs and spending some money. We are working at about 70 per cent capacity in our manufacturing industry. We must put some money in the hands of the consumer fairly quickly. The budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will introduce should have short-term stimulative measures.
Believe it or not, I met with people from the Chamber of Commerce, the Labour Congress, and people in Toronto, Winnipeg, Sudbury, Edmonton and Vancouver. I am sorry I did not get to New Brunswick, but I hope I will. Those people will probably reflect the same feelings. Across the country, the people said that the budget should provide some stimulation. I think the Hon. Member would agree that we should stimulate the people, put some money in people's pockets and get them working again. That concerns the short term. What kind of stimulation should there be? It should not be in the Government's present job creation program. I do not have the time to go into detail, but I have an analysis of these programs, and let
me just say that they have scarcely made a dent in unemployment. The Government spends about $1 million on 13 separate programs. It costs about $14,000 to create a full-time job. For Mr. Gillespie it costs $1.4 million, but for everyone else it costs $14,000 to create one full-time job. When one really considers it, the Government has created about 72,000 jobs. I just said that we have lost 500,000 jobs in the last year. Those programs, such as the Canadian Development Program, the Outreach project, the LEDA project and the summer works project, are short-term. Surely, students want the summer works project. People want anything that they can get. Some people are desperate and will take anything. However, these are not good jobs.
By "good short-term jobs" we mean and we are considering direct stimulation to the housing industry which puts plumbers and carpenters to work. In my riding, the carpenters told me that they are itching to get to work. Inter-rail transit is a good investment. If the Government has indicated that, and if it could just change its view on the Crow rate and keep it on rail investment, it would be doing the right thing. Concerning the forest industry, reforestration, machinery producing, and so on, should be taken into consideration. In the energy sector, there is room for short-term jobs in energy audits, in fixing up and making energy secure for all our housing in Canada. There is room for major public investment programs in shortterm projects, which is better than the Government's present short-term job creation programs. I put that forward both to the Hon. Member for Restigouche, now that he has calmed down, and to the Minister of Finance, to consider as a real and positive alternative.
I do not know if any Hon. Members have read a new book by John Naisbitt entitled "Megatrends". The book says that there are only three count ries in the industrialized world, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, which have not accepted the notion of long-term planning. This is where I depart from my friends to the right, because we in the NDP say that it is about time we considered the notion of long-term planning in Canada. It can be done. We must do it or we will fall as a nation. We will have the worst growth record. It can be done and we must build our strengths. We must build on the fact that we have resources. However, we should not just export our resources to the United States or to Japan. We should start manufacturing some of our resources, making use of our resources in Canada, and this should be part of our industrial strategy. It must be regionalized. There must be a strategy for New Brunswick, for example. It may involve shipbuilding. There must be a strategy for Newfoundland on oil and offshore exploration. There must be a strategy in my part of the country involving the forestry industry and the great opportunities for trade in the Pacific Rim. It can be done, but we must do it in all seriousness and plan it.
I attended a committee meeting yesterday at which Senator Jack Austin testified. While we are considering these important matters in the House, we must not forget that a guy like Senator Austin is taking care of $2 billion or $3 billion of
February 25, 1983

investment in the CDIC, the Canadian Development Investment Corporation, which is involved with many of these Government companies, like Teleglobe, de Havilland, Cana-dair, El Dorado and some of the other companies. That corporation could become an element of Government planning in Canada. That is what other countries have done and that is what we will eventually do. It is no use to turn to the right wing rhetoric of the Reaganites or the Thatcherites. The future belongs to a more planned economy. I do not know how much more time I will have left in which to speak. I was interrupted.


Mr. Lapointe:: One minute. And it is too much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair intends to allow another three minutes to the Hon. Member, making allowance for the interruptions.


Charles Lapointe: It is plenty.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I would like to conclude by suggesting to Hon. Members that they consider what the Catholic Bishops said in their recent statement. They said that economic decisions involve moral choices and that without a vision of what kind of society one is intending to create, the people in this society tend to be treated as "an impersonal force having little or no significance beyond their economic purpose in the system". That is a challenge for all Hon. Members in the House. I heard the Hon. Member who spoke previously mention the words "meaningful work". What is that in a high tech society? I do not have the solution. I am worried about the high tech society. How are we to retain our existing steel, rubber, coal and other industries without selling them out completely to a high tech and robotized industrial system? We should consider what the Bishops say concerning principles. We adopt the principles. We can figure out the technical details later.


Paul James Cosgrove: Keep the people working.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They say that people have been deprived of the right to work by creating mass unemployment, that the industrial base for the heartland of the country has been destroyed by looking to mega resource retraction as the surest way to prosperity. That policy has fallen, a spin-off from megaprojects, being an industrial strategy. That has gone. Thirdly, the Bishops said that we have asked those least able to keep up with inflation, such as pensioners, to bear the burden of the fight against inflation, while providing people who have money to invest with greater ways of ensuring the highest return. This was referring to the loans to Dome Petroleum and some of these companies; and some of these grants to Alastair Gillespie, and so on. Finally, they said we have cut back on the essential needs of people through health care cutbacks and cutbacks in the funding of education, and also cutting off the legitimate voice of the working people in this country by excluding the concerns of labour from the policy-making bodies of Government. These are all the things they have said that we are doing wrong. I will sum up with a quote. I notice that my friend is heckling me there. He is a very strongly religious person, I think, occasionally. The Biblical quote is that old men shall dream dreams and young men shall see
Borrowing Authority
visions and where there are no visions, the people doth perish. The vision we have to have is, first, full employment. Second, we have to have an effective industrial strategy based on protecting existing jobs and creating new jobs and fitting them into this new high tech society. Third, we have to continue to lower our interest rates to stimulate the economy and start short-term job stimulation as well in the areas I have suggested. Finally, we have to bring labour into the whole process by finding a new means of having unions, management and Government co-operate with each other.
These are general ideas, but I think it is appropriate to express them when I am speaking to a Bill that asks for a borrowing of some $19 billion.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who has just spoken has given a lot of attention to the remarks of the ethical political philosophy of six Catholic Bishops of Canada. I would like to ask the Hon. Member, in the context of political morality, what was the political morality of his Party when, in this House in the last 18 months, his Party voted against $500 million addressed toward the Canada Home Ownership Plan, $300 million addressed toward the Canada Rental Supply Plan; $100 million addressed toward the rehabilitation of Canadian homes, and $50 million addressed toward the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan? All of these plans were addressed either to give jobs to people, to provide affordable accommodation, or to assist them in retaining their homes. What was the ethical principle that motivated his Party to vote against these plans, to delay their implementation for six months, thereby depriving people of employment and affordable homes?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the answer is fairly simple. The fact is that most of those particular programs have passed, as I understand it, and these were programs that were to put all the people back to work in the housing industry. I think that was the idea. We said that would not be done with those programs. In my riding there is 24 per cent unemployment amongst the carpenters in the area. Why? Because they are not working in housing, because the housing programs are not working. What we suggested was that these programs were not very workable, they were inequitable programs, and there were better programs. I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The programs have passed. Is the housing industry booming in Canada right now? You can bet your bottom dollar that it is not.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, how can the Hon. Member who just answered the question possibly say that the programs are not working when he well full knows that the $500 million addressed to the Canada Home Ownership Plan has been described as the most positive and successful and costly plan of housing that Canada has known, and has been responsible for 150,000 new housing starts in this country in the last eight months?

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who has described it as such. Perhaps the Minister's Department did, or one of his very well paid public relations people in one of their brochures or one of their advertisements. All I can tell you is that in my riding there is need for homes and there are carpenters not working and homes are not being constructed. We have a co-operative group in the riding, called Columbia Housing. They have line-ups of people who want to build cooperatives. I did not say that the Minister has not done anything. He has tried things, but they have been a drop in the bucket, like the Government's job creation program. It is, if I might say, a typical Liberal response. It is, sort of, go this way, go back, go forward, drop a little here and drop a little there. There is no co-ordinated long-term program. That is the problem with modern day Liberalism, which is why, like the dinosaurs, it will soon be extinct.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Hon. Member from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). If I understood his presentation correctly, on behalf of the New Democratic Party he was advocating an even greater stimulative deficit. He wanted to spend even more Government money in order to create employment.
If that were to take place, there are two alternatives. Either the Government can borrow or print more money, and if that is the way that he would like to get these revenues, I would like him to tell us how much, in addition to the already high deficit, he is prepared to go, or, secondly, the Government must increase taxation. So is his policy similar to that of the new New Democratic Party Government in Manitoba, which has just recently increased sales taxes, put taxes on employment, increased tobacco and liquor taxes and all other kinds of taxes on the people of Manitoba?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions there. First of all, I did not use the words "stimulative deficit". I think it was the Hon. Member from Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) in a previous incarnation who used the words "stimulative deficit" when he advocated that.
The deficit, as I see it, is the product of shrinking revenues plus all the UIC and welfare payments. It seems to me that we should not focus on the immediate short-term deficit so as to be able to say that we cannot do anything because the deficit may go up. I agree with what the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) said about the deficit during World War II when we had a huge deficit and when we were priming the economy. We eventually got that money back, and I think that will happen again. We will get it back if we can put people to work. So it is proper not to focus on the deficit. We should talk instead about job creation.
With respect to Manitoba I understand that Manitoba still has the second lowest sales tax in the country, but what I think some of the Provinces need, frankly, is to take a look at the budget where one alternative would be-and I am not adopting this, it is only my own suggestion, but it is something that I think the Minister of Finance might look at-the idea of
rebating some of the money to the Provinces so that they could reduce their sales tax.
If a Province like Manitoba or British Columbia or some of the other Provinces that are strapped for cash could rebate some of that money, then they might be able to reduce their sales taxes or stimulate the economy in other ways, or they might be able to stop cutbacks. For example, in my own Province there are needless and stupid cutbacks in education.
So what I am saying, to sum up, and it is not an easy answer, is: do not lose sleep over the deficit. I think it is the wrong focus.
I have only a minute in which to answer this, so I would like to send over to the Hon. Member the Australian Labour Party Program with respect to the deficit because I think it is excellent on this. I would ask him to have a look at it and I would be prepared to answer some questions and discuss the fiscal and monetary policy that is in there with him in private.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, as I put a question to the Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), he spoke about my settling down. If the Hon. Member would not make inflammatory statements and talk about religious question-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member put his question and discuss the point.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the changes in the rules allow Members to make brief comments. They are not obliged to put questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is relevance. The comments must be relevant to the matter under discussion.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I started out by talking about the relationship of a remark that was made earlier by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In the debate on Bill C-143 today, the Hon. Member was talking about the economy. Does he agree that in recent weeks the bank rate has dropped to 9.43 per cent and the prime rate to 11.25 per cent? The inflation rate, as confirmed by a statement by the Minister for Commerce and Development in the Ontario Legislature, is 6 per cent. Housing starts are up. The manufacture of cars is up, as is our export surplus.
In the television program "Question Period" the other day the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) stated, on behalf of the Conservative Party, that things are looking better, that there is a turnaround and an upswing in the economy. In light of statements by the Conference Board of Canada and the statement by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, plus the fact that interest rates and inflation are down, does the Hon. Member admit that, because of the policies and efforts of this Government and what it has done to deal with these problems, there have been significant improvements? Does he admit that?


February 25, 1983


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I did not make an inflammatory statement on religion. The statement was made by the Catholic Bishops. Second, the economic policies of this Liberal Government are an unmitigated disaster. They have zigged and they have zagged. They do not know in which direction they are going. If interest rates go up they blame it on the United States; if they go down, they take the credit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the period for questions and answers has expired. The Chair will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if you have the sequence correct. There was a Liberal who spoke and then an NDP Member. Does it not come after-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The sequence is correct. The next speaker will come from the Government side. This is the normal procedure of the House which is being followed. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) will be recognized following this speech.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the Bill before the House today, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is asking Parliament to give the Government a supplementary borrowing authority of $19 billion, namely, $5 billion for the year ending on March 31 and $14 billion for the coming year. Why do we have to borrow? Because Government expenditures exceed Government revenue. Those who would like further details regarding expenditures-


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With great respect to the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) is it not within the spirit of the new rules that Members should not read speeches prepared for them elsewhere?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger) has barely begun his speech. With all due respect to the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), 1 suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should be allowed to proceed.


David Berger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the course of my speech Hon. Members will realize that I prepared it myself, whatever the Hon. Member may think.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, those who wanted further details on expenditures had a chance this week when the Main Estimates were tabled. That day, the spokesmen for the Progressive Conservative Party said that the expenditures were unconscionable.
Borrowing Authority

Unconscionable is what the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) said.
[ Translation]
He neglected to mention, Mr. Speaker, that expenditures cannot be cut drastically without hurting the unemployed, senior citizens and other Canadians who are in need. I would also point out to the Hon. Member that the Canadian system is somewhat different from what they have in the United States or Great Britain. In Canada we have health insurance and assistance plans, to name only two. A cursory glance at the Estimates reveals that the Federal Government's Social Affairs envelope represents 40.6 per cent of Government expenditures. In the coming year, there will be an increase of $6.1 billion or 20.7 per cent in this envelope. It includes the following items: first of all, for the Department of National Health and Welfare, increases totalling $2.5 billion will be applied to programs such as Old Age Security, Health Insurance and the Canada Assistance Plan.
There are also transfer payments to provincial governments, for instance, to finance established programs such as health insurance, medical and extended health care and post-secondary education. This year has also brought substantial increases in the expenditures of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, totalling $2.2 billion. This includes an additional $1.7 billion for unemployment insurance, $366 million for job creation and $237 million for training. The increases are in addition to the already substantial budget for the past year and, of course, before the budget the Minister of Finance is expected to bring down in a few weeks.
The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Cosgrove), the former Minister of Public Works, spoke of increases that took place during the past year with respect to housing programs. These programs include the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, which was mentioned by the Hon. Minister, the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, the Home Renovation Plan, the Canada Rental Supply Plan and cooperative housing measures.
I remember that last year, as many as 27,500 co-operative housing units were financed. There has been an increase of $483 million in funding for the coming year, and if we refer to 1982-83, we see an increase of $1.2 billion for housing or housing related assistance.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the public is aware of the hypocrisy of the Progressive Conservative Members. In every debate in the House, they want the Government to do more and, at the same time, to cut spending. I would like to mention two examples which are fairly well-known to Canadians. First of all, in the debate on established programs financing, they demanded that the Government increase payments to the provinces, and second, when interest rates were high, they wanted the Government to help Canadians who were in danger of losing their homes. So whenever there is an issue that is

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
important to Canadians, they want the Government to spend more, but on the other hand, they want the Government to cut spending. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the public is aware of the hypocrisy in this attitude.
This week, we heard the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who is once again campaigning for the leadership of his party, make some truly incredible remarks. He proposed massive Government spending on housing, roads, harbour facilities, airports and other public works, without giving any indication how much it would cost. At the same time, he suggested cutting spending in a number of areas. Representation costs would be cut by $10.4 million. Mr. Speaker, all companies spend money on what they refer to as travel and entertainment, and the Hon. Member wanted to cut $10 million. He wanted to cut the expenditures of the Canadian Unity Information Office by $25.5 million, while ignoring the fact that the CUIC's budget has already been cut this year. The Hon. Member also suggested a $50 million cut in the Government's expenditures on photocopying. I did not check whether the figures were accurate. 1 will let the Hon. Member for Yellowhead count the paper clips and sheets of paper used in Government offices.
I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is in the House at this time. This morning, in one of his questions to the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), he asked whether there were certain figures available, related to cash flow, or he was suggesting that they were not available. In reading the speech of the Hon. Member of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in opening this debate, I noticed he referred to the financial requirements of the Government being some $26 billion. At page 22920 of Hansard for February 17, the Minister observed that there would be an increase in the outstanding debt of the Government on an average of $2 billion every month. He also noted that the previously issued debt is coming due and must be refinanced every week; $1.25 billion in Treasury bills must be refinanced each week. The Minister indicated the importance of securing the borrowing authority which he is seeking at the present time, and he stated again, at page 22920 of Hansard:
-given the size of the financial operations ... even a savings, of a small fraction of 1 per cent can imply significant dollar amounts. Since the major objective of debt management is to minimize public debt charges it is important that the borrowing program can be planned and operated in an orderly and efficient manner and that the Government have the flexibility to respond to attractive financial opportunities. Clearly, adequate borrowing authority is necessary for this to be achieved.
It is quite clear that if the Hon. Member for Capilano was asking for the cash flow figures, he had his answer in the speech of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) seeks to ask a question of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger).


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question can be answered with just a short statement. I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his help in replying to my question on cash flow put to the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). It is very obvious from the answer and the explanations given by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that he, like the Government, does not have the slightest idea of what the cash flow is on a month-by-month basis, otherwise the Government would not be in so much trouble and its projections would not be so erroneous.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that I have not had the opportunity to make any inquiries of the Minister of Finance. I recognize that the $2 billion increase in the outstanding debt of the Government every month is only one component of the cash flow requirements of the Government. I would suggest that the answers could be very readily obtained, and that is not an adequate reason for holding up the study of this Bill and its quick passage, which the Minister of Finance is seeking.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary is correct, and it is entirely possible that he is, I am wondering why the Comptrollers and Auditors General of Canada have been so concerned about this issue since 1976.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I respect the thorough study which the Hon. Member has given to the reports of the Comptrollers General and the Auditors General. I know they have made certain references to shortcomings in the financial management system of the Government, which the Government has taken steps to correct. I would like the Hon. Member to refer me to the relevant portion of their reports which refers to this particular problem, and perhaps we could engage in further discussion of this at some other time. I know that there is a Bill before this House, for example, which proposes to correct some of the problems regarding the accountability of Crown Corporations, about which I know the Hon. Member is concerned. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that it is important to give quick passage to some of the measures which are before the House so we can put some of them behind us and perhaps use them as a building block to resolve some of the other concerns which we all have.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the present federal borrowing as of now, beginning this fiscal year, is $163 billion more or less. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary believe that that leads to higher or lower interest rates, and what effect does he think that higher interest rates are having upon the economy in terms of creating new jobs? Would the Parliamentary Secretary also tell us, given all the circumstances, what he feels the range of the deficit this year should be? For instance, a professor at McGill University, Sidney Ingerman, recently said he thought it should be in the $35 billion range. What range does the Parliamentary Secretary feel it should be, given the circumstances of the economy?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, I believe, referred to a figure of $163 billion-I cannot recall his exact
February 25, 1983

words-as the total borrowing requirement of the Government. I believe we are all aware of the very high savings rate of Canadians. We also know that most of the debt of the Government of Canada is financed in this country. Therefore, it does not lead to the kinds of problems which other countries have been experiencing with their large foreign debts.
As far as the effect on interest rates is concerned, 1 believe it is fair to say that there seems to be a consensus developing on the part of the economists that the economy can withstand the kind of deficit which the Government is forecasting for the coming year. Again, I would like to ask the Hon. Members, as I did in my speech, where do they suggest that substantial savings could be effected? We are not talking here about $20 million or $10 million in food, booze or entertainment, as was suggested by the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). With all due respect, $10 million would not make much of a dent in this deficit. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to suggest, for example, in what areas savings can be effected. When you look at the social affairs envelope, which I mentioned, which accounts for some 40 per cent of Government spending, where in that envelope would the Hon. Member suggest that cuts be made? Would it be in the Unemployment Insurance programs? Would it be in the old age pensions? Would it be in job creation programs? Even Mr. Reagan, President of the United States, said in his State of the Union address that he is coming around to seeing that the United States should spend more money on education and job training. That is something that this Government has been doing over a long period of time.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get the Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation of the statement made by the former Minister of Finance who, on May 31, 1982, at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, stated as follows:
1 do not think it would be appropriate to ask the House for additional borrowing authority until I have laid out in some detail an update of both the economic situation and the fiscal situation.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give his interpretation of that statement and tell us why on this side of the House we are expected to give the Government a blank cheque for $19 billion borrowing authority, without knowing in some detail where the money is to be spent?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement is ludicrous.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: It is not my statement.


David Berger: He is saying that the Opposition or Parliament should not be expected to give the Government a blank cheque without knowing where the money is going.
Just a few days ago the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) tabled in the House one of the most detailed studies of Government spending ever, the Blue Book, and all the other departmental studies which go into massive detail
Borrowing Authority
about the spending of individual Departments, their plans and their projections for the future. How can he say, without shame, that we are asking for a blank cheque?
He previously referred to the statement of the former Minister of Finance who said that he felt it would not be appropriate to ask for more borrowing authority without an update of the economic and Fiscal situation. The current Minister of Finance presented such an update last October and is planning another one as soon as the House can deal with some of the items now before it, such as the income tax measures that we have been waiting to study for the past two years and the current borrowing authority.
I suggest that if we were to deal with these items expeditiously and with the other diversions and smokescreens they intend to bring up within the next two weeks, we may get another update of the economic situation from the Minister of Finance.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to bring the present Minister of Finance into this after what happened in the past week or ten days and to lump him with the former Minister of Finance. We have heard enough about those two gentlemen in the last few days.
How would the Parliamentary Secretary square the promise made last October by the present Minister of Finance that a new budget would be brought in before more borrowing authority was sought?
On October 27, 1982, as reported in Hansard, he told the House:
In the budget I intend to present early in 1983, I will review again the fiscal situation for the current fiscal year, set out estimates for 1983-84 and future fiscal years, and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain that statement. Now you are asking for the money before-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would call to the attention of the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) that the time for questions and answers has expired. The Chair is in a most difficult position when we are pressed for time and a number of Members are seeking to speak. I suspect it is not easy to answer that question.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: It is impossible, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary-


David Berger: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent for the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to speak. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I think my remarks will be a contrast to those of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who suggested that we should not focus on the deficit. He suggested that that is not the way out of the present dilemma.

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Everywhere one goes in the country, one is asked what people can do, how they can help. There is a general sense of helplessness across the land that is serious.
At the outset of my remarks on Bill C-143, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that 1 am frustrated with the decay that is setting into the process of parliamentary Government. I am frustrated at the obvious loss of the fundamental principle of ministerial responsibility, and frustrated with the art of stonewalling, not only in the House but throughout the committee system. I am frustrated at the political process the Liberals have adopted in governing the country.
My speech on Bill C-143, the borrowing authority for $19 billion, will attempt to outline the basis of this frustration.
Bill C-143 appears to be an afterthought, as if not part of a plan but simply a debt on a risk-a risk that we could not calculate with any accuracy. The annual deficit proves this. When we started the budgetary process in this Parliament under the former Minister of Finance, we heard it was going to be $19 billion, then it moved up to $23 billion or $24 billion, and now it is $29 billion. It is interesting that when the original $19 billion was announced to the House I was told by a person in the Department of Finance it would actually be well over $25 billion.
I am one who believes that this $19 billion borrowing authority is the result of a plan. So far as Bill C-143 links us to that plan, we are really debating a part of that plan today. As I see it, this borrowing authority is a link and there are three aspects to this link-the past, the future through the present.
The common thread through these aspects is leadership. Through the recent past we have seen a dramatic change in expectations throughout the country-expectations of our responsibilities toward ourselves and toward the state. By this I mean expectations of the rewards for duty. Expectation of what the Government has to offer.
Let us just slip down the west coast of North America and look at the State of California. It has a population about equal to that of all Canada. It is a State that has wealth, people, climate and everything going for it, yet it is bankrupt. It is now paying its civil servants and contractual obligations in lOUs as a result of the rising of the people for Proposition 13.
We are talking about expectations from and of employers throughout the land; we are talking about expectations from and of unions throughout the country. Out of this change in expectations came the displacement of individual self-reliance with the notion of the collective.
Collectives that bring people together in a common purpose as a means of improving the quality of life, are instinctive to Canadians and are a part of our heritage. Collectives have been positive forces throughout our history and in our society. The authority of the state as a collective has been with us all along. But when this authority becomes arbitrary to serve one man's view of the collective at the expense of others, at the expense of our heritage, our traditions and conventions, then the collective breaks down.
The plan was deliberate in 1968. It was made possible by our prosperity. The plan was to use the notion of collectives to serve the ends, the objectives, the purist thinking of a group of political figures. Leadership was the key. The philosopher king became the Messiah.
From that point in 1968 to the mid-seventies, we were given a mindset across our land. Government would do our thinking. The Government would take care of it. Throughout this period too many people gave up a sense of self-reliance. The seeds of socialism were sown. Cradle-to-grave mentality was accomplished by the politics of expectation. This was accompanied by the politics of confrontation. The confrontation which evolved in federal-provincial relationships, the confrontation which was encouraged in business-union relationships and the regional confrontations were all a part of the plan. Confrontation by definition delivers a winner-loser society; the winners impose their way on the losers. This is why the plan is anticollective. Loto Canada did not happen by accident but rather by design-the winner-loser syndrome.
The deception I have described up to this point links Bill C-143, this $19 billion borrowing authority, to the past. I will now discuss the link of this plan to the future. The deficit of today translates into an inheritance of neglect which will deliver hardship and burden on our children and grandchildren tomorrow. This is where I differ with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
Bill C-143 exemplifies the serious lack of leadership today. Real statesmen never address the problems of the day at the exense of those that follow tomorrow. Real leaders would deal with the circumstances of today, now and today, so that tomorrow will be more hopeful and the emerging generations will be allowed a dream or two. It is no wonder that the youth of today are disillusioned and hold this institution in such low regard and contempt. They have very good reason to be concerned. The extravagant and spendthrift recklessness of this Liberal Government has already placed an unbearable burden on their backs.
I draw to the attention of the House the Canada Pension Plan crisis which will be with us at the turn of the century. The demographics of today and tomorrow indicate that there will be a larger number of people in the country retired and drawing upon social plans than workers able to sustain them. The big-Government, out-of-control spending exemplified in Bill C-143 serves only the power needs of an elite at the expense of the people who can contribute most to the prosperity of the country, and this plan is also at the expense of those entering the work force tomorrow. The tragedy is that with Bill C-143 and its predecessor borrowing Bills about which we have heard today, we are removing the freedom to decide or the freedom to choose from those who follow tomorrow. There will be a decade and a half of very serious, hard work ahead of the next Government which takes charge of the federal institution in Canada.
February 25, 1983

When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) introduced Bill C-143, he said:
-the deficit reflects the Government's commitment to ease the impact of the recession on individual Canadians and the economy as a whole.
What does this statement mean at face value? Bill C-143 is a Government borrowing to serve the expectation levels created in society. The pressure of these expectation levels comes from the new status called citizenry. Those who govern have the people right where the plan by design has delivered them, without a consensus from business, labour or the people. Indeed, the ship of state changed its course in the middle of the night and without a mandate. Again the Minister of Finance in his "don't-blame-me" attitude when he introduced the Bill pointed to "the unexpected harshness of cyclical forces" for our economic troubles. Surely the Government knows that cyclical forces in economics are a fact of economic life.
This is why many of us have been so concerned with the Liberal Government's extravagance over the last decade and a half; why the budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in 1979 led an attempt to curtail this extravagance, but our expectations interrupted that attempt. It is why we have been calling for conservation in good times so that we have something in the bank for the harshness of cyclical downside forces. We cannot conduct our own personal lives the way the Government conducts the national life. Why should the Government think that it is any different? As part of its plan, the Liberal Government's intervention in the delicate interplay of supply and demand market forces has led to a magnification of the harshness of cyclical forces. It has abused the authority of the state in its actions. Thus the need for Bill C-143.
Bill C-143 further proves that Canadians have lost the bet that Liberals, with all their promises, could be responsible fiscal managers. The Canadian people are the losers. The Liberals have replaced a simple taxation system with one so complicated that chartered accountants and lawyers throughout the land cannot cope with the confusion and the burden. The results of Liberal spending policies and deliberate political policies are: confiscation of property, retroactive taxation, and budgets not brought into law, which means illegal collection of taxes. We have complexity beyond the minds of those who create and deliver wealth and tax revenues to the country.
In my opinion Bill C-143 is an admission that promises were broken as quickly and as recklessly as they were made. The Liberal Government, as a collective, turned its back on the very principle of the collective it espoused to be. It was to wrestle inflation to the ground as far back as 1974. We heard about no wage and price controls, and then we got wage and price controls. We heard that 18 cents per gallon for gasoline and fuel was an absolute national disaster. What do we have today? It is 67 cents, 77 cents or $1. I know that for each $15 we pay to fill a tank, $5 of it is for fuel and $10 is taxes, yet it attacked 18 cents per gallon.
Do we continue to allow this type of borrowing to sink the roots of arbitrary state power further into the Canadian soil?
Borrowing Authority
It is this kind of dirt that causes the country to lose ground, the precious ground upon which our freedoms were nurtured. Bill C-143, this $19 billion borrowing authority, signals more structure, more imposition, more frustration and more hopelessness by a Government that will not even tell us how it will spend what it wants to borrow.
When the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary who preceded me today told me that all the figures were in the Blue Book, it showed the condition with which we as Members of Parliament were faced. Bill C-143 delivers no promises or hope for the next decade, neither do its predecessors.
1 spoke in the beginning about my frustration. For the reasons outlined, I call upon the Government to hold this borrowing Bill until it gives us a budget, so that we know what it will do with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger) rises to ask a question.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just talked about such things as developments from 1968 on. He said that the Government has stated a position that it would do everything, that it would take care of us, that self-reliance has been given up and that the seeds of socialism have been cast. Does he realize that expenditures by the Government as a share of the Gross National Product have actually decreased continually since the Second World War and have decreased during the time of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) Government?
The Hon. Member also referred to gasoline and the taxes we pay. Does he not recognize that the largest part of the taxes goes to the Provinces? Further, there are industries in Canada today suffering from international competition. Should these industries be helped? If the industries are not helped, should the workers be helped? Because of dropping metal prices in the international markets, certain one-industry towns lose their industry. Should any help be provided by the Government for those towns? Do Members of his own Party not ask for help when such disasters occur?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: It is very interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger) has this misapprehension about exactly what is going on in this country. In 1968 federal expenditures were 15 per cent of Gross National Product. This year they will be 23 per cent of Gross National Product. Any aberration of which he might think that will prevent the Government from taking more and more of the Gross National Product of the nation is wrong. There are local cyclical aberrations, but the Government is going to take more and more of the Gross National Product.
In terms of the Hon. Member's statement on taxes, the federal Government takes more from a litre of gas you put in your tank than the combined total of the Provinces of Alberta

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
and Ontario. Federal taxation, 1 think, is around 14 cents to 15 cents a litre. Provincial taxation of Ontario and Alberta is around 7 cents a litre. How the Hon. Member finds the basis for his question, 1 do not know.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and answers having expired, I now recognize the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this House, but I cannot say it is much of a pleasure when I review the Bills. It is always difficult to follow my colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) because he puts his point across in such succinct language.
The first question I have is, how many times will this Government come back to the trough this year? I am talking about 1983. This Government comes up with Estimates. We get the Estimates one day after this Bill is presented in the House. We look at the Estimates from last year, and there is no comparison between the Estimates and the amount of money this Government is spending. Taking the same percentage last year, this year the Government will spend $94.5 billion. This is an estimate. We went through the exercise last year and it meant nothing. This Government is totally out of control. We hear during debates about band-aid solutions, such as the NEED Program and the summer work for students program. That is wonderful political dialogue. They increase the budget and the spending of the Government, but they do not create one permanent job in this country.
I heard just the other day that California is making payments to its employees with IOUs.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You heard it 20 minutes ago from Huntington.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I did not hear, it. I apologize, I was not here at the time. California is broke.


André Ouellet: You just congratulated the Hon. Member on his fine speech.


Thomas Scott Fennell: If California were the federal Government, it would not have the same problem because the federal Government can print money. That is the part that really worries me. This Government will get itself in such a hole that it will have to put money through in specie and never bring it to the House of Commons for approval. This year 1 request that that be done. We have a serious situation.
The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) said that we are on the road to recovery. We are not. With unemployment up again this month, that is not recovery. With more people going broke than six months ago, that is not recovery. We are a long way from a recovery, and we are in an impossible situation.
I would like to split this Bill in two. The first part I can understand. We have had Estimates, statements, Miscellaneous Estimates and Supplementary Estimates. We understand
the Government is in trouble and needs $5 billion. I can accept that part of the Bill. But it is wrong for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), a former Minister of Energy, to request $14 billion of this House when we have not had an opportunity to study the Estimates and we have no idea what kind of a budget he will present to us next. I say next because 1980 was his first budget with his National Energy Program. We are not in a position to deal with this Bill at this time. I would plead with that arrogant group of incompetents to split this Bill, get the money they require now, bring down a budget and then request the additional funding, and we will deal with it at that time. It is almost as though the Government knows it is out of control. Hon. Members on the other side laugh, joke, scream and yell.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is Chretien.


Thomas Scott Fennell: But the people in this country are frightened. My children are frightened. Who is going to pay the piper, Mr. Speaker? We have run out of credit with the people. This Government has no sense of reality. Its own Members do not worry about the money that is spent.
Let me review what has happened. In 1968-1969, the first term of the great Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we have right now, the Government spent $12 billion. This year the Government said it will spend $88.9 billion. I will be surprised if this Government does not break the magic $100 billion figure. The smile on the face of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) proves that I am probably correct. He has a problem. I must say that I respect the Minister of Energy. He will deal with the problem, but it is a problem.


Paul James Cosgrove: Just have confidence in him and respect him. You are speaking from both sides of your mouth.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am speaking about one Minister. He will know what I am saying. He inherited a great money fund which has, all of a sudden, dried up. So he does have a problem. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, I would rather have that gentleman as Minister of Energy, than his predecessor.
I wonder how we can trust the integrity of the Minister of Finance when he has stood up in the House in the last day and a half and made statements that the Canadian public does not believe.


Paul James Cosgrove: You are going to challenge his integrity too. Do not step off.


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) is a prime example of the sham that exists in the Government of this country. This Parliament has become a sham. We have had legislation pushed down our throats without any opportunity to debate it logically.


André Ouellet: No. You are debating it now.
February 25, 1983


Thomas Scott Fennell: I would like to point out a fact that I had asked my researcher to find out about the worth of the 1968 dollar today. The answer that I got from the Library is that it is worth 33 cents. Incidentally, our population today is 20 per centdarger, having risen from 20 million to 24 million. If we took a 20 per cent increase from $12 million, there would be approximately $14 million. If that figure is multiplied by three, there would be approximately $42 billion. That $42 billion, which would be a logical and historical budgetary figure, shows that the Government has gone out of control because its budget is 2.5 times that amount, almost $100 billion.
If any of the Government proposals showed a way out of our dilemma, I would accept them. Unfortunately, it follows Keynes through good times instead of bad times. Keynes' philosophy is to spend money during the bad times to get the economy going and to save the money during the good times in order to be protected against these cycles. However, during the good times the Government introduced all kinds of political programs for the people which we cannot afford now. Once the people have those programs, it is impossible to take them away.
We have seen many requests for funds after the budget of October 28, 1980, although I call it the National Energy Program. The Minister now hides behind the fact that he did not know anything about what was going on even though he was writing the budget. Since the National Energy Program was in reality the budget, it was the Minister of Energy's budget. It involved the people in his Department. Although he is Minister of Finance now, when he was Minister of Energy he wrote the budget anyway.
I would ask the Government to consider the GNP. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) mentioned spending at 15 per cent of GNP in 1968-69. My statistics may be wrong but they show 17 per cent. I have noticed that it has slowly eased up over several years. Ten years ago it was 19.8 per cent. Five years ago it was 22 per cent. According to my calculations, it is now 26 per cent of GNP. The spending program is 26 per cent of the GNP.
Let us assume that this year there will be a Gross National Product of $400 billion, which there will not. If we took 20 per cent of that $400 billion, we would at least be back at a manageable amount of an $80 billion spending program. However, we will end up with a $100 billion spending program. The Government tells us not to worry, that spending will not be that high, but every year since I have been in the House, the Government has brought down budgets, the mini budget and then the National Energy Program. It does not know what it is doing from day to day.
Unfortunately, this city is in a rarified atmosphere and the Government and its bureaucrats feel that they know everything, but they do not go out to talk to people in the rest of the country. The people in my constituency are more aware of what is happening to them economically than many Members on that side.
Borrowing Authority
I recently visited Newfoundland for the first time and enjoyed it immensely. I talked to Newfoundlanders and they told me that they are seriously hurting. I am fully aware that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources realizes that those people are hurting. They expected to get more than we have given them when they joined Confederation in 1949. They have been given Unemployment Insurance, or pogey as they call it. They have been given welfare transfer payments. But the one thing they have not been given since they joined the country in 1949 is an economy which can be built on the strong base that we have in the country.
Part of our problem as Canadians is that we are spoiled. We are blessed with riches, resources and energy. As a result, we have become too dependent on robbing the land without creating any secondary and tertiary manufacturing facilities.
A gentleman from the West Coast recently said that we have to put more effort into our primary industry. I understand that, but if we cannot sell it there is no sense in putting more effort into it. I did not totally agree with him because I think we have to have more import replacement in this country. We have to be less dependent on products that we can effectively produce in this country. There are many products that we produce in this country that are not effectively protected.
I do not know what the Minister of Finance, whom we have been challenging over the last few days, is attempting to do by trying to force this Bill through before the budget comes forward. I, personally, cannot trust him. Right now he is in what I call a near-miss position. The House may recall that he also had a near miss in 1970. He was not in the House, but was an employee of the Prime Minister. I say it was a near miss because he was named but escaped.
I would like to ask the Government, with respect to this total of $88.9 billion and $14 billion, how much of it is going toward patronage. Let me give a prime example of patronage. One of the Government's former colleagues was appointed to the Board of Directors of McDonnell Douglas at the time the Government was negotiating for fighter aircraft. The only reason McDonnell Douglas wanted that gentleman on their board was so they could have some influence on the Government to get their aircraft sold.
The patronage I see throughout the Liberal Party makes me sick. Another example is Mirabel in Quebec. The Government allows employees of the Canada Lands Company to come in and buy homes when they have had the advantage of knowing what those homes were worth on the books. After checking with the Department of Public Works in Ontario I found that this is not permitted to occur in that Province. We have two sets of rules. I believe these sets of rules are very unfair to the people on the land in Mirabel. I think their sets of rules are very fair to the majority of Canadians from coast to coast.
I reviewed the estimates very carefully. I saw a very large advertising budget. What does that do to create jobs? It would be acceptable if that money were invested in industry and

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
assisted industry to sell products. However, for the Government to sell its message of misconceptions to the country is unacceptable to me.
Let me cite another example of patronage which arises from the Estimates. We must come up with $200 million for de Havilland, $200 million for Canadair. 1 checked to see who happens to be the Chairman of de Havilland. He is also a former Cabinet Minister. I also had an opportunity to speak to the prior President of de Havilland who was brought in for a short period of time. He said it was out of control and that the company would never survive. So, he left and went back to his own airplane brokerage business. He had been President before he left and he was brought back by the Government. He was faithful to the Liberal Party, but he felt he could not work and make de Havilland an effective company and he was afraid it would be destroyed. The Government has done a very good job of it, because what qualifications does the former Minister, who is the Chairman of that organization, have to run an aircraft company in these times?
I would just like to make a comment with regard to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). He stated last week that guidelines are only guidelines. I recall that a few years ago, prior to my time, a paper was released by C. D. Howe, saying, "It is only a million". The Government's attitude is that it is only a billion here and a billion there. The Government has no effective program to get our economy on track to solve the problem of borrowing funds. We could accept it if the Government were borrowing funds amounting to $14 billion to create employment, but there has been no formal policy established to assist the country. 1 notice that the latest one is SBIGs. That is a great idea, but it only goes part of the way. It keeps the interest rate down to 12 per cent. What happens to new developing industries which cannot pay 12 per cent? They are starting during a period of expansion. When the money markets are being tied up because the Government is borrowing money it puts the country in a very difficult situation.
I am worried about Canada. I am frightened about its future. I see $8,000 per taxpayer right now. How far do we go? This Party is trying to say, "Stop, halt. You have gone for enough". The Government tries to make fools of us, but I am sincerely and intensely worried about the future of Canada. Perhaps the only solution which will satisfy the Prime Minister of this country is if we became a totally socialist state. Perhaps that was his original plan and perhaps he will succeed. However, Canadians have seen what socialism has done to this country and they cannot accept it. They want to get rid of the Liberals and also of their red rump.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: During World War II, when else?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Referring to the red rump for a minute, I would like to point out the fact that it was in the period from 1972 to 1974 that the balance of power was held by that
group, which caused the increase in the deficit spending of the Government and gave it an excuse to proceed with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) is rising to ask questions?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am reminded of a quotation from the House that we heard yesterday. I would like to recite it now, as follows: "As far as I am concerned, they were qualified Canadians, and I mean that sincerely". That quote came from the speech of the Hon. Member from Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) who was referring to a number of lawyers appointed by the Tory Government who earned very large fees as a result of their appointments.


Mr. Nowlan:: He made quite a salary himself.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: One made over $200,000, and the other made over $165,000.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And he did quite well, too, from Air Canada. It is the pot calling the kettle black.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: As far as I am concerned, there is a great contrast between the important message in the simple statement of the Hon. Member for Lincoln and the bilious vile which we have heard from the mouth of the Hon. Member from Ontario (Mr. Fennell), and it is to his discredit that he let himself act in that fashion. I would like to ask him a couple of questions.
Does he believe that the F-18 contract was given to McDonnell Douglas because a Liberal sat on the board of directors? That is the first question. Second, does he believe that we should not have supported the de Havilland Aircraft base because a Liberal sits on the board of directors? I would ask him to tell us what connection politics has with those projects, and whether he is accusing those people of blatant patronage and the Government of corruption.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that some lawyers are more qualified than others. I think our Party did pretty well. The person to whom he is referring, in particular, is the gentleman who took care of the Mississauga derailment, which was a serious emergency situation. We had no choice at the time and had to act in order to protect the Government of Canada. As far as McDonnell Douglas is concerned, that contract was being negotiated at the time. We all know what has happened concerning the problem with the F-18. The United States is contemplating not ordering any. We may be the only buyers of this great airplane.


André Ouellet: No, no.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I did not say that they were cancelling contracts. I said that they were considering it. When we formed the Government, we raised the point called the F-18 A, and the "A" stands for "aircraft". That is part of the problem. It does not have the range. Do not tell me there is no involvement with an ex-Minister of Defense who is on the board of a company that is bidding-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: He is not.
February 25, 1983


Thomas Scott Fennell: -to get the fighter aircraft contract in this country.


Thomas Scott Fennell: He may not be now, but he was then.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: He is not.


Mr. Peterson:: Do not let the facts confuse you.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Do not confuse the facts. I happen to know that that is correct. I was quoting the ex-President of de Havilland.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: You're throwing mud.


Thomas Scott Fennell: He said that under the Government, de Havilland had nowhere to go. Hon. Members opposite are getting worked up, and I am delighted because I am getting my message across. Canadians are upset, and they should be, with some of the things that their Members of Parliament have done.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I think my friend had a short supplementary.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Let me just remind the Hon. Member for Ontario that when the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mack-asey) was talking about this process, he set a pretty good standard. He said, "As far as I am concerned, they were qualified Canadians, and I mean that sincerely."
I would also like to remind the Hon. Member for Ontario that the former Hon. Member for Mississauga North, a Tory-and his name is Alex Jupp, in case the Hon. Member needs a little reminding-stood in this House and in my riding and said that the F-18 was his choice of aircraft. Does that mean that Mr. Jupp is corrupt because he has endorsed the Government's aircraft? What will he do? How will he tie together his charge that the projects are corrupted and twisted by the presence of Liberals who happen to be concerned and qualified Canadians? Is it not time that we challenged this kind of nonsense and asked people to produce some evidence and not just the kind of cheap slander we hear? The cheap slander has cheapened the Hon. Member.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Alex Jupp was a colleague of mine for one term. He was on the committee when we discussed the airplane, and Your Honour must keep in mind the fact that his entire constituency surrounded the plant of McDonnell Douglas.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Are you accusing him of being corrupt?


Thomas Scott Fennell: He is supporting his own constituents.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Get your act together.


Thomas Scott Fennell: He is not corrupt. He is supporting his constituents. He was one person in the group, so do not tell me that.
You mentioned the Member for Lincoln. I hate to say it, but I do not believe the Member for Lincoln was qualified to be
Borrowing Authority
the Chief Executive Officer of the largest air transportation company in this country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, we have heard the Conservative Member rail on about the red rump, and so on, and about the disastrous policies of the Liberal Government. We know about the disastrous policies of the Liberal Government. My question has to do with what the Conservatives would do. They criticize, but what would they do? I suggested some of the things that we would do.
I want to ask the Hon. Member specifically whether he would agree with the statement made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) in May, 1982, when he said, this:
We have looked for a solution other than the Government's but we couldn't come up with an alternative ... I don't have a better solution.
I want to quote two other Members to the Hon. Member. The Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), the finance critic of his Party, said this to the Canadian Club in Montreal on February 15, 1982:
That is why I am so fearful of a Government policy which would simply allow interest rates and the Canadian dollar to drop.
The point was that he was worried about interest rates dropping.
In the House of Commons, just following that, the Member for Vegreville, (Mr. Mazankowski) criticized the Government for creating crippling high interest rates and advocated that interest rates come down immediately.
Now, what is it? Does the Conservative Party have any policy at all or does he agree with what the Member from Yellowhead said, that is: "We have looked at it. We could not come up with an alternative. I do not have a better solution." Is that what the Conservative Party really has, in other words, nothing?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I want to state, first of all, with respect to the Right Hon. Member from Yellowhead, (Mr. Clark) that he told me very clearly that his statement was taken out of context and that it had nothing to do with that. As far as the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is concerned, referring to interest rates, it was in the context of "We cannot allow the dollar to drop through the floor to get lower interest rates because our cost of living index would go up so severely."
One has to put those two things together. As far as the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is concerned, he said the interest rates must come down. Yes, we believe that interest rates must come down but I would like to explain why we do not come up with a policy at this time and the NDP Party can. It is because their Party will never form the Government, and we are planning to form the Government. We are making policy, and if anyone thinks we are going to tell those scoundrels what we are doing, they are crazy, because we
23248

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
want to get rid of them once and for all. We want to do to the Liberals what Lloyd George did to the Liberals in Britain, and that is our plan.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Hon. Member to tell the Liberals opposite what his policies are. I am asking him to tell the Canadian people what his policies are. My question is this, does the Member agree with the statement of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in the House of Commons on April 15, 1980 in which he was against Government spending, or does he agree with the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) on January 21, 1983 in which he was for increased Government spending. Which one is it?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Firstly, Mr. Speaker, in this Party we have many different views, and it is a consensus of view that will make us a very effective Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Members' views may vary, but the time period does not. I should call the attention of the House to the fact that speeches from now on are limited to ten minutes, without a question period.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-143 calls upon this House to approve the borrowing by the Government of Canada of $19 billion, and represents a culmination of circumstances which have led us to a consideration of an instrument of this nature requiring an added burden being placed upon the taxpayers of Canada, not only those who sit in the House and those elsewhere, but their children and grandchildren and great grandchildren, so long as we can see a line of Canadians who can survive. It is that unfortunate circumstance to which we, I submit, must direct our attention.
It is absolutely true that as we sit here today the nation is in dire need of assistance. We have at least 1.6 million Canadians who are unemployed, and we are told by the Government that under these circumstances it is absolutely essential that we have the tools with which to ease the burden placed upon these unemployed Canadians. They do not of course at the same time say, "And we assume the entire responsibility for the position in which those Canadians find themselves," although, were they honest, they would indeed make that assertion.
What bothers me is that if one casts one's mind back to as recent a date as June of 1981 this House will recall an address by the then Minister of Finance who began his comments by referring to fairness and equity as being the touchstones of the budget which he introduced. Fairness and equity indeed! The entire process was designed to raise $1.3 billion in additional revenues, and it had as its by-product the disillusionment, distaste and disfavour that flowed through the business community in Canada, coupled with, at that time and still surviving today, an air of complete uncertainty within the Canadian business circle.
One of the things that surely Government should have realized at the very outset was that this uncertainty would breed less production, less development and considerably less
employment in our nation, and yet that entire recognizable and anticipated consequence was ignored by Government.
We now are faced, as I have indicated, with a debt burden load which gives rise directly to the payment of interest on the national debt anticipated, having regard to the Estimates which have been tabled this week, to be $18.6 billion, a full 20 per cent of all the money spent by Government, not all the money raised by Government through tax revenues but all the money spent by Government. In terms of money actually raised by Government, it is in excess of 25 cents on every dollar, and that surely must shock this House.
This Bill is part of the revenue raising through the borrowing process which will increase the amount that has to be paid for interest on the national debt, as I say, not by this Government and its members, not by Members of the House alone, but by future generations of Canadians yet unborn.
If we can go back to the alleged principles of the budget of June, 1981 and ask ourselves, is it indeed appropriate, is it just and equitable, that this Parliament place a burden on future Canadians of the magnitude that faces us today and that will grow with the days ahead, under this administration?
I fully recognize the need for additional funds to be spent to help offset the terrible social and economic burdens created by unemployment, but I have asked this Government time and time again when it proposes to do something of a concrete nature to solve the problem, and the problem very clearly is a failure to recognize that they have been over-spending.
Let any Member on the Government side stand in his place and say this is what we have done in order to pare our excesses. Let him say that this is what we have done in order to show the people of Canada that there is some hope and expectation for the future that we will come to grips with our lavish expenditures which have characterized our administration from the beginning of time.
I raised this issue in the House on two separate occasions, on July 5, 1982 and again on November 10, 1982. I specifically asked that the estimates be referred to a special committee of the House which would have the specific task of going through them with a fine tooth comb to eliminate those expenditures which ought not to be incurred.
Let me give an illustration of the kind of frivolous expenditures with which we are faced. The cost of the recent advertisements placed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in various newspapers across Canada to convince Canadians, "that complete energy security in Canada is this close", cost the taxpayers of this nation almost a whole million dollars. One ad run in the newspapers in Canada cost the taxpayers a million dollars. For what useful purpose? There is no useful purpose for that expenditure other than to endeavour to convince the public that its Government is doing a good job. Let the public be convinced by the actual results of the administration, not by a paid campaign to convince the public that it has performed its tasks usefully.
February 25, 1983

I have examined the Estimates. We have a number of interesting items which should attract the attention of any serious-minded Member of this House concerned with fiscal responsibility.
It is absolutely incredible that we should be taking from the public purse the amount of $820 million to shore up the CBC for the current year, $820 million for a corporation that raises $175 million from ads and other revenues for its entire year's operation.
I recognize that there are times when it is absolutely essential that the public corporation in broadcasting communicate with those regions in the northern part of our country which would otherwise not be serviced by a public communication system. That does not mean that $820 million, an increase over last year of some $82.6 million, is the way in which this can be achieved, having regard to the fact that in so much of our nation the services provided by the CBC are provided by an independent network operated under the free enterprise system. Not only the capital needed to acquire the capital asset has been paid for by privately-raised revenues but the operating costs are paid for out of privately-raised revenues, and a profit is generated on its operations.
Having regard to the nature of the economy today, I submit it is appropriate to examine these Estimates, as I have done so often, with a view to determining whether it is appropriate to go to some Crown corporations and tell them that they are at the end of their leash and, within a limited period of time, those subsidies will be finally terminated.
The time available does not permit me to deal, to the extent that I would prefer, with other items of a similar nature in the Estimates. I regret that the time for questions after speeches has expired.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, my constituency is much like many other areas in this country. We have our share of unemployment, we have our share of plant closures, we have our share of small business bankruptcies, and we have our share of farm bankruptcies. We have plants operating below capacity, with the resulting lay-offs. As well, there are in my constituency 11 Indian reserves. In the best of times, reserve Indians live under economic conditions that are nothing short of a disgrace in a country as wealthy as Canada. In the best of times, reserves have unemployment rates that run between 50 and 90 per cent. In times of severe recession, as we are now experiencing, those figures grow.
For some strange reason known only to God and the Liberal hierarchy, reserve unemployment figures are not included in the national figure. I suppose if they were, the resultant high figures would be far too frightening.
For some other strange reason the Government decided in the past year to cut funding for the very programs that might improve the economic situation of these reserve Indians, namely post-secondary education and economic development. The Government chooses instead to increase their dependence on welfare. It is no surprise that my constitutents are rather skeptical, even cynical of this Government, when it comes
Borrowing Authority
before Parliament to ask for authority to borrow another $19 billion.
I believe it is fair, and I am sure my constituents would agree, indeed we consider it imperative, that Members of Parliament demand to know how those billions will be spent.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) told us that $5 billion is needed for the last few weeks of this fiscal year, that it needs to borrow that amount because the recession has taken its toll on Government revenues and at the same time that recession has increased pressure on Government expenditures. Of course, the Government's conservative and fiscal monetary policies have had a lot to do with bringing this recession on and with the depth to which the economy has sunk in the past few months.
Setting that fundamental issue aside for now, the Government has not told us how it plans to spend the $5 billion it is asking permission to borrow. On top of that, it has the gall to ask this House for authority to borrow another $14 billion for the next fiscal year, before it brings down a budget. Why, when this borrowing authority Bill was introduced, the Government has not even tabled the Estimates for 1983-84!
Bill C-143 is the third borrowing authority Bill brought before this House in the last eight months. In June 1982 the Government asked for $6.6 billion, in July for $7 billion and in November for another $4 billion. Now we are being asked to give the nod for yet another $19 billion.
What the ballooning deficit shows is that the Government cannot possibly claim to be in control of the economy. The deficit for the 1982-83 fiscal year has increased by 16 per cent in the last four months alone. It must be a bit of irony for the Government. While it has pursued with single-minded purpose the reduction of the federal deficit, it has really created the economic conditions that are forcing the deficit to keep on rising.
In the last three budgets, this Government has set its sights on cutting Government spending and reducing the deficit. The November, 1981 budget tried to step up the pace of deficit reduction, striving to bring it down from $13 billion to $10 billion, but that is not what happened. By the time the June, 1982 budget was unveiled, the Government was forecasting a deficit of $19.6 billion. Now we are talking about a deficit of $27 billion. That is a 170 per cent increase over the size of the deficit planned slightly more than a year ago.
How can that be? The Minister of Finance told us last week that this deficit increase is due in large part to the recession. Is it possible that the Government did not know that the Canadian economy was deteriorating, that a recession was upon us? How could it have missed the signals? We in this Party have warned the Government time and time again that with its tight fiscal monetary policies, it would bring on the recession Canada is now enduring. By permitting the Bank of Canada to drive up interest rates the Government has played no small part in throwing almost two million people out of work, in driving 11,000 businesses into bankruptcy, and in grinding the economy down until it is running at less than 70 per cent

February 25, 1983
Borrowing Authority
capacity. By leading the attack with its six and five program on the incomes of pensioners and mothers, on Armed Forces personnel, public servants, and now on the private sector workers, the Government is undermining domestic consumption in Canada and putting off economic recovery. By knuckling under to right-wing attacks on controls on foreign investment, and by putting all its eggs in the megaproject basket, which promised at best to make Canada even more reliant on resource exports in the international market, this Government has weakened the ability of any Canadian Government to direct the economy towards recovery. The Minister of Finance is right when he tells us that the Government's increasing deficit is due in no small part to this recession which is causing tax revenues to fall and welfare and unemployment insurance payments to increase. But what does he plan to do to rectify that? He will not tell us.
Dazzled by the simplistic logic of Conservative economics, the Government has forgotten everything it should have learned from the economic disaster of the 1930s. The six and five program has now replaced monetarism as the main plank of the Government's economic program. The six and five program is the activist element of last June's budget. It is supposed to show that the Government is dealing decisively with the nation's economic crisis by attacking the wages and salaries of working Canadians.
At the same time as the Government has struck this activist pose with six and five, it refuses to abandon its tight money policy or to use its deficit wisely to stimulate the economy. Under this Government, the deficit is the result of our sliding economic fortunes, not a tool to stimulate the economy and fuel the engines of recovery. Just as in the 1930s, Canadians are being told that wages must come down if more jobs are going to be created. Then, as now, the Government is unable to understand that the nature and size of its deficit is an instrument of economic policy, that by gearing the Government's economic activity to bringing the deficit down, especially in hard times, the end result will very likely be much larger, though unplanned, deficit increases.
If the Government had decided to stimulate the economy, Mr. Speaker, instead of squeezing the life out of it, if unemployment had been brought down to 7.5 per cent instead of being permitted to rise to 13.5 per cent, we would have a surplus in excess of $1 billion now, rather than the $27 billion deficit, or is it $29 billion, who knows, it grows daily. A Government's deficit should be an investment in economic growth. A planned deficit which increases spending and production in the whole of the economy is an investment which limits unemployment and ultimately, as economic recovery takes hold, the Government's own debt.
The Conservative Party, of course, will wail that it is irresponsible to even think of increasing the deficit. Well, as was asked earlier by my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), what about Joe Clark's stimulative deficit of 1979? The Conservative Members will argue that increasing Government borrowing crowds out private investment by bidding up interest rates in financial markets. I
am afraid that argument does not hold much water today. The private sector is already debt-ridden. It sees few prospects for profitable investment, and it now finds itself dealing in unstable financial markets. The private sector is not exactly screaming for more financing to invest in more jobs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Government has been forced to borrow more money because it has to react to the recession which its own wrongheaded economic policies have brought upon the Canadian people. We in this Party do not favor an increase in the deficit for its own sake. What needs to happen is for this Government to show some real economic leadership and start to use its deficit in investment in economic recovery, an economic recovery which will put two million Canadians back to work, will bring the Government more tax revenue, and will reduce welfare and unemployment insurance costs. If the Government had used its deficit in that way in the past, we would not be dealing with this large deficit today, and we would not be dealing with a $19 billion borrowing authority.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be a dereliction of duty were I to refrain from taking part in this discussion in which we are engaging today. Bill C-143 is a Bill to authorize the Government to proceed to borrow another $19 billion for the financing of Government expenditures, $5 billion for the balance of this year and another $14 billion for the year 1983-84. Before us as well is an amendment by the New Democratic Party that Bill C-143 be not now read the second time, but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof, particularly the clause pertaining to borrowing for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty were I to remain silent when the Government proposes to raid the pockets and purses of the taxpayers of this country to the tune of an additional $19 billion. Reference has already been made to the record of borrowing Bills which have been before this House since the session opened just after the last election. And as we add it all up, we find it is a horrendous amount which the Government has been forced to borrow. When we realize that the expenditures are continuing to grow at a phenomenal rate, we must wonder where the end will be. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that confidence is essential if the taxpayers of the nation can be expected to fork up such horrendous amounts. As we look at the economic conditions in the country today, I do not believe that the Government has any right whatsoever to expect the people of this country voluntarily and willingly to give further of their diminishing returns in order that this Government can carry on with its vast expenditures which have been condemned by the Comptroller General, stating that the Government's expenditures are out of control.
The Government's economic mismanagement is driving an ever-increasing number of farms and businesses into bankruptcies. In 1982 a record 10,765 businesses were forced to close
February 25, 1983

their doors. Business bankruptcies in 1982 were 33 per cent higher than in 1981, 63 per cent higher than in 1980 and 91 per cent higher than in 1979. According to the September 1982 issue of Euromoney, the over-all performance of the Canadian economy since 1974 ranks us fortieth in the world, downturned from thirty-fifth place last year. In that time period Canada ranked fifty-seventh in terms of economic growth, twenty-fourth in terms of inflation, thirty-third in terms of currency strength, twenty-ninth in terms of export growth, and twenty-fifth in terms of growth in balance-of-payments. According to the organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Canada's economic decline in 1982 was the worst of any of the 24 members of the OECD.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, in light of these figures, that the Government has no right to come before this House and ask us to agree to the borrowing of another $19 billion in order
Borrowing Authority
to finance these fantastic expenditures. The Canadian misery rate, the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates, is the second highest of the major industrialized nations. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the statements which have been made today that we are on the road to recovery are very difficult to believe, because I feel the figures indicate quite clearly that we are still down with the lowest record and the most difficult situation of practically any of the industrialized nations of the world. 1 will continue my comments at a future date, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 28, 1983