1983-11-28

POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps 1 could deal with a point of order which was raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on November 17. The Hon. Member raised a point of order with regard to procedural acceptability of Vote 6b under Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984. I was unable to deal with this matter earlier because, as Hon. Members will recall, Supplementary Estimates (B) were referred to committees on November 3, 1983 and were not before the House.
As has been noted before, however, it is helpful to the Chair that there be adequate time to study points of order on the Estimates and the Chair appreciated the courtesy of the Hon. Member in raising the matter when he did. The House will also recall that the Chair wished to extend an opportunity to Hon. Members to rebut or add to the procedural argument. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), on November 24, did make a further contribution. I wish to express my thanks to both Hon. Members who were most helpful to the Chair when considering this important matter.
In presenting his case, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South referred to Section 29 of the Canada Post Corporation Act. He submitted that no authority is given to the Government to seek an appropriation other than "an appropriation to pay losses" and that therefore no legislative authority exists for the appropriation expressed in Vote 6b.
In support of this submission the Hon. Member quotes from the Chair's decision of June 12, 1981, at page 10546 of Debates, stating, in part:
the Government may not, by the use of an Appropriation Act, obtain authority which it does not already have under existing legislation.
I have examined both the Supplementary Estimates (B) and the relevant legislation with respect to the Hon. Member's point of order. The Canada Post Corporation Act states, in part, in Subsection 29(1):
Where at any time the available revenues of the Corporation are insufficient to pay all the operating and income charges of the Corporation as and when due... The Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, place at the disposal of the Corporation such amounts as may be required ... to meet all such charges.
Subsection 29(2) provides a mechanism for reimbursement of the Treasury for such sums and Subsection 29(3) provides as follows:
Where the annual revenues ... are insufficient for the purposes of Subsection (2) the Minister shall cause the amount of the insufficiency to be included, in the form of a deficit appropriation item, in the next Appropriation Act laid before Parliament thereafter.
Hon. Members will note that the Act refers to "operating and income charges" which the annual revenues are not adequate to cover.
1 would now invite the attention of Hon. Members to Vote 6b at pages 32 and 33 of the Supplementary Estimates (B) in which the "Objects of Expenditure" is described as being for "operating" the Corporation. Such a payment was specifically envisaged under Section 29 of the Act.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South suggested in his submission that the Act did not give the Government the authority to make such a payment because it refers to "activities that have nothing to do with losses". However, the relevant section of the enabling legislation makes no mention of losses but deals only with the insufficiency of revenues to cover operating and income charges. Furthermore, Hon. Members will find that a payment to cover similar operating expenditures was made to the Canada Post Corporation under Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 6c in the Appropriation Act No. 4, 1982-83.
In the opinion of the Chair, the Government is seeking to make a payment which is specifically provided for in the Act, and in presenting such an appropriation the Government is not seeking to enlarge its legislative authority. I therefore find that the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is not well taken and that Consumer and Corporate Affairs Vote 6b is procedurally in order.
In closing, I again wish to express my gratitude to both Members for their valuable assistance.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Since today is the final allotted day, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the Supply Bill. In view of recent practices, do Hon. Members agree that the Supply Bill be distributed now?

November 28, 1983
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano) moved:: That this House agrees without reservation with the prediction of the Prime Minister made on August 13, 1969, in a nationally televised press conference when he said, "We'd soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control" and calls upon the Government to initiate policies which would avoid the Prime Minister's prediction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is an extremely serious one. It is really at the heart of our well being and that of our children tomorrow. It has to do with the last 14 years of extravagant and wasteful spending after the warnings given to the nation back in 1968-69 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Before I belonged to a political party, I was most impressed with the words of the Prime Minister at that time. The words that really got to me are these, and I quote as follows:
This process of making choices among the myriad of claims and demands on our resources in the context of business enterprise and Government is often referred to as planning and priorities. It is not really very different than the process that each of us in our own lives, whether as individuals or as family units, have to go through. If an individual fails to plan in a coherent way he will soon find that he has run out of resources and has left many urgent things undone. He may find that his children's education is neglected or the medical bills are left unpaid because he has taken an expensive holiday or purchased a red convertible.
Governments are really no different than individuals in this respect and they too must engage in solid planning and to ensure that their scarce resources are being applied to the most urgent and useful purposes.
He went on to say, Mr. Speaker:
Perhaps the most startling fact to emerge from this review is that almost without exception this decade has been characterized by yearly budgetary deficits exceeding $4 billion in total and requiring upwards of $300 million per annum to service.
And he is speaking of the decade of the 1960s. It is easy to see from the sincerity and wisdom of those remarks back on August 13, 1969 that the Prime Minister was as aware then as some of us in this House are today of the seriousness of the behaviour of the Liberal Government over the last 14 years. Back in 1968-69, in the budget address, Mr. Edgar Benson said on October 22, 1968:
We intend to continue severe restraint upon those direct expenditure programs under the Government's control, eliminating what is obsolete, and permitting only the degree of growth that is essential.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, spending on a national accounts basis was $12.6 billion. The annual deficit was $491 million and net debt at the start of that fiscal year was $17.7 billion. On August 13, 1969 the Prime Minister said to the nation on a television broadcast, Mr. Speaker-which is the object of our motion today-and 1 quote:
We'd be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control.
That year our spending on a national accounts basis was $13.8 billion, and the Prime Minister bragged about that surplus of $493 million. The net debt was at $18 billion. That is the starting point of our debate today.
In 1970-71, at the Liberal policy convention on November 20, 1970, the same Prime Minister said:
You know, anyone can say, "why don't you do more? The answer is the same answer as always, there are competing claims on the economy.
In the meantime our spending had gone up $2 billion in that one year. There was no longer a surplus but a deficit of $372 million, and the net debt had slightly tapered down from $18 billion to $17.6 billion. Following that was the Benson budget speech of 1971-72, in which Mr. Benson said:
We have continuously appealed to Canadian governments, business and the labour movement to be modest in their demands and not demand more from the economy than is coming to them in increased productivity.
Every year I have been in this House, for the past nine and one half years, Sir, we have heard that the only way out of the spending and inflation dilemma is through improved national productivity. We were then still spending $18 billion. We then had doubled our annual deficit to $700 million and our net debt was up to $ 18 billion.
The year 1971-72, was the year of "a buck is a buck is a buck", that great promise of equity and distribution and equality for all. The Hon. John Turner in his budget address of 1972-73, said:
The bare fact of the matter is that we cannot do everything at once. We simply don't have the resources. There are limits to the scope of fiscal policy. There are limits to stimulus and readjustment.
We have now gone up $2.8 billion in spending. We have now moved from a $700 million to almost a $1 billion annual deficit, and our net debt has moved up $800 million.
Then we jump to 1973-74. We had the same Mr. Turner as Minister of Finance, and in his budget address of November 18, 1974, he said:
we must do all that we cun in these circumstances to restrain the growth ol go\ e r n me n t a 1 c x pc ml i t u res
We have sought and shall continued to seek to cut out waste, to place limits on the growth of the public service and to approve only the most essential new programs.
We have now moved from $20.8 billion Government spending to $30.8 billion in two years. We moved from a $1 billion deficit to a $1.7 billion deficit and our net debt had moved from $18.8 billion to $21.2 billion. The rhetoric was there, Mr. Speaker. They knew exactly what was needed if this nation was to remain healthy and inflation did not reach excessive amounts which would harm the well-being of the elderly, the sick and the youth emerging from our educational system. 1 can remember Mr. Turner standing in the House and saying that the thing he was proudest of was the million jobs he created as Minister of Finance. Where are those jobs, Mr. Speaker? As we stand here today we have two million unemployed. Where are those jobs from "old blue eyes" which started us on this spending spiral?
Then we move into Mr. Macdonald's period of budgetary extravagances; he moved our annual deficit from $6 billion to $10.8 billion. Then we got that gem of them all, Mr. Mac-Eachen. He moved us from a deficit of $11.5 billion to $13.6
November 28, 1983

billion, and by the time we got to 1982-83 we had gone to a $24.6 billion deficit. Throughout this period of time we heard the rhetoric of these Ministers of Finance and the Prime Minister. They knew exactly what had to be done to manage the country's economy for the wellbeing of the people. But nowhere were they able to deliver what they said they would deliver. Instead we have the situation where today this institution is no longer relevant to two-thirds of the people in Canada because they can no longer trust us as politicians. They can no longer accept the political lies delivered over the past 14 years by this Government.
We come now to 1978-79. We had another Minister of Finance, the Hon. Jean Chretien, who followed the Hon. Donald Macdonald. In his budget address of November 16, 1978, he said:
There can be no weakening in our determination to keep expenditures under tight control.
By that time, Mr. Speaker, spending on a national accounts basis was at $43.9 billion, the deficit was $12.2 billion and the net debt was $44.9 billion. Again we see the evolution of political rhetoric in a direction exactly opposite to that of the reality of extravagance and irresponsible management of the public tax resource.
On January 12, 1980, the Prime Minister said: "We will hold the line of Government expenditure growth to under the rate of the Gross National Product". That was the first time we heard about this extravagant spending being now related to Gross National Product. He told the nation: "The deficit will be reduced in a phased and orderly fashion. Any new expenditure programs to meet evolving needs and requirements of Canadians will be financed by reallocating existing expenditures or by increases in revenues. We will not add to the deficit by adding new programs." At that time spending on a national accounts basis was at $54.4 billion, the annual deficit was $11.48 billion, going down slightly through the year of Mr. Chretien, and the net debt was $57 billion.
In Mr. MacEachen's period, spending rose to $89.5 billion when he was finally tossed out. The annual debt doubled from $12.6 billion to $25.25 billion and the net debt rose from $68.5 billion to $95 billion. Mr. MacEachen was the man who belittled the previous Minister of Finance in the Clark Government, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He belittled him time after time in the House by saying he would never bring down a budget that would put 18 cents a gallon tax on gasoline. In this period of time there was the other massive mistruth or lie and 18 cents a gallon soon became 18 cents a litre under the next Government. Eighteen cents a gallon became 77 cents a gallon after belittling 18 cents.
It comes down to 15 years of rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, all of it misleading. The Liberal Government has known all through the last decade and a half the consequences of profligate spending and management of the federal tax resource. One can legitimately conclude that its attack on the free enterprise
Supply
market economy has been deliberate. It has said one thing in support of it, it has espoused the rules of management which you need to espouse to remain healthy as a nation, and it has done exactly the opposite. The Government knew that if the nation continued to pay ourselves more than the value of what we produced we would create the high unemployment that we have today. Any thinking, average educated person knew that that was coming.
Did this so-called Liberal Government spend money advocating the need to reduce our anticipation levels? No, sir, they did not. That was probably the one thing we had to do above all others. We had to reduce the anticipation level of the nation as we came out of a period of affluence. Did the Government spend money advocating the need to improve our productivity? I do not remember seeing any advertisements in that regard. 1 heard a lot of talk in the House about the fact that if we did not improve our productivity we would not be able to reduce inflation. The Prime Minister used to tell us that time and time again. Instead of doing just those two things with the information through the advertising dollars that it had the power to spend, what did it do? The Government launched into an extravaganza of telling us the virtues of nationalization and the virtues of VIA Rail, that Crown corporation which has to draw $50 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for every ticket it sells. There is no bottom line management there at all. They have put full and half page ads in the paper extolling the virtues of Canadair. Canadair is the Crown corporation which just had to write off $ 1.4 billion.


Mr. Nielsen:: But it is ours.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: They advertise it is ours. They advertise the virtues of our Petrocan. The national energy policy stopped, dead in the water, all of the small businesses, the steel fabricators and all of the feeder industries that go into what was a vibrant exploration industry for energy in western Canada. Look at the advertising and the millions of dollars that the Liberal Government can find to tell us that Petro-Canada is ours. We can see what has happened to well drilling in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. While the Government will tell us about PIP grants and other programs, it has delivered a degree of intervention over the economy such that only those things which the bureaucrats and politicians in Ottawa want to go ahead will proceed. The innovation, exploration and risk-taking ability of the country has gone.
[DOT] (U30)
Just recently the Government spent $220,000 on a beautiful book extolling the virtues of our Constitution. But that legislation has moved us from the rule of law into some kind of a Napoleonic code whereby the rights we now have are the rights that are stated and not those unstated rights which we had under the former Constitution.
Let us examine the Supplementary Estimates (B) during this last supply period to see the increase in spending on information, advertising and advocacy by the Liberal Government throughout the period of six and five which was imposed

November 28, 1983
Supply
on Crown employees and other sectors of the nation. During that period when everyone else was to hunker down in order to reduce the effects of inflation on our lives and our country, the Government went ahead with the most lavish and outlandish expenditure on advertising, advocacy and information that one could imagine.
During the six and five period in the last two years, according to information taken directly from the Supplementary Estimates (B), the Economic Development Department moved its advertising expenditure from $2,000 through to $575,000. That is a 28,000 per cent increase. The budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for advertising and advocacy went from $1.5 million to $4 million. That is a 161 per cent increase. The information expenditure for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had a 27 per cent increase while advertising had an 11 per cent increase. Where is the six and five program for this kind of expenditure? The Department of Labour saw an increase of 75 per cent in its expenditures for advertising and information.
There was a 35 per cent increase in this area for the Department of National Revenue. Why does that Department not tell the people of Canada that it now goes straight into their bank accounts without giving them the courtesy of a notice? Why has it not spent money on advertising that or advertising changes in interpretation bulletins and other matters? Instead, it does so by stealth. It will go into bank accounts before it tells owners.
For Science and Technology, the increase was 558 per cent. That sounds like a large increase, but the budget only moved from $73,000 to $481,000 although this is the most important area of our lives in Canada today. But Science and Technology has absolutely no priority at all.
The advertising and information budget for the Department of the Environment increased by 50 per cent. The increase for Communications was 126 per cent and Justice had an increase of 666 per cent. This all occurred during the six and five era. So much for saying one thing and doing another.
When one considers the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates, there has been an increase in spending of 14 per cent through this six and five period. On August 13, 1969 the Prime Minister said:
We could not tolerate a 14 per cent increase in federal expenditures. If allowed to grow unchecked, eventually- our spending would become so scattered that the real needs of our society would be missed.
That is what he said. He continued:
And to spend vast sums on welfare, education and other programs while allowing inflation to continue would merely place hundreds of thousands of Canadians on a treadmill from which they could not escape.
We are on that treadmill today. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is in the House. She is in a struggle with some Provinces that are on this treadmill and do not know how to budget their affairs. That is what the Government has delivered as a result of saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.
In March, 1976 the Auditor General's Report warned that if the Government continued to spend at its current rate, the nation would be out of control. He told us that it was out of control and spoke of the critically serious situation we faced in this country. But nothing has happened since that warning. The Government has continued its reckless spending and slothful, wasteful habits. We have not addressed old programs as the Prime Minister said we should. The old programs have just become a base upon which incremental increases are added.
It is obvious that between the bureaucracy and those elected to govern nothing will happen in this area unless it takes place in the House. The House has put a group of 20 of its Members to work in the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and the reorganization of rules in the House. Those of us on that Committee saw a need to move the influence of the House back into a stronger position over the habits of the bureaucracy and Governments in power. This problem will not be addressed until the House addresses it and until elected Members within it undertake the responsibility and recognize the seriousness of the extravaganza of the last 14 years to begin to bring it back under control.
We are dealing with human nature and the House is full of that emotion. However, I say that if we do not begin now to apply ourselves to a corrective pattern over the slothful extravagance of expenditure, we are doing a total disservice to our children and those who follow. We are threatening the survival of this democratic system and we are putting their freedom on the platter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I appreciate the courtesy of the House very much. I will not take too long.
Sixty-five per cent of the people in this country now consider this institution to be irrelevant. Today we were handed the Votes and Proceedings for Friday, November 25, with Ways and Means motions and amendments to the Income Tax Act. It comprises some 226 pages. It could be that this is just a compilation of all the Ways and Means motions that have been on the Order Paper, but nobody in the House today knows or comprehends what is in that volume. I use this as an example of taxation without representation. We, as Members of the House from all Parties and all stripes-it does not matter from where-somehow fail the people who elected us when we allow this rate of expenditure to continue.
If we had had a gold standard form of monetary system back in 1969, our spending today in terms of constant dollars would have moved from $15 billion to $26 billion. This treadmill which the Prime Minister warned us about in August of 1969 would not exist today. It would not have been half as complicated for Canadians to understand the fundamentals of
November 28, 1983

what we are talking about here today. Political rhetoric is meaningless to the people of Canada as a result of the past 14 years of hearing the Government saying one thing and allowing something else to happen.
My plea to the House today is that rather than continuing to continue to reject the ten reports of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, it should somehow force the Government to allow those reports to come in for full debate and inquiry in order to move more influence and strength into the House so that we as elected Members can say we did our part; that the House of Commons did its part in trying to bring a system that is truly out of control back under control. I suppose the blame for this is at the root of human nature but somehow the irresponsibility of the Government over the past 14 years is a root cause for the two million unemployed today.
Before they stand and say this is worldwide-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Let me say that no country in the world had a better opportunity than Canada. We had the chance to be energy self-sufficient within five years. We had the chance to build pipelines. We had the chance to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay across our land to deliver energy into the midwestern United States, but that opportunity was wasted absolutely. No, Sir, the socialists would not allow that to happen. We had the opportunity to put infrastructures in place and phase them in so that in becoming energy self-sufficient we could deliver ourselves to a condition of health and wealth and improve the sharing of that health and wealth with others in the world. But no, Sir, that was denied to us. We have been mismanaged and our opportunities have been blown by this Liberal Government.
My plea to Members in all Parties is to do something about this condition. I think the opportunity to do something will be found in report No. 7 which is lying buried and smothered by this Liberal Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any comments or questions?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in the motion before us presented by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) is quoted a remark made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969. Contrary to what is implied in the motion, this Government has in fact since that date implemented a whole range of policies to improve the management and control of its expenditures.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I want to give some concrete examples of this. For that purpose, I want to discuss first the Government's policy on its spending. The Government's white paper of October 14, 1975, contained the following statement of policy:
The federal Government shares the view that the trend of total spending by all Governments should not rise more quickly than the trend of the Gross National Product.
Supply
Ceilings on total outlays in the ensuing years have been established in general accordance with this statement. The record of expenditures itself reflects the general success of the Government in holding the growth rate of total outlays below the rate of growth of the Gross National Product. Although the recession has understandably resulted in expenditure growth in excess of Gross National Product growth for the last two years, this principle outlined in 1975 continues to govern the determination of our over-all, multi-year expenditure plan. Of course, as I have said, the Government's expenditures in the past two years have gone up to offset the effects of the recent recession by providing further resources for direct job-creation, supporting investment by the private sector, the Government's own Special Recovery Projects, and more support for housing, all to create more jobs as well as protecting the unemployed through more expenditures on programs like unemployment insurance.
Last April the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) confirmed the commitment of the Government to the principle that the growth rate of total outlays should be in line with the rate of growth of the Gross National Product. He said:
This commitment was met until the recession last year. I am reaffirming this commitment tonight. The fiscal plan 1 will be tabling with this budget shows that total outlays as a share of GNP will fall steadily from this year to 1986-1987. By that year, federal spending will be virtually the same size relative to the economy as in 1981-1982, before the worst of the recession. To achieve this outcome will demand continuing diligence in restraining expenditure growth.
One year after the announcement in 1975 of its policy on over-all expenditures, the Government further made manifest its intent to improve the management and control of its expenditures, and of Government more broadly, for that matter, by establishing the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, the Lambert Commission.
The terms of reference by the Commission as set out by the Government clearly reflect its concerns. These terms referred to unprecedented demands placed on government by the growth requested by the public in its responsibilities and programs, a desire to ensure efficiency and probity in the Public Service of Canada, a serious concern about the adequacy of financial administration in government for establishing effective control over, and accountability for, public funds, and the need to use resources effectively, avoid waste and increase productivity in Government.
Even before the Commission began its deliberations and up until the present, the Government has been taking a range of steps to respond to these concerns and thereby strengthen management and accountability throughout Government. I would like at this time to touch briefly on some of the major initiatives in the last six or seven years.
In conjunction with, and in support of, the general policy to hold spending generally in line with the rate of growth of the GNP, the growth in the size of the Public Service has been tightly constrained. Growth in person-years under Treasury Board control has been explicitly limited as a matter of policy to no more than 1 per cent annually in the last several years and, despite heavy pressures on government programs, the size

November 28, 1983
Supply
of the Public Service under Treasury Board control is almost the same today as it was in 1976-1977.
There has been the introduction of the Policy and Expenditure Management System, the envelope system. This was another major step forward. It provides an expenditure management framework that sets multi-year levels for both total outlays and for various envelopes or policy sectors. It establishes policy committees within cabinet to undertake policy development and decision making within the discipline of the envelope system. While the previous Conservative Government introduced key portions of this system, the current Government has provided its consolidation and final implementation.
I would also remind Hon. Members that the key developmental work on the envelope system was undertaken before the previous Conservative Government was in office.
A key elaboration of PEMS, another way of describing the envelope system, has been the introduction by the Treasury Board of the Multi-year Operational Planning System. This system is aimed at fostering more integrated resource planning, budgeting and management throughout the Government. Two key concepts, budgeting to results and budgeting for management, underlie the Multi-Year Operational Plans submitted to the Treasury Board. The first concept is designed to facilitate practical but systematic budgetary analysis based on concrete program outputs and inputs. The second is aimed at providing a clear understanding throughout the Government of the responsibilities of Public Service managers and how these responsibilities translate into budgetary requirements.
The office of the Comptroller General, created in 1978 in response to a central recommendation of the Lambert Commission, assists in the establishment of sound management practices in the federal Government by developing policies and standards and by promoting and monitoring improvements in financial and operational management. Over the last four years 30 or so key departments have participated in one of the Comptroller General's key initiatives called Improvement in Management Practices and Controls, or IMPAC, which is directed at the internal management process of individual departments. IMPAC has resulted in the establishment of action plans for over 100 major projects to improve organization, planning, internal and external reporting, automation, program delivery procedures, audit and program evaluation. Almost 80 per cent of the work on these projects has now been completed, and there is clear evidence of the ongoing yields that are the result. The IMPAC program has identified a total of more than $250 million in annual recurring benefits, of which more than $122 million in annual recurring savings have already been realized.
Substantial progress has been made in implementing the revised form of the Estimates, extending significantly the information made available to Parliament. The Government now presents in the form of Part I a summary of its spending plans in straightforward language and numbers. I am sure the Hon. Member for Capilano will recall his own role with respect to the creation of this document. In the Part III volumes detailed information is being made available on the
individual programs in each Department and agency with the express intention of improving the accountability to Parliament by the Government. All of these major initiatives, along with numerous others, have been in the spirit of the recommendations of the Lambert Commission and have contributed to a new framework for management in the Public Service, one which is comprehensive and coherent, yet is also flexible and adaptable and which facilitates accountability.
I would now like to say something about the nature of the Government's current expenditure plan, using it to illustrate the key forces at play in trying to maintain over-all expenditures roughly constant in relation to GNP over the longer term, while responding as effectively and as efficiently as possible to the very real needs of the people of this country.
First, I would like to review briefly the important role in total spending played by statutory expenditure items and other programs providing automatic stabilizers designed to offer Canadians some measure of social and economic shelter in turbulent economic times. Second, I want to comment on that relatively small portion of total spending attributable to the operating costs of all Government Departments.
As the Minister of Finance has indicated, the worst of the very difficult economic climate is behind us. Canadians are regaining their confidence, growth is resuming, inflation is down dramatically, as are interest rates. Unemployment has also decreased but remains distressingly high. Job creation, therefore, continues to be a major Government priority.
The 1983-84 expenditure plan calls for total spending of $90.7 billion, an increase of 12.7 per cent or $10.2 billion over 1982-83. Of this increase, a little over $1 billion is attributable to the rise in public debt charges, almost $1 billion to increased defence costs and over $1.5 billion is directly due to new spending initiatives announced in the budget, including over $500 million for the Special Recovery Capital Projects which are aimed at encouraging and facilitating economic recovery in Canada.
Of the remaining spending increase of about $6.8 billion spread over hundreds of Government activities, fully one-half is entirely due to increases in only four major programs Government contributions to unemployment insurance, the Old Age Security, the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowances programs, and payments to the Provinces under the Established Programs Financing, that is to say, post-secondary education, medicare and the Canada Assistance Plan.
These programs are, of course, the core of our social and economic security system. They provide enhanced and extended benefits to the unemployed throughout Canada, particularly in the regions hardest hit by the recession. They offer basic income support to the aged, particularly those with lower incomes. They support the financing of at least 50 per cent of the cost of hospital insurance, medicare, extended health care, post-secondary education and social assistance payments, welfare services, child support services such as foster care and
November 28, 1983

daycare, and a broad range of other family and social support services.
I have highlighted these large elements in our expenditure plan because of the special importance such programs take on the tough economic times as automatic stabilizers against some of the worst effects of a recession and the gradual, fragile recovery period we have just entered.
I do not think we should overestimate the scope for changing some of our most basic programs since what Government does reflects society's views of its goals and how Government can assist in achieving them. We must, after all, face some fairly definite facts. For example, there are historic costs associated with the attainment of interprovincial and inter-regional equity in Canada. There are also the costs of achieving a standard of interpersonal equity in Canada.
Successive generations have shared a view of social equity and have succeeded in having it reflected in laws which for many people are tantamount to being the social as well as the legal definition of what it means to be Canadian. While we may consider changing some of those laws, I doubt that Canadians would want us to put at risk fundamental values and goals in pursuit of arbitrary approaches to limiting Government spending.
Of course, in what I have said 1 have not intended to imply that there is no room at all for streamlining and repriorizing federal activities, and consequently spending, while still effectively meeting the demands on Government posed in a changing environment. 1 believe we have demonstrated the ability, through processes like the envelope system, to make increasingly tough decisions about programs and policy trade-offs. For example, in his economic statement in the House of Commons last fall, the Minister of Finance cited the reallocation of $1.1 billion from existing programs to new ones, primarily to stimulate job creation at a time of unacceptably high levels of unemployment. However, 1 must add that this reallocation did not reflect a judgment that this money was being wasted in its previous application, but rather a judgment of priorities.
In the crucible of difficult economic times, it is a transfer of Government support from some very worthy purposes to others which are currently more urgent. However, as I have pointed out, and as I will illustrate further in a few minutes, the room we have to do this, without making fundamental changes in the transfer programs for which the largest portion of federal expenditures are made, is much more limited than most people realize.
One of the major challenges to all Canadians is the need to improve the productivity and competitiveness of our economy. Of course, achieving productivity gains across all sectors of the national economy is beyond the single-handed ability of the federal Government. It requires a co-operative and joint effort by business, labour and Government-in short, by all Canadians.
However, there are ways in which the Government can act and is acting concurrently and supportively. One way is to
Supply
demonstrate that we intend to and can enhance the productivity of the Government's own operations. As I indicated when I tabled the current year's Main Estimates, as President of the Treasury Board I have set as a major priority continuing this Government's policy of improving the federal Government's management and the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs.
Perhaps I should clarify my definitions of efficiency and effectiveness in Government. Efficiency refers to the way we manage our resources in order to minimize the cost of delivery of Government programs. Effectiveness, on the other hand, refers to the range and the quality of the services that Government delivers to the Canadian people, as well as the extent to which these services meet the objectives expected of them.
As we seek to improve the efficiency of Government as I have defined this concept, it is important to understand the scale of the Government costs involved, since one frequently has the impression of a misinformed, exaggerated view on the part of some that somehow the bulk of the $90 billion federal budget is being squandered on Public Service salaries and perks. The truth of the matter is, of course, that about three-quarters, or about $68 billion of the $90 billion, consists of payments we make to Provinces, businesses, groups and individuals in Canada, as well as for external aid purposes, and from which the recipients benefit directly. The actual cost of developing, administering and delivering these programs is of the order of $12 billion for all Departments and agencies, leaving aside the $8 billion for national defence and the $2 billion for capital projects. Of this $12 billion, about $8 billion is for wages, salaries and employee benefits.
Therefore, while I am confident the federal Government can demonstrate commitment to obtaining efficiencies in administration, I must stress that any such administrative savings obviously will not produce any drastic reductions in the deficit, nor in the size and role of government.
When every Canadian shares a role with every other Canadian in making our national economy more competitively productive, it becomes important for government administration to establish and maintain a high standard of efficient and effective operations. The Government has in the recent past taken a number of steps further to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations, initiatives such as IMPAC and the multi-year operational planning process that I have already mentioned.
These kinds of initiatives seek to compensate for the multiple goals often found in the public sector and the lack of an automatic, profit-based bottom line as is available in the private sector, by emphasizing the need for a formal and clear definition and articulation of the results which each program of the Government is expected to achieve. They also involve the development of systems and procedures to allow for measurement of the extent to which the results promised are in fact realized.
29228

November 28, 1983
Supply
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I think the two aspects of our current expenditure plan which I have touched upon illustrate clearly the forces and the constraints within which expenditure and its management must proceed. However, there is no doubt in my mind that a strong framework for controlling expenditures and managing within these constraints has been put into place.
The Auditor General, who is often critical of aspects of government management, has, I think, recognized improvement in the Government's management of its expenditures, because in his last report he said:
I identify the gradual but unmistakable emergence of a new determination in Government and in Parliament toward improved management and more stringent accountability.
He went on to say:
-the political will is now present, and a number of senior managers in the Public Service are responding with a degree of firmness and courage that has not been seen for some time.
Finally, he said:
-I sense a new attitude with respect to improved financial control and a renewed interest in accountability.
1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that the words of the Auditor General help to confirm why the House should reject the motion which is before it. Contrary to the suggestion made by the Hon. Member who presented the motion, we have been working toward progress in the Government's management of its expenditures. We have been making progress and we will continue to do so in the interests of the Canadian people and in the interests of the sound management of our economy. Again, for that reason I urge the rejection of this motion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) a question. At the beginning of his speech, he spoke quite correctly about the tremendous amount of work that has been done within the bureaucracy and within the Treasury Board in terms of the Comptroller General's progress toward putting in place internal audit and evaluation systems. He spoke quite correctly in terms of the new form of the Estimates as being a reorganization of information for better disclosure. He is aware, however, of the 1976 warning by the Auditor General. At that time spending was $40 billion; today it is $100 billion. The deficit and spending as a percentage of the GNP has risen from 21 per cent to 25.7 per cent in 1983-84. Something is basically wrong.
The missing equation can be found within report No. 7 of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. Why does the Government continue to sit on that report? Why does it not approve it and restructure the committee system so that the work being done by the Comptroller General can finally get to the House and its proper disclosure and exposure can take place? Why does the Government continue to refuse to allow parliamentary participation in the whole matter of accountability to come to pass?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member and I share a similar desire to improve the process. I was pleased to recognize the work of my hon. friend on the new form of the Estimates. 1 think we have made progress with the interim rules as well as with the new form of the Estimates. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) is present in the Chamber and I would ask him to bring my hon. friend's comments regarding this report to the attention of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) so that, in consultation with House Leaders, this item can be raised with a view to seeing when it might be brought forward for discussion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The President of the Treasury Board has spoken glowingly of the Government's efforts in terms of productivity. Why, then, has he refused to acknowledge or do anything about the reports of the Auditor General from 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 which dealt with the lack of, and want for, productivity within the Public Service?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, 1 disagree with my hon. friend's contention that we have ignored the Auditor General's Reports. Evidence of this is contained within the Auditor General's last Report to the House in which he spoke of his identification of the gradual but unmistakable emergence of a new determination in government and in Parliament toward improved management. He spoke as well of sensing a new attitude with respect to improved financial control and so on. I do not think we have been ignoring the Auditor General's Reports. In fact, one of the main jobs of the Comptroller General, through programs Like IMPAC, is to develop definitions for improved productivity within the Public Service and to develop programs to carry out these definitions.
1 repeat what I said in my remarks to the House a few months ago. Unlike the private sector, there is no simple and automatic bottom line definition of productivity or of the results we are seeking within the Government. The Government has a multiplicity of goals, often goals which the private sector could not and would not work toward when applying a strictly profit-based bottom line. This is one of the challenges faced by the Government in terms of over-all improvement of its productivity. That does not mean we should not try to improve productivity.
We are moving in the direction of improved productivity and are making progress through programs like the IMPAC program of the Auditor General. This can be confirmed by the fact that the programs put in place through IMPAC have already demonstrated annual savings of $122 million. These savings are not simply one-time savings but annual savings, with more savings expected as other programs are in place. This shows that we are taking seriously the recommendations of people like the Auditor General.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of the social costs of the government programs with the Minister. I would point out to the Minister that, as a direct consequence of a particular government program called the National Energy Program, apartment vacancy rates in the City of Calgary are at about 14 per cent. I am told by realtors that
November 28, 1983

there are over 7,000 homes on the market as a result of foreclosures and over 20 per cent of the office space in the City of Calgary is currently vacant. There has been an enormous increase in the unemployment rate. In fact, the unemployment rate in the City of Calgary is higher than the national average, in spite of the fact that a great many people in the labour force have chosen to leave the City of Calgary and return to other parts of Canada.
1 wonder what the Government has been doing in terms of obtaining good projective data about the social costs of a planned government program. Specifically, now that the projections which we as a Party made to the Government some two years ago about the NEP have come true, what steps is the Government taking to lessen the impact of those social costs by replacing its programs with ones that makes sense for the nation? What sense of responsibility does the Government have and what systems will it implement to change programs that are extremely costly to Canadians, even though those costs do not show up directly on a government balance sheet?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, 1 would first like to challenge my hon. friend's premise that the unfortunate unemployment rate and economic difficulty that exists in Calgary today was created by the National Energy Program. My hon. friend would seem to have us believe that there has been no decline in world energy prices and no worldwide recession, causing an economic slowdown and therefore a sharp drop in the demand for energy. Those are the factors that have led to the unemployment rate and economic decline in Calgary.
We must remember that there is no national energy program in the United States. Its Government has gone to world oil prices and the cities in its oil producing regions have experienced unemployment and economic decline. I challenge the accuracy of my hon. friend's premise because he seems to be totally ignorant, as he should not be, of what has been happening in the world in terms of decline in world oil prices and decline in demand created by the worldwide petroleum recession. That is what has caused the unfortunate economic situation to which he refers.
We have shown that we are able to work co-operatively with the industry and with the provincial Governments in order to deal with changing circumstances while remaining true to the basic principles of the National Energy Program. This is exemplified by agreements the federal Government has worked out recently with the Province of Alberta and with oil companies that would see major tar sands projects at Wolf Lake and Cold Lake involving investments of hundreds of millions of dollars go ahead in that Province. My hon. friend is confirming what seems to be a hidden agenda of his Party to destroy the National Energy Program. If that is the case, obviously it will do great damage to Provinces like Nova Scotia and, in fact, to all Canada, because it will be impossible to achieve the objectives of energy security, fairness, and stronger industry objectives which all Canadians support.
Supply


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister who will remember that on March 7, speaking to his estimates for this year in reply to a question from the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), he said, as reported at page 23508 of Hansard:
-as I said in my statement in the House on February 22, there will be, as in the past, Supplementary Estimates, but it is our intention to accommodate them within the envelope reserves which I made public at the time of making my statement.
We have Supplementary Estimates to vote on now, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) could explain to the House why the PIP grants increase of $484 million is accommodated in the envelope reserves and how $60 million for Petro-Canada is accommodated in the envelope reserves? Indeed, where in the envelope reserve for energy is the money available for the Supplementary Estimates now before the House?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide my hon. friend with a detailed written answer but I want to reiterate the point I made in speaking to my estimates and when I tabled the Main Estimates. 1 said that in addition to the budgetary Main Estimates printed in the blue book and in the Part Ill's, the total outlays set out in the Government's expenditure plan include several billions of dollars in reserves to accommodate decisions on expenditure which will have to be brought to the House for approval through supplementary estimates. As far as I am aware, we have remained consistent with what I said. I will be happy to provide my hon. friend with the necessary information in writing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and answers have expired and can only be continued with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to state at the outset, lest there be any attempt to misunderstand on the part of the Conservatives, that we will support the motion. We will, perhaps, support it for somewhat different reasons and I want to deal, in part, with some of our reasons.
This is an inadequate way of dealing with a very complex topic. An Opposition day does not lend itself to actually coming to grips with the problems of the way the Government determines its expenditures, the way it establishes its tax system and the cost-to the public of Canada in this case, but it could also be to one of the Provinces-that has to be borne by those who pay the taxes. Unfortunately, on an Opposition day one has to engage in a discussion that is all-encompassing rather than zeroing in on the areas of greatest concern.

November 28, 1983
Supply
I would be more impressed with the logic of the Conservative argument if I could look around the country and see Conservative administrations applying the kinds of principles in a reasonable and humane way that the spokesmen for the Conservative Party put forward today. I would be more impressed if I could look at a Province like Ontario and find within its operations the kind of care and discipline that the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) indicates ought to be in place at the federal level.
I agree wholeheartedly that in many instances the Government does not spend taxpayers' money wisely. As I look at the expenditures, 1 sometimes wonder why it is that those who earn so little must bear so much of the burden. I frequently look at individuals in my constituency and in others across the country and wonder why people on a marginal level of subsistence are required to contribute so significantly to the over-all tax burden of the Government and the country.
I might be more impressed with the proposals advanced by the Conservative Party if I did not see, even within that group, a tendency developing toward extravagance. The recent expenditures undertaken by the Government on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), both in the upgrading of Kingsmere for his temporary residence and the rather extravagant expenditures on Stornoway as a semi-permanent residence, are examples. I cannot help but wonder if these are advisable expenditures, given that the person who preceded him there was one of his own Members who undoubtedly took good care of Stornoway. The Government is required to spend something in the order of $100,000-and that does not include the vestibule. When the Leader of the Opposition and his Party suggest that the Government ought to make cuts, yet they require that this money be spent in order to make a residence more comfortable that was in fact very comfortable to begin with, and at no cost to the Leader of the Official Opposition; then we cannot help but wonder whether that Party speaks with a forked tongue.
Having said that, 1 want to say that I agree that the Government spends its money in part-and 1 emphasize in part-in ways that I find unacceptable. Over the course of the last eight or ten years I have developed the impression that both at the federal level and at the Conservative provincial levels in Canada, a system is developing which is dangerous and probably harmful to the participants themselves. The major corporate sector, upon which both the Conservatives and Liberals rely almost entirely as the engine of society and the engine of the economy, is unable adequately to manage its own affairs. It is running into considerable financial difficulty, is unable to borrow at the banks, and is unable to find the capital necessary to cover its costs from normal investors. That sector comes to the Government on a regular basis and asks for further handouts, either by way of direct Government subsidy with no pay-back, or it asks the Government to underwrite its borrowing. This means that the strength of the people of Canada will be used to assure it of the capital it requires to keep free enterprise operating. 1 find it difficult to stomach that at times when, on the other hand, I see a veteran walking
around with a colostomy bag who is getting only an old age pension and a veteran's pension of $58 per month and has to survive on that.
I believe the Government has begun to lose sight of its primary purpose of trying to ensure that there is some reasonableness in the way it operates on behalf of the people of Canada. I ask my colleagues in the Conservative Party, the managers of the private enterprise system which they tout all across this land, is it reasonable that the people of Canada who punch a clock, work in an office or are now retired should be required to pay more and more into the coffers of the federal and provincial Governments in order to subsidize, underwrite or in one way or another cover the bad management practices of those who would want, if given the chance, to run the country?
The practices which are being promoted by either the Liberals or the Conservatives-both of whom represent, or at least claim to represent, this major private corporate sector touted by both as being the only salvation for the future-are the same practices which have been followed by the major corporations which have failed repeatedly adequately to manage the resources which they hold in trust for their shareholders. I find it passing strange that I should be hearing of the need to cut and I cannot somehow or other pick up on exactly where those kinds of cuts are going to take place.
1 can only assume from looking through the various supplementary estimates and taking into account the objections filed by my colleagues to the right, that perhaps there is some evidence contained in their choice of cuts which would allow me to make judgments about where they believe the cuts should take place. I note, for example, that they want to cut out of the budget the funds for the establishment of a transportation of the handicapped program. 1 wonder if that is indicative of where the cuts might be made in the future. If that is the kind of cut which the Conservatives are promoting, then I want nothing to do with it. I want to make it clear to the Conservative Party that I will not support that kind of reasoning.


Miss MacDonald:: That is not in there.


Ian Deans: That is in there.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Where? 1 do not find it there.


Ian Deans: If you cannot find it, then take a look through the book. I have just finished analysing it.
In looking through the cuts-time will not permit me to go through them all-I cannot help but feel that if that is the approach to be taken and the method to be used, I want nothing to do with it. If, however, the Conservative Party is talking about cuts in areas where the Government is handing out money willy-nilly to its friends and former colleagues in order to support their failing businesses in the fond hope that perhaps there might be one or two jobs created-without any guarantees or prerequisites-then I agree wholeheartedly.
November 28, 1983

That is the difference. If the Conservatives are suggesting that we ought to make the tax system more fair, that perhaps we should bear down on those 200 or more citizens of Canada who earn $60,000 and up and pay absolutely no tax, then I agree with them. If, however, they are suggesting that their entrepreneurial friends should be given further access to the trough in the process, then I reject that.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No way.


Ian Deans: Yet I do not hear them speaking about the problem-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You stick around.


Ian Deans: -of their Liberal friends being up to their necks in the public trough. I do not often hear the Conservative Party discussing that in or around the House of Commons, although it can find umpteen reasons to discuss those at the opposite end of the scale, those on inadequate pensions or those who are working for $10,000 or $12,000 a year and struggling desperately to make ends meet, when it talks about perhaps having a more fair distribution of the wealth of the country. If the Conservatives want to ensure that the people who go out and struggle daily to meet their financial commitments are able to share more equitably in the wealth, 1 feel I might be in a position to say that we would like to hear the specific proposals so we can deal with them.
I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, something I know you are probably aware of, having been involved in politics and being a student of politics all of your life, that the only government in this country which operated on the basis of efficiency and careful expenditure of public funds for years, which ran its government at the lowest per capita level of civil servant to taxpayer, which ran its government without a deficit, which made sure there was in fact excess money left for investment, was the New Democratic Government of Saskatchewan. I know the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will bear me out. The Government of Saskatchewan, up until the time it became a Conservative government, when the New Democratic Party was in office ran the tightest fiscal ship in the land. When Bill Davis' Tories were running a deficit, Allan Blakeney's New Democrats were operating in the black. When Bill Bennett's Tories were running a deficit, Allan Blakeney's New Democrats were running in the black. When Peter Lougheed's Tories were running a deficit, Allan Blakeney's New Democrats were operating within their means.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: How did they build the Heritage Fund?


Ian Deans: When 1 listen to the Conservative Party talking about management, I can only judge them on the basis of those who are of like ilk and who have been given the opportunity to put into practice the management skills which the Conservatives are proposing should be put into practice by their blood brothers, the Liberal Party. I think to myself that almost without exception in similar economic circumstances the Tories managed as badly as the Liberals.
Supply
The cost of government to the individual taxpayer in Conservative Provinces, as at the federal level, was more than could reasonably be borne with the exception of the time Allan Blakeney was Premier of Saskatchewan. Therefore, I wonder what the Government could do to satisfy the Conservatives. 1 doubt very much it could do so in a way that we would find acceptable; but we have a right to hear from the Conservatives exactly where the Government should make its minor adjustments in order to satisfy the Tory approach to fiscal management.
Is it a Conservative desire to redesign the tax structure to both simplify and make it fair? In doing so, are we going to ask those who use the loopholes put in place by Conservative and Liberal administrations to pay their fair share? We agree that should be done. If, as and when the need arises to provide public funds to private corporations, is it the position of the Conservatives that private corporations have to put up equity to protect the public funds? Will they have to enter into agreement to guarantee that the public dollars do not simply go down the drain following the misspent dollars of the corporate boardrooms in the years previous? If so, then we say yes, that kind of program might meet some success.
Is the Government to undertake the elimination of patronage moneys spent by both Liberal and Conservative administrations? Will they eliminate this patting your friend on the back and giving them a little job just to keep them going, the hiring of the Allan Greggs? You know the kind of thing I mean, Mr. Speaker. If that is to be done and public funds are not used for crass political purposes, then, by God, we will support that. If that is the kind of thing the Official Opposition is requesting from the Government, then they have our full support.
The best and most recent example of what I am talking about is where the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) spent some tens of thousands of dollars in an effort to improve his image.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Hard to do.


Ian Deans: It may be hard to improve his image. If that kind of expenditure is to be cut out, we agree 100 per cent that it should be. But if it is to be in the social services area where people who have nothing to protect themselves with are to be further damaged by the measures of a Tory administration, then, thank you but no thank you.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spent 20 minutes asking a lot of questions and I would like the opportunity to answer a few. He speaks of the Alberta Government being in deficit. True, in maintaining their social programs they are in deficit. But at the same time they put $5 billion aside in the Heritage Fund. I think that shows frugality in the sense that you put aside money in good times so that it is there when it is needed in hard times. That does not happen in socialist governments, as we have seen in the behaviour of the Liberal Government here.

November 28, 1983
Supply
I would also like to point out that the restraint programs of the Government of British Columbia have the support of at least two-thirds of the people of that Province. The faces in opposition are the same socialist faces which are seen at NDP meetings out there.
The Hon. Member refers to cutting expenditures. What about the $1.1 billion in cost overruns in ongoing projects this past year by the incumbent Government? There was $290 million paid to persons not legally entitled to benefits from the UIC. That is the kind of waste which proper management and disclosure will control.
One-third of all taxes paid by Canadians, Mr. Speaker, one dollar out of every three, is used to pay interest on our national debt. What about managing the debt and reducing it, as the Conservative budget in 1979-80 started to do? That was the first budget to project spending increases which matched only the expected inflation rate. It was the first budget to show fiscal responsibility and the Hon. Member's Party stood and defeated it in this House. The first time in 15 years that a government projected fiscal management, his Party stood and defeated it. For those reasons 1 cannot give too much credence to the questions and statements of the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether there was a question there but I was looking for it. However, I want to answer one thing that was said. As the Hon. Member knows, when Tommy Douglas took over as Premier of Saskatchewan it took years to get rid of the debt he had to take on as a result of the previous administration. From the day he got rid of that debt until the day Allan Blakeney lost, they ran in the black consistently. Within one year the current Government of Saskatchewan, a Conservative Government, was $500 million in debt.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) seems to address the issue of social costs with a somewhat-and I can well understand it- defensive manner. No wonder. That Hon. Member and those he sits with are the ones who put this Government into office and precipitated the unemployment of two million people in this country and all the fiscal costs and human tragedy which go along with it.
Why does the Hon. Member not complain about the disastrous economic policies of this Government which have precipitated the human suffering in this country? Why did he stand in his place last week and refuse to allow the social costs of unemployment to be debated in this House?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 was waiting for that. To begin with, the first point made by the Hon. Member is wrong. It was not the NDP who defeated the Conservatives, it was the people of Canada. The people of Canada went to the polls and voted you out. Do you know why? Because you were incompetent. That is why, incompetent. So don't keep blaming other people for your incompetence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member will remember that his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Ian Deans: Oh absolutely, and you, Sir, are not incompetent. 1 am talking through you, Sir, to the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
With regard to the matter of last week, everyone knows that out of the five days allotted to the Opposition, the Conservatives, in their usual way, were trying to get them all for themselves. They were not prepared to give us one day out of the five allotted. We asked for a day and we were told No. I therefore filed a motion on another important question in order that that could be debated as a priority matter. I did not know which one they were going to call. If the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands really wanted a debate on the question of those who need help most in the country, they could have called her motion today.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I notice the comments of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and I notice that in them he implied that this Government's economic policies are competent. The Government may take some satisfaction from that, Mr. Speaker, but I can tell you the people of Canada do not take much satisfaction from it, and neither should the Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Ian Deans: One final comment I hope. I can only assume that the Member subscribes to the policies as enunciated by her finance critic when he says that they will not tell the people of Canada what they stand for, because if they knew they would never vote for them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) made an accusation that a Member of the Progressive Conservative Party filed an objection to the supplementary estimates that in some way dealt with the handicapped. Would he either point out the opposed items in the supplementary estimates as set out in the Order Paper of November 28, or stand in this House and withdraw the remarks?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker I will point it out. It is No. 15, standing in the name of Mr. Huntington:
That Vote lb, in the amount of $1 under the Department of Transport-Departmental Administration Program.
The explanation of the requirement is the establishment of a transportation of the handicapped program. Just so that the Member can find the page, it is page 195 of Supplementary Estimates (B) booklet A, Departmental Administration Program, Vote No. lb; and if he reads down just a little below he will find that that is in fact dealing with transportation of the handicapped.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a problem at this point. It has recognized the Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) previously on an exchange and the Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) has been on his feet. The Hon. Member for Capilano.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, that lb Vote, and the objection to it, is that it is the use of moneys voted for capital to
November 28, 1983

build a search and rescue training school that has been transferred over to be used for general expenditure. That is reason that objection is in there. It is not as the Member for Hamilton Mountain just said at all; so withdraw.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Withdraw, withdraw.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It doesn't bother him to misstate.


Ian Deans: How would you be able to tell? To begin with, you are not here often enough to be able to tell?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Cheap shot.


Ian Deans: That is not cheap, that is true. I only deal with the truth. Let me read it again. If I made a mistake I will certainly withdraw it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You made a mistake. Withdraw.


Ian Deans: If I made a mistake I will withdraw it. Let me read No. 15 again:
November 25, 1983-That Vote lb, in the amount of $1 under the Department of Transport-Departmental Administration Program, in the Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be concurred in.
November 25, 1983-Notice is hereby given of opposition to Vote lb, in the amount of $1 under the Department of Transport-Departmental Administra-iion Program, in the Supplementary 1 -'stimutes (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31. 19X4.
I now turn to the departmental estimates, Transport, Departmental Administration Program and Vote lb. Vote lb goes on to explain what the purpose of the expenditure is. Under the explanation of requirement it says: "Establishment of a Transportation of the Handicapped program".
There may be more, and I am prepared to concede the Conservatives' reasoning may be somewhat different, but in looking at the program and reading what they have said and what is said in the supplementary estimates booklet, I can only conclude that if one votes against that money and therefore has it removed from the budget of the Government, then the program for the establishment of a transportation of the handicapped program cannot then proceed. I think that is reasonable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has a problem at this point. The Chair has ignored the clock for a minute or two. It appears that there will be a supply Bill for supplementary estimates before the House and there will be an opportunity, I believe, at that point for an exchange which hopefully will clear up the differences.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to correct an injustice which has been laid on my back. The objection to the $1 vote in question is transferring $1,598,999 from departmental capital budget to operating expenditures. They are transferring $1.6 million from money that we in the House voted for the building of a search and rescue training school over to operating expenditures. It is that principle that is being objected to in this objection.
Supply


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair again, in the interests of allowing Hon. Members an opportunity to clarify the record, has not seen the clock. Are further interventions to this point or to another point?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: No, it is a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Mississauga South, is it on the same point?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Member for Kingston and the Islands, is it the same point?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My point is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is directed to remarks by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain who implied that I had not been here. I say that to you, Sir, as somebody who has been here regularly working on the pension reform committee on which the NDP Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) has also been working. I would challenge what the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has said about any of us who have been working day in and day out-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member has made her point but it is not a point of order. Reflections on the presence or absence of Members in the House are generally considered to be bad taste in the procedures of the House. There is a citation to the effect that the Chair discourages references to the presence or absence of Members.


Ian Deans: You have got to be able to take it to give it out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At this stage the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Mississauga South for debate.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank you very much for recognizing me at this point. The debate before us concerns the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a televised press conference, and I want to read his quotation into the record again: "We'd soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control". We are on the road to financial disaster because nothing was done to bring spending under control. That is exactly the point of this debate. It disturbs me that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), who was here earlier, is not here to follow the debate further through the day.
We have a tremendous country. In our country we have relatively young, educated people. The possibility of resources in our soils and water are unparalleled anywhere in the world. There is really no reason we should be in the difficulty we are in. For every dollar the Government spends this year, over 30 cents will have to be either borrowed or printed. That certainly puts us well down the road to disaster.
Until 1975 we had deficits but they were not of the order, magnitude or percentage of Gross National Product of the deficits we have had since that time. Mr. John Turner, the then Minister of Finance, started the program of spending

November 28, 1983
Supply
much more than was conceivably taken in taxes. Every year since he was Minister of Finance our deficit position has become worse and worse. It is on that particular problem that 1 would like to address the House today.
In the past year, despite what the President of the Treasury Board said earlier, the percentage of the Gross National Product used directly by the Government rose to 47.3 per cent in 1982. That did not take into account the tremendous amounts of money controlled and spent by Crown corporations in supplying services and engaging in activities, some of which are profitable and some of which are very unprofitable. Therefore, the amount of the Gross National Product that is controlled by the Government has now reached the point where over half of what is created and developed in this country is done by the Government. That has led to the mess we are in.
Let me refer to some of the facts and figures that were set out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on April 19. Even if we take into account the exceeding optimism expressed by the Minister in his budget statement, I point out that we have now arrived at a position where our deficits will not allow the country to break even. Even under the most optimistic conditions, such as having virtually 100 per cent employment and the country proceeding at full speed, we would still have a deficit of approximately 3.5 per cent of the Gross National Product.
I say this with regard to the Government's statement which was filed on April 19 and Members are at liberty to look at that documentation. Members will recall that there was a special presentation on the effect of deficits contained within the budget papers. The evidence, as clearly stated by the Department of Finance in its presentation to the House, was that we have that kind of a structural deficit.
The House will recall that the Government's projections in its Fiscal plan indicated that we would have a very good year next year when there would be an increase in the Gross National Product of the country of 5.2 per cent. That would be followed in 1985-86 with an increase of 4.4 per cent and the same thing the following year, 1986-87. However, if we follow this deficit position of the Government during those years, even with this enormous growth rate which 1 point out is far in excess of what we experienced in the 1970s, the Government deficit would still be in excess of $25 billion. Its borrowing requirements would be in excess of $19 billion. The result is that even with projected good times, boom times, if you like, the Government will not come close to balancing the books of the country. This must change.
This country, no more than any individual who runs a household, cannot use credit year after year to pay the grocery bill. We must eventually have a balance. It has never been required that government should be able to balance its books every year. During tough times such as we have experienced in the last two years, perhaps governments should be allowed to go into a deficit position. That is what is called a cyclical deficit. In good times the Government should show a surplus.
But I would point out that the Government's present actions make it impossible ever to show a surplus. Indeed, a deficit is built right into the system and, according to the Estimates filed in the House by the Minister of Finance on April 19, the deficit is close to 3.5 per cent of the GNP.
This means that at the present time the Government would either have to increase taxes by approximately $14 billion or $15 billion, reduce its expenditures by the same amount, or perhaps a combination of both.
Let us look at the question of increasing taxes. I think we are all aware that there are precious little opportunities available for large tax increases in the country. Canadians are already paying a level of tax that is in excess of the tax level paid by our trading partner, the United States.
As a practical matter, it is impossible for one nation to have a tax impost that is higher than that of its competitor and trading partner. While there could be different taxes within each country, the over-all effect of taxation must be approximately the same or the country with the higher taxation level will suffer dramatically. Indeed, that is what is happening in Canada today.
Generally speaking, taxes in the United States are considerably lower than those in Canada. That is one of the major reasons the United States did not go as deeply into the recession as Canada and is coming out of it much more rapidly and dramatically than we are. That is why over-all employment in the United States is one million more than it was before the recession, and why over-all employment in Canada is 250,000 less than it was when we went into the recession. Therefore I see no way that we can dramatically increase taxes to cover that structural deficit.
Let us look at the other alternative, that is, to cut our suit to meet the amount of cloth available. This requires some prioriz-ing of Government expenditures. We must consider what the country should do to get itself back on a sound footing. First, 1 believe we should begin with the concept of zero-based budgeting. I do not believe that Government Departments such as the Department of Agriculture for example, can continue to have its budget automatically increased to meet inflation. This should apply to all Government Departments. With respect to programs, I believe we must get down to the brass tacks of coldly and calculatingly deciding which programs we must keep and which ones we must discard. Interestingly enough, I was reading to Prime Minister's statement which was referred to in the motion and that is what he said in 1968. That is not what he did but what he said.
Next, we should consider carrying out the recommendations suggested by what is commonly referred to as the Huntington-Lachance report. Specifically, this deals with the question of priorizing expenditures and involving the House in that process. In other words, we should create an estimates committee of the House that will work with the Treasury Board in priorizing and determining the expenditures of the Government and where that money should be allocated. It is my view, and I believe that of my Party, that the first obligation of
November 28, 1983

government is to ensure that the social service network which is in place is maintained.
I notice it is one o'clock. Perhaps I could proceed after three o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock later this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, we have seen the writing on the wall for a while now. In a report to be submitted to the Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economy, the Canadian Mental Health Association says that child abuse, suicide, alcoholism, disease, divorce and crime are soaring as a result of unemployment. Deep in everyone's gut most of us believe this to be true.
"Unemployment is more than a problem of economics", the report says. "Regardless of the theory that one uses to explain the existence of unemployment, it is obvious that it takes its toll in ways that go beyond the loss of a pay cheque".
It is also a political problem. The Government has continuously failed in its objective to create permanent jobs to address the real human tragedy that is taking place. This Government has only barely scratched the surface of the problem. It is a national disgrace, and should be our first and utmost concern. As Progressive Conservatives our first priority is the creation of jobs.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, since November 17 approximately 40 political refugees from Bangladesh have been carrying out a hunger strike at the Montreal Refugee Centre. The purpose of this hunger strike is to alert Canadians and the Canadian Government to the shocking situation in Bangladesh, and to their situation as refugees here in Canada. They have told us that there are now 800 refugees from Bangladesh in Canada
who have fled that country because of its harsh anti-democratic regime. Any criticism of its Government can result in 7 to 14 years' imprisonment. The national constitution has been suspended, and hundreds of students have disappeared or have been killed. It is estimated that, in the period from 1972 to 1983, 25,000 persons have been killed for political reasons.
Considering this grave situation and the fact that Canada provides substantial foreign aid to Bangladesh, the refugees ask the Canadian Government to make strong protests to the Bangladesh Government. In addition, they ask the Canadian Government to speed up the process for their official recognition as refugees, awaiting status with more humane, economic, social, and medical assistance.
I beg this House and the Government to give this matter serious attention.

Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today in all modesty and humility. It is not necessary to remind Canadians of what happened yesterday. The City of Toronto today is basking in the joy of reversing a 31-year drought. The Argos won the Grey Cup with an overwhelming victory, one that was never in doubt.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Members today must be somewhat apprehensive. For years we have been aided in our quest for national unity by Toronto's continuing successful role as the doormat of the Canadian Football League. Everybody loved to beat Toronto, and did so with regularity, and, in later years, with some affection. We from Toronto held this country together by giving all regions a common cause. They loved to beat Toronto, and we let them. But now, no more.
However, there is a new glimmer of hope on the horizon, Mr. Speaker. We need not view yesterday's result with apprehension. I refer to some recent remarks by Jim Coutts, that perennial candidate in the riding of Spadina.
Mr. Coutts has taken to making election predictions. He has likened election contests to sporting contests. Mr. Coutts, when asked about recent standings in the Gallup Poll, compared the Conservative Party with the Argonauts. Today I know that all Canadians, not just Argo supporters, will embrace that conclusion, for not only did the Argos win the Grey Cup but they won it having shut out their opponents in the second half. One final comment, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: This House owes a great debt to Mr. Coutts. He has demonstrated how something as potentially divisive as

November 28, 1983
a hard fought Grey Cup final can be transformed into a strong unifying force for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, last week on Private Members' day the Government talked out a Private Member's Bill on maintenance. This was a Bill directed to simplifying maintenance orders. It had the defects of a Private Member's Bill, and it is not the solution to the problem we need. Nevertheless, it is time to ask the Government what it is doing to bring in legislation on the matter.
The appalling rates of non-payment of maintenance orders have been known for years. The Law Reform Commission back in 1969 made recommendations for a more effective system. These were endorsed, and other recommendations were made by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada in 1970. Yet in 1976 another Law Reform Commission study reported that most maintenance payments were in arrears to some extent. The Government is on very poor grounds now in November, 1983, to be saying that more time is needed to study the complexities of the matter.
Thousands of Canadian women and children live in poverty as a result of nonpayment of maintenance orders. Last June the federal-provincial Committee on Enforcement of Maintenance and Custody Orders reported, with a number of specific and concrete recommendations for reform. Some require federal action, or joint federal-provincial action. Federal legislation is needed to facilitate the location of the defaulters and to make maintenance orders binding on pension benefits, estates, unemployment insurance benefits, and income tax refunds. The object is prompt, automatic enforcement.
A unified family court system is needed to permit one-step access to maintenance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, measures were introduced by the Government to strengthen the Canadian shipbuilding industry on January 6, 1983, and confirmed in a Ways and Means Motion tabled on June 29, 1983. These measures are crucial for the survival of the industry, and it is essential that the Ways and Means Motion be passed as soon as possible. We on this side have
been willing to support these measures with little or no debate if the Government would bring them forward.
Commercial orders in Canada have virtually dried up, and employment in Canadian yards has dropped from above
14,000	in March, 1982, to under 7,000 in September, 1983. Foreign built vessels are entering Canadian waters in record numbers. The industry needs the suppport it was promised in the January announcements because its very survival does hang in the balance. We are ready. We simply wonder when the Government will be ready to bring these measures forward.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government has repeatedly stated that it will bring government spending under control. But since the Liberals have been in power they have turned a budget surplus of $493 million into a $31.3 billion record deficit for this year. The interest on the national debt alone will cost taxpayers $17.6 billion dollars this year.
In private industry an enterprise with revenue that only equalled 65 per cent of expenditures and with gross debt that was four times the value of its net assets, would be forced into receivership.
It is time for the Government to stop the Canadairs and to review the Devcos, as the Canadian taxpayers cannot afford any more of these ridiculous handouts. The people of Canada want action, instead of words and promises. They want the Government to show some responsibility and require the recipients of these handouts at least to be held accountable.
The Government is very good at preaching restraint, yet at the same time it had no qualms about spending $15.7 million on food and entertainment in 1982-83. With that kind of restraint policy, the prediction by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969 that Canada would be on the road to financial disaster if nothing was done to control Government spending will become a reality.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, two years before his assassination Prime Minister Maurice Bishop of Grenada said that there must be a great outcry of international public opinion not only when the marines land in somebody else's territory but also when there is evidence of a systematic and concerted plan of destabilization. For Grenada, that outcry came too late. It is not yet too
November 28, 1983

late for Nicaragua. We must cry out against the growing United States threat against that country.
The United States has revived the Condeca group of frontline states to give a pretext of regional concern about security. In the United States the Council of Hemispheric Relations has learned that "Operation Pegasus" plans a buildup of contra activities from Honduras, trying to provoke a counter attack from Nicaragua. The United States continues war games and simulated invasions in Honduras. It finances violence within Nicaragua, where thousands of people have died, and it has just appropriated another $24 million for that purpose. In the meantime Canada has no embassy in Nicaragua and must get all of its information second or third hand, mostly from the United States.
Canada could help to stabilize the situation by opening its own embassy, and by providing aid on a priority basis. We must act-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, despite the discouraging Liberal results in the latest Gallup Poll, the media seem to think that John Turner is not horsing around anymore. The more he denies his interest in running for Liberal leader, presumably after "the Last Supper" coming up in December, the more we suspect that he intends to run. After all, how unexciting the life of a senior law partner must be as compared to the plush life of a future Opposition Leader.
While the cat is away the mice will play. While Mr. Trudeau is away-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: -in a last-ditch effort (a) to solve the world's problems, and (b) polish his own image, the Liberal pawns, seeing the possible future checkmate under King Trudeau, are seeking discreet ways to advance up the board and grab the crown. Even the beauteous and illustrious Iona Campagnolo may yet make the move out on the Liberal limb, that is if Jean or Eugene don't break it off first, but it is Mr. Turner who sits on the back burner-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is a real question about the use of Standing Order 21 for attacks on individual Members of the House. The Chair has brought this to the attention of other Members previously.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: This wasn't an attack, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton West.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY



LI TIC I ON STEEL INDUSTRY OF PROPOSED ALUMINUM SOL I DRINK CANS

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has taken some recent initiatives to boost Canada's steel industries. The changes to the Crow rate and the expansion of the rail networks in western Canada will give Canadian steel companies a chance to bid competitively for millions of dollars in contracts. As well, the Anti-Dumping Tribunal is currently looking into several claims put forth by Canadian steel companies about unfair pricing on some steel imports. However, it is a very serious concern to me that the Government of the Province of Ontario is presently considering ending the steel industry's monopoly on soft drink can production.
Stelco and Dofasco have carried out a department by department analysis of the impact on employment of the loss of the soft drink can market. Their analysis has shown that such a ruling would result in a loss of 607 jobs, with 560 of those lost jobs being in Hamilton and Nanticoke. Although these job figures are for the soft drink can market for all of Canada, a loss of the Ontario market would make production for the rest of Canada uneconomic.
The current regulations state that 85 per cent of each soft drink can must be made of steel. In light of the hardships that the steel industry has recently endured, a decision to end its monopoly in soft drink can production would be extremely burdensome. 1 therefore sincerely recommend that the Ontario Cabinet protect the steel industry's jobs in these difficult times.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. For the second time within a week a major report has shown the tragic human costs of unemployment. Over the weekend the Canadian Mental Health Association said that child abuse, suicide, alcoholism, disease, divorce and crime are soaring as a result of unemployment. Last week when 1 raised this issue with the Deputy Prime Minister because of a similar report by the Family Service Association, the Deputy Prime Minister tried to slought it off.
Today I would like to ask him, seeing that it was his Government's policies, and his 1981 budget in particular, that caused the hardships that so many people are suffering, will he tell us when the Government will realize the magnitude of the

November 28, 1983
Oral Questions
social costs it has created and begin to take steps to redress that cost?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think all Members of this House and all Canadians are very concerned about the social costs of unemployment just mentioned by the Hon. Member, particularly because in nearly all Canadian families there are young people who are entering the labour market for the first time and are unable to find employment. That is why, contrary to what the Hon. Member claimed, the Government has made every effort not only to increase substantially the amount of funding for job creation in this country but also to direct such funding more specifically towards training and jobs for our young people, and that is the kind of policy we intend to pursue in the future.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR WARNING GOVERNMENT OF POLICY CONSEQUENCES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, not only does the Deputy Prime Minister try to slough off these questions, he passes them over to someone else who will not answer for the costs that he created.
The Canadian Mental Health Association says that the real unemployment rate is much higher than that which is given by Statistics Canada, and that the downstream social costs are going to run into the billions of dollars because of prolonged unemployment. When the Government took the decision to introduce measures which would bring about higher unemployment, which Cabinet Ministers were responsible for warning the Government of the long-term social costs that would be created, and why did the Cabinet pay so little attention to them?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that a Member with the Hon. Member's experience should get upset because the Acting Prime Minister did not answer her question. We have a system in Parliament which also existed when the Hon. Member was a Minister, under which there are Acting Ministers when a Minister cannot be in the House. Today, I happen to be acting for my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and 1 shall certainly try to answer the Hon. Member's questions. I must say I totally disagree with the Hon. Member's argument that by introducing certain policies, the Government has created unemployment. In fact, the opposite is true, because as I said before in my first answer, everything is being done to focus employment policies on specific target groups, including young people and those groups where unemployment rate is very high, and I think the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance have demonstrated
in the past that we have created more jobs in this country than has been the case in any other OECD country in recent years.
[English]	.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ACT TO CREATE JOBS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Deputy Prime Minister does not want to own up to the mistakes he has made and that is why he sits in his seat. I would like to point out to him, or to the Minister he has named to speak in his place, that both of these reports in the last week stress the really long-term-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the Hon. Member please ask her question?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Because of the long-term problems that are going to be created for children of the unemployed, and these are stressed in both reports, when will the Government see that there will be enough jobs created to turn this situation around? When will the Government stop the escalating destruction of family life and of children's lives because of the policies it has already introduced? When will the Government turn that situation around? When will it see that jobs are created so that that kind of situation no longer exists in our country?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would do well to stop the rhetoric and start looking at the evidence. She would then realize that every day, jobs are being created all over Canada, through programs such as Canada Works, the Local Employment Assistance Program and the Career Access Program. Perhaps the Hon. Member would realize the extent to which Canadians in the private sector are making use of the Industrial Regional Development Program, the IRDP, under which eight industrial incentives programs were consolidated to accelerate the job creation process.


SKILLS TRAINING FOR RECIPIENTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Those of us on this side of the House are concerned about social costs, including wife beating, suicide, and alcoholism. The antidote to those problems, Mr. Speaker, is clearly for a person to have something productive and useful to do.
I wonder if the Minister could respond to this concrete suggestion. Current statistics indicate that one in 100 people who receive unemployment insurance are allowed to take training and receive benefits. Could the Government accept a target of one in ten Canadians who collect unemployment insurance being eligible to take training this winter? Could
November 28, 1983

those people be trained for a job rather than sit idle and collect unemployment insurance? Would the Government accept that suggestion?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an interesting suggestion, and I may say that over the last twelve months, we have been trying through the Skills Growth Fund to achieve this objective, in other words, to increase the number of people receiving benefits so that more people will be eligible for training, to ensure that these people will be able to find more permanent employment in the future.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, had the Minister looked at the data, he would have seen that the numbers are going backward rather than forward, according to the latest statistics.


REQUEST THAT ENERGY EXPLORATION FUNDING BE DIRECTED TO WESTERN CANADA
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, may 1 offer the Minister another concrete suggestion? Under the National Energy Program, funding for exploration in western Canada has been cut by one-third and funding for frontier exploration has been increased, not by an equal amount but by somewhat less than that, being about 40 per cent to 45 per cent. Frontier exploration creates less than half as many jobs as would be created through the same expenditure on exploration in western Canada. My concrete suggestion is to take the funding from frontier exploration and use it in western Canada to create more jobs and produce more oil faster during this crisis. This would mean that less money would have to be sent to Saudi Arabia and Mexico and that jobs would be created in Canada. Would the Minister consider taking that kind of a major initiative?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to consider all kinds of suggestions, but I may remind the Hon. Member, although 1 am not the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that as far as energy is concerned, both the Province of Alberta and the Government of Canada provide grants for industry and for exploration, and we are responding to requests from the private sector in this area. However, I think the Hon. Member's suggestion is worth looking into.


PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS-RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and refers to the Canadian Mental Health Association report. As the Minister knows, that report documents the suffering experienced by unemployed Canadians, including depression, anxiety, and mental illness.
Oral Questions
The Minister is well aware that corporate profits have reached pre-recession levels while the unemployment rate remains well above the pre-recession level of 7 per cent. Does the Minister think that it is fair that corporations should benefit from the recovery while people continue to suffer from depression and mental illness? How long will it take him to lower the unemployment rate to pre-recession levels?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the Hon. Member that, indeed, corporate profits have recovered but they have not recovered to the levels experienced in the 1970s before the recession. In addition I remind him that, if we wish to create jobs, those jobs will have to be created mainly by the private sector and the private sector must have high enough profits to allow it to create those jobs. The private sector will be the engine of growth in that regard.
1 would also remind my hon. friend that most of the jobs created in the last six months have been created by the private sector. Canada has created relatively more jobs than any other industrial country in the world. Canada has been a world leader in job creation in 1983 and we hope to continue that trend into 1984 and reduce unemployment as fast as possible.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we would like to see the Minister reduce unemployment as fast as he increases profits.


RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY CANADIAN MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the same Canadian Mental Health Association report indicated that we cannot continue to develop strategies that barely scratch the surface of this deep and dangerous issue. The report made several recommendations. It recommended that massive lay-offs be justified, that workers facing lay-offs be allowed time off with pay to look for another job, and that the Government improve and expand its job-creation and training measures. I would like to know if the Minister is prepared to take action with regard to these specific proposals or if he intends to stand by and watch Canadians suffer while their mental and physical health deteriorates.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member kept himself abreast of the actions of the Government he would know, for instance, that the Government has been constantly adjusting its job-training and creation programs to answer the needs of the labour force as those needs are changing. We are continuing to do this in order to make sure that we get the most effective results for the large expenditures of money that are being incurred to alleviate the serious problem of unemployment.

November 28, 1983
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


MAISLIN TRANSPORT LTD. BANKRUPTCY-ADVICE GIVEN BY DEPARTMENT'S OFFICIALS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and refers to the Maislin bankruptcy which will cost Canadian taxpayers some $34 million. I am sure the Minister is aware of a recent article in The Toronto Star which reports that his officials prepared a detailed report to Cabinet expressing grave doubts about the possibility of saving the Maislin situation. However, at that very same time the Government was indicating that there was a reasonable possibility that Maislin would survive. Clearly the House has been misled by the Government. Why did the Minister proceed with the bailout in the face of the clear and contrary advice of his officials?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, first I think the Hon. Member is making an assumption by saying that it would cost the taxpayers of Canada $34 million. As the Hon. Member should know because of his business experience, that is yet to be determined. Second, with regard to any report that may have been made by officials, 1 am sure the Hon. Member does not accept verbatim every single word in every report made by government officials no matter how distinguished or competent those officials may be.


NATURE OF GOVERNMENT'S DECISION
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has neglected to tell us why the report was ignored. I said at the time that it was a dumb business decision and a dumb economic decision. This report reinforces that conclusion. It also reinforces the conclusion drawn by Hon. Members on this side of the House that the decision was not based upon business or economics but was a pure political payoff. Can the Minister give any specific information today which would give Canadians a shred of confidence needed to believe that that conclusion is not warranted?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member continues to discuss the Maislin situation. If I recall correctly, Members of the Conservative Party were also against helping out Chrysler and yet that has been one of the greatest success stories in the history of the world.


GOVERNMENT'S DECISION-MAKING POLICY
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, we must determine whether this is just a $34 million mistake or whether there is a pattern of the Government ignoring early warnings given by its officials. Did the Government receive early warnings from officials against its actions in the cases of Canadair, Dome, and Massey-Ferguson?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, based upon his position when he was Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. gentleman should know that it is not the habit of Ministers to comment in the House upon discussions they have had with their officials. However, I wish to remind the Right Hon. Member that Massey-Ferguson is still operating and thousands of jobs have been saved across the country. White Farm Equipment has been bailed out twice by the Government, with some consideration given to representations made by members of his own Party. There are at least
11,000	people in the country working for the Chrysler Corporation who owe their jobs to the initiatives taken by the Government to assist this company in the last two years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Canadians deserve some guarantee that their money is not just being thrown away by the Government. From documents revealed over the weekend we know that the Government deliberately ignored the most serious warnings of its own officials that there would be a loss in the neighbourhood of $34 million.


REJECTION OF ADVICE
[Stage Direction]
Righ Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead): Mr. Speaker, the advice against this spending came in May 1982, and the decision to spend came in July, 1982. We want to know if there is a pattern of the Government receiving advice warning against waste of money and ignoring that advice, or is this case an accident? Is Maislin the only case in which the Government acted against the advice of its officials when its officials warned that public money would be wasted?
Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing to see the former Prime Minister of the country make a statement like the one he just made.
On every decision that the Government takes, it receives all kinds of advice. I am sure we could go back and look at the Chrysler situation, for example, and see that a number of representations were made by Members on that side of the House when the Right Hon. Member was Leader of the Opposition, against the Chrysler situation.
Sometimes Governments do make mistakes; sometimes things do not turn out exactly as planned. That is as disturbing to the Government as it is to the taxpayers of Canada. However, I think that the over-all track record of the Government in the so-called bailouts that the right hon. gentleman refers to, has been pretty good.
November 28, 1983


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At the weekend the President of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicated that the Government was not getting a big enough bang for its buck in social housing, that it might withdraw from the co-op sector of public housing, and instead, institute some kind of direct shelter allowance for low-income renters. Whether that report is accurate or not, 1 want to ask the Minister what his views are on the possibility of the Government withdrawing from social housing and public co-op housing and introducing a direct shelter allowance.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question at all of moving away or withdrawing from social housing. I hope the Hon. Member will take the time to read the report which is an evaluation of the co-operative and non-profit housing program and which has just been released. That report indicates what we have felt for some time, that is, that the program might not be targeted as well as we want and that we should look for ways of doing a better job. If the Hon. Member takes that positive attitude, then we are in complete agreement. There is no question of withdrawing from social housing programs.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer my question specifically on co-op public housing and on shelter allowance, both of which were mentioned by the President of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, at a time when thousands of Canadians are out on the streets. It is true that over the last five years the federal Government has reduced social public housing investment by $700 million.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I want a direct answer to my question on whether the Government is getting out of social housing and whether it is going into direct shelter allowance and away from co-op housing. Yes or no.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should really not confuse co-op housing, which is a form of social housing, with the other programs of social housing, particularly those intended for senior citizens, which is the group most in need. There is no question of moving away from encouragement to social housing for those who are most in need. The difficulty I have is that the queue of those waiting is getting longer, and the program is not adequately targeted for those who have the most pressing need for improved housing. Shelter allowance is one possibility, but it is one among a number of possibilities. That is why-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Roméo LeBlanc: If the Hon. Member would allow me to answer, instead of shouting, perhaps 1 could transmit some information. Shelter allowance is one proposal, but it is one which we have not adopted. We are examining it with the others recommended in the report.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, Canada made rather unfortunate headlines last weekend in Denmark as a result of a drug raid on the Canadian ambassador's residence in Copenhagen. Would the Minister indicate how long the Government knew that an international drug ring was using the Canadian ambassador's residence as a meeting place and drug depot for its activities?


Mr. Speyer:: A bunch of dopes!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is building up the case rather beyond what it deserves. The situation was drawn to my attention very recently that the local police were investigating an employee of the ambassador's residence on the suspicion that she had been involved in the drug business. We did co-operate with an investigation undertaken by the Danish police and they did uncover, I believe in the room of the employee at the ambassador's residence, a considerable quantity of hashish.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: One hundred kilograms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: A considerable quantity. We co-operated with the Danish police, and I think it is a good thing that the situation has been uncovered. It is not the normal situation.


Erik Nielsen: It was too big to hide under the bed anyway.


EMPLOYEE'S CONNECTION WITH FUGITIVE FROM CANADIAN JUSTICE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Would he indicate if the Government was aware that the maid to whom he has referred, and who was employed by the Canadian Government, for six years was working with one Bjaern Hinesberg, who skipped bail in Montreal in 1975 after being charged with six others for conspiracy to import drugs into Canada? Did the Government know that the residence was being used as a meeting place for the drug ring? In fact, when the investigation was under way and the maid was being arrested, the doorbell rang and two Britishers were arrested, were picked up right on the door step of the Canadian government residence, they being implicated in the drug ring themselves.
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and
Secretary of State for External Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker,

November 28, 1983
Oral Questions
that information was made public. It is a fact that while the police were apprehending the employee and finding the drug loot, a couple of accomplices walked in and accommodated the police at that very moment. Not both of them were British; one was an Irishman.


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in her absence I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to respond. I have in my hand a news release and a letter from the Minister stating that four offices will be decentralized, three from Toronto to places like Peterborough, Chatham and Timmins, and one from Halifax to Sydney, in the relocation of offices dealing with income security programs. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if there is any meaning in the fact that three of these four offices represent Liberal ridings, Chatham, Timmins, and Sydney, and the moves are all taking place during the period of the release, 1982-84. Why is the Minister not having the one in Peterborough take effect until 1986?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think if you look at the operations of the Government you will find that in the designation of offices under the decentralization we have been very fair.


CREATION OF JOBS IN PETERBOROUGH, ONT.
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, in trying to be fair, as the Minister no doubt is, in the letter to me she refers to the 165 new jobs that will be created in Peterborough. I am sure her colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, is happy to hear about that. If she is really fair to Peterborough, why is she creating the 165 jobs in 1986?


James Duncan Schroder: Mr. Speaker, I think this is further evidence of the fact that we are being fair. I do not think the people in Peterborough would be very happy about the fact of us not having those jobs.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A few weeks ago the Minister announced that Bell-Textron was building a large helicopter facility in the Mirabel area of the Province of Quebec. Could the Minister
confirm that in fact Bell Helicopter Textron first proposed a $37 million project rather than a $514 million project, which would create 22 jobs?


Edward C. Lumley: No,
Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact I believe the first project it raised with us was something like a quarter of a billion dollar project, and through good negotiation we were able to up that into a half a billion dollar project.


LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, of course we note that the federal Government is participating to the tune of $165.2 million. There were a number of other localities, in New Brunswick, Ontario and elsewhere, which were being considered. Could the Minister indicate whether or not localities in the Province of Ontario were offered the same federal financial assistance?


Edward C. Lumley: if I
recall, Mr. Speaker, the level of assistance for a substantial portion of that project was dependent upon the area in which the plant was located, using, for example, the tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, and tier 4 criteria laid down under the IRDP program.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have just one question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. As the Secretary knows, there have been numerous requests from authorities in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, inlcuding the President of UBC, for the federal Government to purchase Colony Farm from the Government of British Columbia before the farm gets black-topped, especially with the Smithers research facility now unavailable to the Department of Agriculture. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House whether the federal Government is actively considering this urgent request from the people in that area that the federal Government consider buying Colony Farm?


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I must say first of all that Agriculture Canada is at present operating a research station at Agassiz in southern British Columbia. In fact, Agriculture Canada does not need other farms for research in British Columbia. The Department does, however, deplore the fact that the Government of British
November 28, 1983

Columbia is getting rid of this 640-acre farm which is being used exclusively for agriculture, and it is to be hoped that other private interests will be able to acquire this property.

[English}


FINANCE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know that we now have a situation where the banks are involved in security trading, where we have the insurance companies wishing to be involved more openly as trustees of pensions plans and holders of securities for others, we have very unhappy trust companies, and the Minister is contemplating increasing their commercial lending. We have the credit unions again unhappy about their status. I was wondering if the Minister of Finance has any plans to introduce any legislation to clean up this mess in the regulation of financial intermediaries.
Are we going to leave the various branches of financial intermediaries to continue to compete with each other, break the existing statutes and, find a way around various regulatory controls? What plans has the ministry in terms of straightening out and ending the confusion between financial intermediaries and their individual responsibilities?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that, if he knows of any statute being broken, he should bring it to the attention of his provincial Attorney General so that action can be taken. I suggest to him that he will not be able to point out any such instances.
As to the other aspect of the Hon. Member's question, I am surprised that the Conservative Party is now for more regulation and less competition. If that is the new policy of the Conservative Party I am going to take note of it until it is changed by the critic for that Party, who said that the public should never know what its policies are before the election.
Finally, 1 would like to say that if any legislation is to be introduced, it will be announced in due time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South for a short supplementary question.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that there is a great deal of confusion taking place in the marketplace. The Minister knows that the Province of Ontario produced a White Paper-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member ask his question?
Oral Questions


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I was in the process, Mr. Speaker, of trying to get the question out as quickly as possible. When will the Minister advise this House as to where the Government stands with respect to the regulation of the various financial intermediaries, or is it just going to be a question of doing nothing and letting all heck break loose, as it did with Greymac, Seaway, Caledonia, and Strathcona? When is the Government going to do something to get that house in order?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that most of the cases referred to by the Hon. Member come under provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. Second, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the position of the Government is spelled out in the statutes and the regulations which are in effect at the present time. When 1 have changes to announce, they will be announced in due course.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that approximately 20 of the young men and women recruited by his Department in 1982 are now being posted. Will the Minister tell us why all of the women are being cross-streamed to Immigration and, evidently, none of the men?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no, 1 cannot tell the Hon. Member about that. 1 will make inquiries and give him all the information I can get.


IRISH EMBASSY POSTING
David Kilgour: Again, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 8,000 career personnel in the Minister's Department, will the Minister tell us why so many of the top positions are filled by people who are not promoted from within on the basis of merit? Will he also tell us why the ambassador to Ireland is no longer a career diplomat and is now one of the Minister's political friends?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the post in Ireland has been held by the same person for some months now. It has been the practice for the Government to appoint to a number of posts persons who are not members of the diplomatic service. 1 believe that is a defensible thing to do. I do not see any reason for being defensive about the present incumbent in Ireland.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY

November 28, 1983


MAISLIN TRANSPORT LTD. BANKRUPTCY-GOVERNMENT'S CONTINGENT LIABILITY
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and is supplementary to earlier questions put by the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre regarding the Maislin bailout. If I understood the Minister, in reply to a question he indicated that the taxpayers had not lost $34 million, I presume because the Government has not written the cheque yet. Is it true, first, that the Government is carrying on its books a contingent liability for $34 million with respect to Maislin? Second, and more important, what is the Minister's estimate of the taxpayers' loss? 1 presume his Department must have that estimate. If it is not an estimated loss of $34 million, by what lesser amount does the Minister estimate the taxpayers will lose over the Maislin bailout?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, being a member of the legal profession, will know that there is almost no way to determine amounts until such time as the receiver makes his report regarding the disposal of the assets and how much money can be raised as a result of the disposition of those assets. The amount of $34 million, as of this point in time, is incorrect, and we will not know the amount until such time as the receiver makes his final report.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. There is a growing sense of outrage at the lack of justice which is being accorded to Donald Marshall, who spent 11 years in penitentiary for a crime he did not commit. If, in a civilized and healthy system of justice, we try to right the wrongs which have been accorded to an individual, what leadership has the Minister of Justice shown in rectifying the injustice done to Mr. Marshall in terms of compensation for the legal fees and for the 11 years which he unjustifiably served in a penitentiary?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: As 1 believe the Hon. Member may know, those precise questions were asked and answered in this House last week. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Marshall was prosecuted by a Crown prosecutor in the Province of Nova Scotia under the direction of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, after the investigation of his crime by police of the City of Sydney, Nova Scotia, which, of course, falls under the jurisdiction of the Province of Nova Scotia. Therefore, there is no federal involvement of the Department of Justice in the investigation or trial of Mr. Marshall.
Although we certainly have no responsibility to do anything, because 1 am so concerned that the Province of Nova Scotia has not yet assumed any responsibility in this important case, I have discussed the matter with the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and asked him to consider very seriously the responsibilities I believe the Province should undertake.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, if the Province of Nova Scotia takes no action to correct this injustice, in those circumstances will the Minister of Justice act?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was elected in the Province of Ontario and knows, I am sure, that that Province, which has analogous problems in the field of justice, appears to be prepared to assume its responsibilities. Is he suggesting that, when a provincial Government does not fulfil its responsibilities in matters within its jurisdiction, the proper course for the federal Government is to play "Big Brother" and take over the whole of provincial jurisdiction? If that is the position of the Opposition on this, I would like to hear about it.


Some Hon. Members:: You hypocrite.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who will know that the Department of Public Works has approved the use of iron ore slag for break-wall fill in the harbour project at Port Dover, Ontario. Can the Minister advise us whether his Department has carried out studies on the effects of the slag on fish species found in Lake Erie?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I know that to give an adequate reply to that question I will have to review the report if it is with us at the present time.


MEDICAL CARE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. For a year and a
November 28, 1983

half the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been bemoaning the problems of Medicare associated with the question of extra billing and user fees. Once again she spoke on this issue in Toronto and pointed out the problems of delaying action. She said, "Each week we wait, each month we wait, there are Canadians who have to pay extra who can't afford it". Considering that the Government has scheduled another week's holiday to start this Wednesday, will the Government practise what it preaches, recognize there is a crisis in Medicare and, instead of recessing for that week, bring in a Canada Health Act now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it seems reasonable to me that the House should have a short break between the end of the longest session in Canadian history and the new session. 1 understand that break has been agreed to by all Parties in the House. I ask the Hon. Member not to be terribly disappointed because it will be possible to deal with the matter he has raised at an early date in the new session of Parliament.


EXTRA BILLING COSTS-REQUEST FOR EARLY ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say this is a crisis seriously affecting Canadians and, at the same time, say we need another week's break, just when we had a break two weeks ago. We are prepared to stay for that week, all day, every day, if it is necessary to pass the Act. We will do that.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Rubber stamp it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Just because the Conservative Party has not made up its mind on this issue does not mean we have not.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare pointed out that it is costing Canadians more than $1 million a week in extra billing costs alone. We have a crisis in Medicare and we could deal with that measure within a week. Therefore, why will the Government not bring the Bill before this House within 24 or 48 hours?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is sort of a regular pattern to this performance we are seeing today. It is known as the pre-Christmas NDP grandstanding.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Since I have been in this House, every time the House is ready to break for a well established reason the NDP always says, "Why don't we stay another day, another week and get this urgent piece of legislation done?" In the meantime they are filibustering most of the legislation, holding it up when it comes before the House.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT SCHEDULED WEEK'S RECESS BE CANCELLED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 remind the Minister that Christmas is on December 25, not today. 1 also remind him that the Government of Canada has been talking about action for a year and a half, the Liberal Party has been playing politics with the sick of this country, and we are tired of it. If the Government is so concerned about the whittling away of the basic principles of Medicare, which the Minister of Health goes on about week after week, and given the fact we had a week's holidays just two weeks ago, what would be wrong with coming back to deal with the matter within that week and restore to Medicare the basic principles which Canadians used to accept?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the Hon. Member that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is doing a tremendous job in supporting the principles of Medicare. She will be regarded as the person in this country who has taken the lead in that matter. I can understand why the Hon. Member wants to get a piece of the action rather late in the day. She is carrying the ball, and she will do it very well.


ADMINISTRATION OF PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Because of the drain on the Government Treasury caused by the PIP grants, and because of the many accusations that exploration companies are abusing PIP grants, has the Minister launched an inquiry from his Department into the administration and uses or abuses of PIP grants?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if such an investigation were to be made, it would not be done by my Department but by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If the Hon. Member has any specific charges to make, perhaps he could make these known privately to my colleague, or publicly if he prefers, but we shall investigate if he is able to provide evidence that some abuse may have occurred.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is fully aware that the cost of exploration drilling in the so-called Canada Lands has increased three-fold since PIP grants were introduced. As he is responsible for the federal treasury, and this is clearly a treasury responsibility, has he or his Department launched an investigation into the uses or abuses of the PIP grants program?

November 28, 1983
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I already answered the Hon. Member's question. He is repeating the same question so he will get the same answer.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
When he visited Valcourt about a month ago, the Minister said, in referring to the F-18 economic benefits, that to him it was obvious that Quebec would not be getting the promised 50 per cent of those benefits. Can the Minister confirm to the House what he said at the time?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I said in Valcourt that. . . First of all, I can inform my hon. friend from Joliette that we never promised 50 per cent. What I said in Valcourt was that it seemed obvious, since many contracts had already been allocated, that we would not achieve the desired percentage, but we were certain that over the duration of the contract that is, over fifteen years, we would get SI.5 billion in economic benefits, as we informed our fellow Quebecers when we gave the contract to McDonnell-Douglas Canada Ltd.


INQUIRY WHETHER ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR PROVINCE OF QUEBEC WILL BE AS PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED
Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I just want to remind the Minister that the former Minister of National Defence had spoken in terms of 50 per cent, according to the initial forecasts, which would give Quebec $1.5 billion. Now, as far as the percentage is concerned, I have the clear impression that the Minister is prepared to confirm that the commitment made by the former Minister of National Defence will not be respected. My question is quite straightforward: With respect to the percentage of economic benefits, could the Minister confirm that the 50 per cent commitment will not be respected?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to inform the Hon. Member that Quebecers will get $1.5 billion in economic benefits in Quebec, as a result of the F-18 contract. I may remind the Hon. Member, although some of his colleagues may not be as pleased as he is, that the Bell Helicopter contract and the Pratt and Whitney contract for research in the aerospace field will keep more than 50 per cent of the aerospace industry in
Quebec, and that is what Members from Quebec on this side of the House want to see.
* *
*


PETITION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) on Friday, November 25, 1983 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 64(1) I wish to table in both official languages a notice of Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act.


NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-699, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear-weapon-free zone.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take a moment to introduce this Private Member's Bill. I should point out it is very similar to Bill C-678 introduced by my friend, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), with two notable differences. The first difference is that when 1 drafted this Bill I was anxious to ensure that the conditions of Canada's nuclear weapons free status be made to apply to the Government of Canada both within Canadian territory and those regions of the world where Canadian forces may be stationed, in particular with reference to NATO. The second difference is to include in my Bill provisions for the Government to negotiate treaties and/or agreements with a verification in respect of Canada's nuclear weapons free status. I would point out that it seems to be especially timely to table this Bill at this time, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 28, 1983
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Motions. Should we go through the usual procedure at this point? The Hon. Member for Yukon.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, why do you not simply ask the Members in whose names the motions are put down if any of them wish to proceed today?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If any Hon. Members in whose name a motion stands recorded in the Order Paper wish to proceed at this point, would they please rise and so indicate? If not, we will proceed to Questions on the Order Paper.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,914


Miss MacDonald: 1.	Has the Highland Day Care Centre in Inverness, Nova Scotia, received grants and/or other funding from government sources to date and, if so, what were such grants or funding?
2.	Who is the proprietor of the Centre?
3.	What is the yearly rent for the premises?
4.	To whom and from what source is the rent paid?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. The Highland Day Care Centre in Inverness, Nova Scotia, now known and incorporated as the Shean Day Care Centre, has received funding for two Canada Community Development Projects (CCDP). This program was administered by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (CEIC).
Under Round II of CCPD-1982-$48,000 Under Round III of CCDP-1983-$40,000
2.	The Centre is located in the basement of the Royal Bank Building, a privately-owned property. The Director of the Centre is Charlotte Campbell and the President, Board of Directors is Rita Mclsaac.
3.	The rental rate is $300 per month or $3,600 yearly.
4.	The rent is paid to the proprietor. Information concerning the source from which the rent is paid is not available.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Huntington:
That this House agrees without reservation with the prediction of the Prime Minister made on August 13, 1969, in a nationally televised press conference when he said, "We'd soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control" and calls upon the Government to initiate policies which would avoid the Prime Minister's prediction.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) still has seven minutes remaining in his remarks.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, when we broke at lunch I was going over some of the priorities that I felt a House of Commons committee might look at in determining the priorizing of government expenditures. I was speaking about social services.
From this Party's point of view, we would expect that the first priority of any government expenditure would be to make sure that those less fortunate in our society had some of the opportunities, protections and safeguards in terms of education and health that those more fortunate have. Unfortunately, in some of our social service expenditures there is a tendency to look after the greedy more than the needy. In looking at those expenditures one might want to do some screening to determine whether those expenditures are really for those who need the service as opposed to those who happen to want to get to the trough. Basically, our view would be that the social net, the ability to look after our neighbours, is a thing that we look to government for first. Expenditures on social services would be our first priority.
Our second priority would go to the question of defending our nation. We think it is terrible that we do not spend sufficient money to protect our nation but rather depend, to some extent, on the nuclear arm of the United States for our protection. If we are going to have a place in the world and be respected in the world, and if we are going to protect our heritage, then surely we must spend more of our country's wealth in looking after that heritage.
The third point is that people in Canada demand that we use our funds to look after the sense of justice that is required; that the criminal law be enforced, that we have police protection to protect us from those in our society who might want to take advantage of us and that there be a fairness in the administration of justice. That that would be a priority.
Next, there would be a priority in terms of communication and transportation. After all, we are a great, diverse nation and we must keep our nation together. Therefore, expenditures in terms of communication and transportation are important expenditures which deserve some priority.

November 28, 1983
Supply
After you go beyond those you look at the other things that government does and you find that to a large extent what government does is spend money, but not very well. I have not been in this House that long, but 1 have heard Minister after Minister stand in the House and tell us how many jobs his Department or his program was creating. Indeed, if the Government has created all the jobs it has created, everyone in Canada would be working at least three shifts a day, seven days a week, trying to fulfil those jobs. The fact is that the Government is not very efficient at creating jobs. It is the private sector which creates jobs, the people with ideas and entrepreurial ability who create jobs. It is a waste of Government funds for the Government to try to do something which it does not do well.
We should consider what the Government can do. I have suggested some of those possibilities. The Government cannot entertain us well. The Government, through CBC and other activities which it tries to encourage in the name of culture, spends a lot of money trying to entertain us. The basic question is whether it is doing it very well. I suggest that any committee which would look into that would see those expenditures with a somewhat jaundiced eye.
The third point is that governments are in competition with each other. As a result, we see provincial Governments in this country with trade embassies in London, Paris and Rome. As well federal Governments have trade embassies in the same places. That duplication, and triplication in some instances with respect to health services, must be eliminated. Surely we could have a mechanism to determine which government may be best suited to do a job that is required. There would be no need for the involvement of other governments.
For instance, with respect to the health and medicare proposals made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), perhaps we should bear in mind where the responsibilities lie. If it is a provincial responsibility, perhaps the provincial Governments should deal with that responsibility and relieve the federal Government of the responsibility so it will not spend money from the federal treasury on those activities.
That is not to say that there should not be transfers of tax money from one jurisdiction to another. It does not mean that there should not be transfers to make sure there is equal opportunity in Canada. But the federal Government should not be involved in activities that clearly fall within provincial responsibility. It is a waste of money and effort. It is something which significantly increases our deficit.
Having determined what envelopes are available and how they are established, we should get down to the basic matter of how much money can properly be taken out of the system in terms of taxation. When that is determined, we ought to limit the spending of the Government to that amount while maintaining a healthy economy.
I appreciate that changes cannot be made instantly. We already have a system which has saddled us with what
amounts to a deficit of some $30 billion. The Government's priorities cannot be changed overnight in order to get us back into a position where government will balance on a cyclical basis. That must be our objective and one which a new government must attempt over a five or six year period. It may even take longer than that since the present Government has put us into a horrendously difficult financial position. We cannot easily wean ourselves from that difficulty. To some extent, we are almost like heroin addicts. We have been given a shot of more money in government services every year than we can afford to pay for and it will take us some time to withdraw from that level of government spending to which we have unfortunately become accustomed. It certainly is a level that we cannot afford. It will take a new government a number of years to get our country back into the position in which it should have been had the present Government followed its own leader's advice.
In order to reach that goal I believe it is necessary to follow the recommendation of the report by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure to create a special committee of the House to priorize government expenditures and act as a supervisory committee over how parliamentarians authorize the expenditures of taxpayers' money. In that regard may I move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting the period at the end of the last line and by adding the following thereto:
"including, but not limited to, the adoption forthwith of the Seventh Report of
the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does this mean that the Conservative Party is amending its own motion?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As far as the Chair is concerned, any Hon. Member of the House has the right and privilege of putting an amendment forward and this is what has taken place. In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is in order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I make this motion to the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the rules of the House, Hon. Members have the right to ask questions of the Hon. Member or to make a short commentary if they wish. Are any Members seeking to be recognized for that purpose?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Hon. Member if he would provide Members of the House with a brief explanation of the purpose of his amendment.
November 28, 1983


Donald Alex Blenkarn: 1 thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition, who seconded the motion, for giving me an opportunity to explain it. Members of the House are appointed to standing committees to review estimates. Usually, Members who are interested in a particular field of government activity sit on standing committees related to those areas. For instance, if a Member is particularly interested in environmental issues, he or she would sit on the standing committee which deals with the environment. Similarly, Members who are seriously interested in health and welfare sit on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
What happens is that those Members sitting on a standing committee are interested in seeing money spent in the area with which that standing committee deals. Therefore, they would like to see government expenditures given priority in their particular area of interest. We see that there is no over-all control on these expenditures and when we stand in the House to deplore government spending it is always in an area of interest to someone else.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Hon. Opposition House Leader is the Member who asked the Hon. Member to explain the intent of his motion. He has now left the House. Since he is the only Member who wanted to hear, he should-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South may complete his answer to the question.


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is an experienced parliamentarian. He realizes that Parliament has a certain dignity that is important, but I recognize him on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is on the record now that what the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) said is totally without foundation. That is all I wanted to have on the record.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South can complete his remarks.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the reason for the motion is that the existing parliamentary committee system does nothing to scrutinize, reduce, or control spending within an envelope, an envelope system or a departmental system, for that matter. Generally speaking, those people scrutinizing the estimates are Members of Parliament who are very interested in that class and kind of spending. Therefore, they would like to see, if anything, that spending increase. Invariably Members who are interested in environmental issues will ask that more spending be undertaken on environmental issues. Last week we had a concern with respect to forestry. Members who are interested in forestry spoke in favour of more spending on forestry.
Supply
Perhaps there should be spending there, but that is not to say there should not be.
If we are ever to come to grips with spending, what must have an over-all budget committee of this House of Commons that deals with spending in totality, that somehow priorizes that spending, that insures the estimates sent to standing committees have a priorization in terms of the total amount going to those committees. Unless we do that, we will never come to grips with control because we have nobody trying to control it. The present system leaves the foxes in charge of trying to control the hen house. They control it all right. They keep on eating the chickens and the eggs and they are eating us out of house and home. Very soon the country will have to borrow more money than the total savings of the country.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) who sits right in front of me. Why is the Hon. Member proposing an amendment to his own motion? 1 do not understand why the Conservative Party does not have its act together enough that its two Members could not talk to each other and move a proper motion. I know this way not be unusual; they seem to have differences in policy every day. 1 just read a book on the Conservative leadership race and I am beginning to be struck by the kind of incompetence in the Conservative Party that claims to have a sort of business competence. Why could the two Members not get together and present a united resolution? Why do we have to have two resolutions? Is it because, like most things these days, we have two policies from the Conservative Party?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am most impressed with the Hon. Member's ability to read. The reason the motion is separate is so there are two votes. First, we are voting on whether this House agrees with the Prime Minister who in 1969 suggested that there be serious limits on expenditure. Second, as a result of the amendment we can vote separately on whether we should support the seventh report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. What could be clearer than that? If the Hon. Member can undertand the procedures of this House he would understand why there are two votes. First, he will now be entitled to vote separately on whether there should be a committee of this House to deal with the priorizing and controlling of the expenditures of the nation. And, second, he will be entitled to vote on whether he should support the Prime Minsiter of Canada when he made that statement in 1969 that forms the critical part of this motion.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on a very reasoned, logical and sensible presentation this afternoon. 1 was rather struck with his very good idea that what we should be doing instead of adding up each departmental estimate and then presenting the House of Commons with a bill for all these things we would like to spend is that we should be finding a maximum that we should impose on the Canadian public by way of taxes-presumably a percentage of the Gross

November 28, 1983
Supply
National Product. Ideally, what would he suggest should be taken away from Canadians in the form of taxation? What percentage of the Gross National Product?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the Hon. Member has given me an opportunity to answer that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member should answer that question in about a minute and a half.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I will not take long, Mr. Speaker. In 1968 all governments in this country spent 33.7 per cent of the Gross National Product governing us. At that time the Prime Minister said that if we did not control spending we would be in trouble. We were spending 33.7 per cent of the Gross National Product in 1968. In 1982 we are spending 47.3 per cent of the Gross National Product. The answer is clearly that what the Prime Minister said in 1968 is what we should be spending. Our trading partners spend about 35 per cent of their GNPs governing themselves. We are trying to spend well in excess, if you add in the Crown corporations, of 50 per cent of our GNP governing ourselves. No wonder we have horrendous unemployment. No wonder we have distress and economic problems.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to join in this debate. First, I presume the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) will rise and ask me a question at the end of my speech as he usually does, but I was interested in his amendment. From the way he described his amendment, he does not know what he did. The seventh report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure does not in any way set up a committee which would establish spending priorities for this Government. Committees of this House do not do that. Parliament does not do that. The Government sets priorities. Committees hold the Government accountable.
The Hon. Member for Mississauga South was talking about this committee setting the priorities for government spending. Clearly the Hon. Member does not know what he is talking about. That is the beginning of a long litany of sins committed in his speech. It seems to me that when one puts forward an amendment, one should understand what the amendment is supposed to do with regard to the main motion.
We heard today from the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South a litany of comments from history to the effect that great problems have occurred in this country as a result of deficits, as though there was some insidious plot to nationalize the entire economy, and so on and so forth.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Isn't there?


John Leslie Evans: We should take this whole question of deficits into perspective. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South did speak about what he called a structural deficit and a cyclical deficit. I think we have to understand, and the people certainly understand, that we have just gone through the most massive recession worldwide that has occurred in the past 50 years. This Government did not want to impose or see imposed upon
its people the kind of suffering that occurred in the 1930s. In talking to my senior citizens, I asked them what happened in the 1930s and whether they could compare the current recession with the 1930s. They told me there is no comparison. There is no comparison because we put in place a highly sophisticated, highly effective social safety net that has protected Canadians in a way that was simply unknown and unhoped for in the 1930s. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. We have protected Canadians who were struck by unemployment. We have protected Canadians who were unable to work because they were senior citizens and because they were infirm. That social safety net is there. It is strong. It is doing the job it is supposed to do. However, it costs money. I am asking the Opposition Members during this debate to stand in their place and say that the deficit is more important than the social and financial security of Canadians. If I hear that, I will know where the Conservatives stand. I do not know where they stand now.
We hear the great rail about the terrible deficit, "Oh my God, the deficit has to be brought down immediately." In another part of my speech I will bring forward statements by Members opposite, Members who out of one side of their mouth cry for a reduction in the deficit and out of the other side cry for increased expenditures in their own riding. You cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in reducing the deficit at all costs, or you do not. You cannot stand up one day and say the deficit is too high, that it has to be reduced and there has to be greater fiscal responsibility in this country and the next day stand up in the House and say that the Government must spend billions more on job creation, billions more on research and development, billions more on national defence, billions more on forestry and billions more for fisheries. You have to come down on the issue. Either you believe in it or you do not.
The clear, unequivocal answer to that question is that the Tories do not really believe it. They are putting up the deficit and pulling scare tactics on the Canadian people. However, when it comes right down to the bottom line, the Tories will not be dealing with that deficit. To do so, they would have to attack programs that Canadians have come to hold dearly, programs that have supported Canadians well during the worst recession the world has known in 50 years. That is the bottom line. It is a bottom line to which these Tories will not respond.
We have heard that Canadian Governments in general, but the federal Government in particular, have allowed the deficit to run away, almost as though it had accelerated continuously during the 1970s. The facts are here. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was talking about the total government sector. With regard to the total Government sector, the deficit in Canada as a percentage of GNP peaked in 1978. It declined steadily until 1981. In 1982-83, we went into a recession. If the automatic stabilizers have any meaning at all, it would imply that when you go into a recession and the revenues of the government fall, people are thrown out of work, social expenditures rise, the deficit as a percentage of
November 28, 1983

GNP is going to rise. Precisely that effect is what is intended. When the economy is crumbling, the social safety net takes up the slack, substitutes income to people so that they are not thrown out on the street in destitution. That is what the safety social net is all about.
Yes, the deficit as a percentage of GNP rose during the recession. Thank God it did. If it had not, people would have been thrown out on the street. They would have lost their homes by the thousands. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) is going to rise in great indignation, but the point is that the deficit peaked in 1978, declined steadily until 1981 and then rose again.
Let us look at some comparisons. We heard a lot about comparisons, how Canadian Governments had run-away deficits unknown in any other part of the world. Let me quote some figures. In the period 1975-1981, the Canadian deficit averaged 2.1 per cent of GNP. In the United States it was 1.3 per cent, in Britain 3.7 per cent, in Germany 3.4 per cent, in Italy 9.7 per cent and in Japan 4.1 per cent, compared to 2.1 per cent of GNP in the Canadian deficit average.
During that period, the Canadian deficit was declining. We all admit that it rose during the recession, but there is not one Member opposite who has the intestinal fortitude to talk to his or her constituents or any other constituents in this country and say that he does not think the deficit should have risen during the recession and then tell Canadians how he would have stopped it from rising. When the world goes into a recession, being a trading nation, we are going to be affected by that. There is no doubt about it. That is clear, straightforward fact.
How was that rise in the deficit to be avoided? How was the rise in unemployment insurance to be avoided other than cutting it? How was the rise in the payments to the Provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan to be avoided other than by cutting? How were the moneys that went to Canadian industries to help keep those jobs and keep industries alive to be stopped from increasing other than by cutting those payments?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: By not creating unemployment in the first place.


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member talks like a Member with a paper head. Not creating unemployment. Has she been outside this country? Does she know what has been going on? Has she seen the three million unemployed in Britain? Has she seen the 30 million people in the western world who are unemployed? It was not just here. It was a world-wide recession. Canadians know this. It is time that the Tories not only knew it but admitted to it and started to take a realistic position.
The way to get the deficit down is not by taking the approach that some on that side of the House would have you believe, namely slashing away at things. It will not happen by increasing taxes. The way to do it is by growth. We can stimulate the kind of growth that is necessary in this country. Members opposite say, "The Liberals cannot do it, nobody trusts the Liberals", but during the last year we have had higher growth than was anticipated by any of the private
Supply
forecasters and lower rates of unemployment. In other words, unemployment is coming down faster than anybody forecasted. Our inflation rate has come down faster than anyone predicted. Interest rates came down faster than was predicted.
That is a darn good record. We have created jobs faster than any of the other OECD countries. There were 350,000 jobs created in our economy in the last year. That clearly indicates that when the Tories say the people have no confidence in a country run by the Liberals, they are all wet. The facts fly in the face of the Tory statements because Canadians are investing, spending and are buying houses.


Mr. Gamble:: Because they expect a new Government.


John Leslie Evans: It is not because they expect a new Government because that will not happen.
Some Opposition Members have said that we have to put priorities on our spending, that we have to reduce spending and bring Government expenditure under control. This has been expenditure-related because none of them will talk about possibly increasing taxes. They only talk about expenditure control. Let us look at what some Members opposite have said. When talking about controlling expenditures and bringing down the Government deficit, this is what we have. The Hon. Members for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), Northumberland (Mr. Hees) and Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) have all called for increases in defence spending. In fact, over the weekend, the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre said that we should be increasing defence spending from 2 per cent of GNP to 3.5 per cent of GNP, its being the NATO average. That would mean, Mr. Speaker, an increase in defence spending of $4 billion to $5 billion. Where is that $4 billion to $5 billion going to come from?
Why do we not talk to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) about reducing the PIP grants that are supporting oil exploration off Newfoundland? What about cutting back on the East Coast fishery agreement? Perhaps Hon. Members opposite would like to talk to those two gentlemen about those issues.
Are the Hon. Members on that side of the House really concerned about reducing spending? What about the statements made by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Hon. Member for Central Nova regarding maritime freight rates? Perhaps we should talk to them about reducing those freight rates. In the House the other day, the Hon. Member for Central Nova said: "Only 67 million for maritime freight rates? That is a pittance, it needs to be much more." That does not sound like a reduction in spending to me, Mr. Speaker.
While we are hearing the calls for the reduction of the deficit, what is happening? Hon. Members on the other side are saying: "Wait a minute, why do we not increase spending in my area?" This happens day after day as evidenced by the speeches, oral questions and statements under Standing Order

November 28, 1983
Supply
21 that are recorded in Hansard. We hear the litany of cries not for reduced spending but for increased spending. They want increased spending here and increased spending there.
The Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) has called for massive increases in research and development funding. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) speak about West Coast fishing subsidies. That can be found at page 28679 of Hansard. The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), as can be found at page 28891 of Hansard, spoke about a forestry policy that would greatly expand Canada's role in reforestation. All of the things I have mentioned are very good public policies but all of them are totally inconsistent policies for a group that says it has a deficit fetish and will reduce that deficit.
I shall go on. The Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), the Hon. Member for Kingston, the Islands and the Hon. Member for St. John's East have all spoken about new and expanded employment programs which call for more government spending. The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), as evidenced on page 28892 of Hansard, and the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River, as evidenced on page 29172 of Hansard, have all spoken of increased support for the mining industry.
We should speak to the Hon. Member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer) and the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson) about the possibilities of a Conservative Government reducing support to the prairie grain farmers. Where did those Hon. Members stand on the Crow issue when we were attempting to free up moneys in order to improve the western rail system? They were voting against us. What would happen if all of the money needed for the western rail improvements came out of the federal Treasury? I ask the ladies and gentlemen on the other side of the House, what that would mean for the deficit? Where were they during that debate? No, they do not want us to talk to them about that.
How would the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) feel about eliminating the $200 million for the Winter Olympics in Calgary? That is one way of reducing the deficit. Would he like to hear about that, Mr. Speaker? Oh, no, he would not. What about the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek) who, as reported on page 28677 of Hansard, has called for increased support for small business? What about the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) who, as reported on page 29081, of Hansard, has called for the introduction of shelter allowances? What about the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) whose riding is benefiting from the program of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) designed to build helicopters? It seems that Pratt & Whitney, the company that builds engines for those helicopters, is located in the riding of Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Show me the place where.


John Leslie Evans: Would he say that he would give that up in the interest of reducing the deficit?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind being criticized, Mr. Speaker, but 1 ask that the Hon. Member refer to the time when or the place where I made any suggestion for increased expenditure.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry if I did not do that. 1 was referring to a situation which had occurred in committee. He was asked to stand up and say that he was opposed to spending money on the helicopter plant and he very kindly declined to do so. He was quite embarrassed by one of his colleagues who was decrying this situation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Read your committee report.


John Leslie Evans: The Hon. Member can stand up after I have spoken and say that he would not like to see that money spent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Sure, will do.


John Leslie Evans: He will do that. We have all heard him say that he will do that and, of course, we will send a copy of Hansard to Pratt & Whitney.
The fact is that day after day, we hear in the House about how terrible the deficit is and how a Tory Government would tackle that deficit with vigour. However, Mr. Speaker, day after day the truth comes out. A Tory Government might spend that money in a different manner but it would spend it nonetheless. That is the fact, Mr. Speaker. I have indicated a litany of comments to prove that and I only read through Hansard for the month of November to find that proof. If I were to go back over the 30,000 pages of Hansard, there would be a stack of 8'/i" by 11" pieces of paper standing taller than I do containing suggestions for new spending and additional spending and condemning the Government for not spending more.
We must face the facts. The fact is that a government with a philosophical bent similar to that of the Party opposite took power in the United States. In 1978, there was no deficit in the United States. By 1982, the deficit had grown to 3.8 per cent of Gross National Product. That occurred under a government that was going to put things back on track.
As 1 have said before, Mr. Speaker, from 1975 to 1981, the Government of Canada has a deficit which was, on average, 2.1 per cent. Japan's deficit was 4.1 per cent, Germany's was 3.4 per cent and Britain's was 3.7 per cent. That does not indicate to me that this Government has been out of line with reality in terms of government expenditure and macro-economic policy.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we do not have the best social safety net, we certainly do have one of the best social safety nets of any country in the world. During the recent recession, that system was tested and tested hard and it stood the test. That system was put in place by a Liberal Government. It is being maintained by a Liberal Government and a Liberal Government will fight like hell to make sure that
November 28, 1983

that group on the other side does not get into power and rip that system apart, because that would rip the social conscience out of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) made one excellent point and then failed to expand upon it. He indicated that the salvation of the nation did not lie in increased taxes, and with that 1 am sure he will find agreement from all Members of the House. He did say, however, that that salvation lay in growth and then significantly failed to mention how that growth was to be developed.
The Hon. Member did say that the actions taken by Members on this side of the House were all directed toward increasing expenditures and then proceeded to refer one after another to certain Hon. Members who may have spoken, as he indicated, in favour of expenditures for a specific purpose. Let me ask him how significantly the incurring the obligations by the Government to the extent of $1,700,000,000 earlier this year for the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and how significantly the incurring of obligations to the extent of $900 million earlier this month for the same organization under an amendment to the Bretton Woods Agreement will benefit the taxpayers of the nation and the people from whom he has spoken when in fact none of those funds are tied conclusively to the purchase of any goods or services in Canada.
While he is answering that question, he might explain whether he believes that the massive deficits we currently suffer from have had any effect on the value of the Canadian dollar. If they have, is that effect, as explained by the Minister of Finance, the need to keep interest rates in Canada equal to the interest rates in the United States? If that is the case, could the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council indicate to the House whether, in his view, that unfortunate following in terms of interest rates had a beneficial effect upon the business community, home owners and ordinary consumers of the country who for too long have suffered the blight of excessive interest rates?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. This is not an opportunity for another 20 minute speech; it is basically an opportunity for roughly a 90 second question or comment period. May 1 take it that the Hon. Member is asking a question? 1 think he has asked several so I will recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked so many questions that I cannot remember them. One question was whether the deficit was the main cause of the decline in the value of the dollar. No. That is straightforward. Many other factors were involved such as productivity or wages and salaries, which got out of line. That is not a function of the deficits. There were many factors that caused the value of our
Supply
currency to drop vis-a-vis that of the United States. I might add that our currency, relative to other currencies in the world, has gone up, not down. There was a very strong U.S. dollar relative to ours and that caused ours not to rise as fast as the U.S. dollar relative to other world currencies. So relative to the U.S., our currency is down a bit. If you look at relative deficits-


John Albert Gamble: Deal with interest rates.


John Leslie Evans: The fact is that the United States is the biggest capital market in the world. Money moves in and out of the United States, in and out of Europe and in and out of Canada. When interest rates in the United States are forced up by policies followed in the United States, they are going to rise in Canada as well. That is a long-established fact. If you have an open market, if you are a trading nation, you are going to be subject to the whims of the monetary policy of a massive nation that you do business with. That is what happened to interest rates.
The Hon. Member asked the first question and I would have liked to respond; I had the answer but I cannot remember the question.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that he felt that Government handouts to business were a good thing. I suggest to him that we do not necessarily agree with that. If somebody is going to hand out money, then I suppose every businessman in the country is going to line up to collect. If the Government is establishing a reputation for giving handouts, then I suppose my constituents will be there, with others, with their bushel baskets, ready to collect. The question is whether that is a priority for Government spending in the first place.
Does the Hon. Member agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who said on August 13 that we would soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control. Does he believe spending is under control? If so, how would he rationalize the structural deficit described in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) filed in the House on April 19 last?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in 1968 I would have agreed with the Prime Minister. I would ask the Hon. Member if in 1983, specifically a few days ago, he would have agreed with his Party's finance critic who said that the Finance Minister had little choice this year except to plan for a deficit in the $30 billion range, and who added that the large deficit this year is necessary to encourage economic recovery.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he does not consider it pretty serious that Government borrowing to cover the annual deficit now stands at 51 per cent of all net new security issues placed in Canada? Does he realize that the interest being paid on the debt of the federal Government now takes all of the income tax paid by taxpayers earning $50,000 and less in Canada; that it is now $1,600 per taxpayer or some $700 per capita in Canada? Does

November 28, 1983
Supply
he not consider that a calamity and an impending disaster? Does that interest charge against our revenues not interfere with the delivery of good social services?
The Elon. Member talks about expanding the Armed Forces to play our part in defending freedom and the tensions in the world. Could that money not be moved from some of the $8.5 billion spent on UIC and so put people into meaningful work and training programs?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about a near doubling on defence, which would go from 2 per cent of Gross National Product to 3.5 per cent of Gross National Product, that is not primarily an increase in manpower although one Hon. Member spoke about an increase in our NATO equipment back to 10,000.
I am sure that an increase in defence spending would in some way increase employment but I suggest that there are more effective ways of doing that than by spending on defence.
The Hon. Member has raised other issues. According to what he has said in the past, I believe he is seriously concerned about the size of the deficit. I am concerned about it and 1 am concerned about the size of the interest payments because that is money that is not being spent to provide good social services and other goods to Canadians.
We have gone through a period of very high interest rates but we have been able to bring down the world economy and we have contributed to bringing interest rates down substantially. As those bonds are refinanced, the interest cost of the debt is going to be reduced. If we can keep inflation down, and I think we can, interest rates will come down further and the interest cost of the debt will be reduced.
If we can get growth going and the deficit is reduced as a percentage of the Gross National Product, then we will be in a position where the interest expense and the size of the deficit will be manageable. The nub of the issue today is whether, during a period of serious recession, the Government should be condemned for doing what a Government with a strong social conscience should do, and that is, protect the people who need protection the most. That is precisely what we did during the recession that we are coming out of now.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with utter amazement and some despair to the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans). 1 do not know where he has been this last while. Perhaps, being isolated in Ottawa, he does not understand the suffering and the problems that have been created in the country for the millions of people who are unemployed. He passed that off as if there really were no problem for them. If he had seen the reports in the weekend newspapers, he would know what one organization after the other is saying is the terrible social cost borne by millions of Canadians as a result of the policies of the Government. Canadians are being thrown into despair, anxiety and anguish because of steps which his colleagues took which he backed up. I do not know where he has been when he stands up and makes statements like he does.


John Leslie Evans: What policies?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He should take a look at headlines in the papers which say what the Government has been doing over this last few years. "Lives of millions in jeopardy" reads the weekend edition of the Kingston Whig-Standard. From the Ottawa Citizen we have "Unemployment destroying lives".


John Leslie Evans: Tell us how the Government caused that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: From the Saturday Toronto Star we have "Jobless rate spells ruin, group warns." The Canadian Mental Health Association, the Family Services Association, both say it was the unemployment policies of this Government which have thrown those people into the despair they are in today. They are afraid to listen to the truth; that is what is wrong with Members opposite. Every time Canadians try to bring home the difficulties they are in, those Members get up and run.
The motion before us today, Mr. Speaker, addresses the financial disaster precipitated by Members of this Government-


John Leslie Evans: Name them.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: These policies have led not only to financial disaster, Sir, but also to human suffering and misery for millions of Canadians. The policies of this Government have led to widespread lay-offs, falling incomes, a decline in productivity and sharply reduced employment opportunities for many hundreds of young people. The failure of the Government to recognize the impact of its sterile economic policies has, in turn, generated massive social costs which could have been averted if proper economic policies had been adopted.
There are a number of direct ways by which we can calculate the tremendous and escalating costs of the doubledigit unemployment which, over the past two years, unfortunately, has become the norm for Canada. We can look at the cost of unemployment insurance benefits, which will total $11 billion this year. Two years ago that cost was $5 billion. We can look at the revenues of the federal Government, which are down 3 per cent so far this fiscal year from two years ago. We can look at the 1.4 million Canadians officially counted as unemployed and looking for work. We can look at the 100,000 Canadians who have given up looking for work, and the
400,000	trying to make it with part-time jobs when they want to get full-time jobs. These are the direct costs, Mr. Speaker, and they are staggering. They come out of the 1981 budget of the former Minister of Finance, the National Energy Program and a whole host of other programs which this Government foisted on this country.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense. Where have you been?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Those are the direct costs. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that while you can put more or less
November 28, 1983

realistic dollar figures on them, there are other more frightening costs which are all too often ignored.

Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the social suffering resulting from the unemployment, the despair of people who have lost their jobs and their homes, young people who have never been able to find regular employment. Add to this the state of hopelessness and utter despair that leads to family break-up, violence, increases in crime, and mental and physical sickness. These costs are rarely calculated. In fact, it is probably impossible to do so, but they are there just the same. Who can put a figure on the cost to a family, to a son, daughter, husband and wife who have been looking for employment for weeks or even months without success and where the situation has become almost intolerable? Last week, the press reported that according to a Gallup poll, three out of ten Canadians, which means 30 per cent of the people of this country, are still suffering from the pain associated with unemployment. [English]
In case there is any doubt, Mr. Speaker, as to the connection between unemployment and the agony and cost to a family, let me refer to two major reports which were released in the past week. The first is by the Association of Family Service Agencies and it was released in both Canada and the United States. That Association said that unemployment has become the greatest threat to family stability in Canada and the United States in the past two years. It goes on to cite the tremendous social costs which will have to be borne as a result.
The Canadian Mental Health Association over the past weekend cited the direct links between unemployment and the disastrous consequences to Canadian family life. It said that family life in Canada is becoming filled with anger and despair, and child abuse, suicide, alcoholism, disease, divorce and crime are soaring as a result of unemployment. That unemployment was triggered by this Government.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Earlier this year. Sir, the officials of the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development had the courage to own up to what was taking place. They knew where the responsibility lay for this. They produced a paper which showed this. They frankly conceded that policy-induced high interest rates were one of the major causes of the recession here in Canada and explained why it has been deeper in this country than in any other industrialized country. Policy-induced high interest rates, the Minister's own advisers have said, have led us to the depths of this depression. Yet the Government abdicates responsibility for the recession, while at the same time, if there is any hint of recovery, it goes out and says, "Look, we are responsible for that." That is the double standard which Government continually foists on both the economy and the people of Canada.
Hon. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, want Canadians to develop amnesia, to accept the current situation as normal, to forget that three and one half short years ago, when that
Supply
Government returned to power, the prospect of a million or a million and a half unemployed Canadians would have sent shudders down the national spine. They would like Canadians to forget it was normal, just a few short years ago, for high school and college graduates to find work within weeks, not months, after graduating; that it was reasonable for a young couple to expect to own their own home and for the poor to be able to count on a growing economy to produce sufficient revenues to improve their lot. However, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are not prone to self-induced amnesia, they cannot and will not easily forget the losses they have suffered and are still suffering, losses of income, of jobs, of homes, of hope, of opportunity.
This Government has failed, Sir. It has failed in its policies and in its commitments to the people of Canada, and the failure of the Government in the first place was in not having avoided the recession which it created. In the second place, its failure was in not having diminished the calamity of a world recession, and its third failure was in not having found a way out of the mess into which it has plunged us all, but especially the poor of this country.
We have before us, Sir, in the Supplementary Estimates, an item of $291 million under the Canada Assistance Plan. That item is in addition to the forecast of just six months ago. It is statutory, not discretionary, because of federal-provincial arrangements. It is needed because the welfare costs incurred by the Provinces at this time are $291 million higher than forecast by the Minister just six months ago. Since inflation has not risen in that period, that means there are about 10 per cent more people on welfare than the Minister forecast. They are on welfare because they have no jobs and their unemployment insurance benefits have terminated.
Let us be under no illusion about this amount, Sir. This is not a magnanimous gesture by a generous and compassionate Government to make life a little easier for the present recipients of social assistance. The money is going to new recipients. But, Sir, there is a cost far greater than this dollar figure would indicate, the human cost. It is the cost represented by the tens of thousands of our fellow Canadians who are just not making it. It is the economic cost to all Canadians of rehabilitation programs, of psychiatric care, of privation, of police services, courts and prisons, costs we will not truly come to know until the lives of the children deprived through the recession unfold before us. The Canadian Mental Health Association and the Family Services Association say that we are foisting costs on the children of the unemployed which we will simply not know for years to come. These children are deprived by and penalized through the policies of this Government.
There is a further cost we may never be able to calculate, that of the thousands of Canadians led into ways of survival beyond the system, outside the pale of what we call civilized society. They are outside the welfare system, outside unemployment insurance benefits, outside of social assistance or

November 28, 1983
Supply
insurance, and into crime and the underground economy. Every Member of this House knows from his or her correspondence and from constituents what it means to be broke, out of work and out of luck in this great country of ours as we approach the winter of 1983. That is what is so tragic, Mr. Speaker. We know the social consequences of hopelessness and poverty. If we have any compassion at all, we can understand the despair and the cries for help which have been triggered.
What concerns me is that when we raise questions with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the Deputy Prime Minister or the person they put up to answer these questions today, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Lapointe), we seem to get no comprehension at all of the tremendous social costs being created. The Social Planning Council of Toronto has outlined it very clearly in its recent paper "The Poor Get Poorer". They say that poor people generally have less access to adequate nutrition, clothing and housing. They tend to experience more serious health problems and stresses relating to discouraging personal circumstances. The National Council of Welfare directs its attention to the effects of poverty on children. They say inadequate family incomes not only results in material deprivation for children, but increases the likelihod that they would suffer from poor health, malnutrition and family conflicts. Poverty was also linked to poor school attendance, low educational and career aspirations and conflicts with the law.
These people are paying the price, because the people managing the economy, the Government of Canada, have failed consistently and continuously. Most of all, the Government is failing to respond to the indicators which point to a social crisis of enormous magnitude in the future. Currently the income of those on social assistance falls anywhere from 20 per cent to more than 50 per cent below the poverty line. We know that while the poor are getting poorer, they are also getting more numerous. Last year another 550,000 Canadians fell below the poverty line. We know that those hardest hit by the loss of jobs, the reduction of hours, wage cuts and wage freezes, were young families and families headed by women, people who would be the last to benefit from any recovery. The recession has been cruel to all Canadians but crudest of all to those least able to bear its hardships. How can we hope to face the new challenges ahead of us, the challenges of technology, if we cannot meet the problems before us now?
This Government stands condemned, Mr. Speaker, because it cannot deal with the problems of today. It certainly cannot cope with the problems of tomorrow. It cannot deal with the problems of today because of a lack of foresight which brought us into this recession and which created the widespread human suffering and despair seen on every side. The human suffering and despair which the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre simply does not seem to comprehend. The symbol and evidence of that lack of foresight, Mr. Speaker, is with us here today in that increased estimate for the Canada Assistance payments. The Government did not see that once again its policies were going to escalate that payment. How much better if that kind of money could be put into jobs, to create meaningful occupations for these people. It would give them some dignity, allow them to feel they are not living as second-class citizens in their own country and that they are contributing to the betterment of this country.
It is true, Sir, that we will pay that additional sum, because of course we must. Our fellow Canadians need it. But much more than the basic survival which this gives them, they need a Government committed to the economic recovery and prosperity not just of the lucky few in this country, but of all Canadians. It is well past time that they got that kind of Government, and it is not to be found over there on the Government benches today.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's message is one that many in this House would not disagree with. We cannot tolerate poverty, we cannot tolerate high unemployment, we have to do things to resolve that situation. The problem I have is that today's motion condemns the Government for running deficits. It has nothing to do with expanding programs but has to do with a Tory policy of contracting deficits which means cutting spending. How does the Hon. Member square the circle of being in favour of enhanced spending on new programs, which she and many in this House are for, with the intent of the motion to condemn the Government for doing precisely that during a period in which we face a world-wide recession of enormous proportions and to which this Government responded by allowing the deficit to rise? How can she stand there and condemn this Government for doing something and still say that she supports the motion which the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) put forward?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council does not seem to understand it that there is a way to bring about increased revenues into the federal coffers, that is to have more people at work; not on unemployment insurance, not on welfare, not on assistance payments, but at work contributing to the country and paying into federal revenues. If the Member would only look at it he would see that the revenues of the federal Government are down this fiscal year by 3 per cent. That is the problem that we have facing us. Naturally, when revenues fall you are going to have greater deficits. We are saying that a Progressive Conservative Government would bring in programs which will create jobs and not ensure, as this Government does, that people remain unemployed and out of the labour force.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, let us get down to brass tacks. Does the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands agree with the defence critic of her Party who says that we should be moving toward and increase in our defence expenditures from 2 per cent of GNP to 3.5 per cent of GNP at a time when she is saying that we need to put more money where the need is greatest, and that is with the people who have the greatest need in this society? Does she agree with the policy of the critic?
November 28, 1983


Mr. Crosbie:: Naturally.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As Minister in the former Government I can say that I certainly agreed with the strengthening of our Armed Forces. It is this Government that would not follow through on what we had decided. Apart from that, let me mention the $1.4 billion which that Government spent on Petrofina, money it sent out of the country. What about that $1.4 billion which could have gone to provide jobs for Canadians in Canada? Think about those expenditures once in a while.


John Leslie Evans: It was an investment in the future.


An Hon. Member:: Exporting our money.


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to elaborate on her answer to the question from my colleague. She said that if she were in government they would have concrete programs to create jobs. What would those programs be?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: With regard to job creation 1 would ask the Hon. Member to take a look at where we should be in the next five years. I will give you an example of my own riding, Kingston and The Islands, which has the basis to provide jobs in new technologies. They are not being created there because the training programs for people have not been started by this Government. In this country we are not equipped at all to take advantage of the technological age. That is another example of failure on the part of this Government. We are being surpassed by Japan, France and Singapore in the technological age. That is where jobs would be created. However, before they can be created we need trained human resources.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I think we are getting somewhere. Now we have a concrete expenditure program that the Hon. Member wants. She wants the federal Government to get directly involved in a much higher level of training in terms of the new technologies. Have you put a cost estimate on it? Have you realized that training and education is basically a provincial domain and that your condemnation in this area is aimed directly at your provincial Premier?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, now I know why this country, under this Government, will never be able to compete with any other industrialized country as we enter the technological age. If it does not realize that leadership has to come from Government in co-operation with industry, unions and the educational system, he is not talking about the same world that most other countries are living in today. That is going to require a kind of commitment that the present Liberal Government is certainly not prepared to make, and which, properly handled, is going to bring the kinds of revenues into this country and create the kinds of jobs of which unfortunately they, over on that side, do not seem to have any grasp.


John Leslie Evans: You were singing a different tune during the constitutional debate.
Supply


Mr. Kelly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that the Government of Canada should introduce policies similar to those of a number of other countries, such as France, Japan and Singapore.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That's right.


Norman Kelly: What are the deficits of those countries? How relevant are those deficits to the debate that we have this afternoon? We are not debating job creation; we are debating deficits and the way in which they impact on the economy. If we are to emulate those countries, does that mean we have to spend more money? If you have followed the policies of those countries closely, you should be able to tell me what those deficits are.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am far more interested in providing jobs for Canadians. I know that in those countries, where the unemployment rate is so very low, they do not have to pay out billions and billions of dollars in unemployment insurance to add to the deficits. In Japan, France and Singapore that cost is just not there. We have to pay it here because we are not prepared to do the same kind of training. That is the unfortunate aspect of our country today. The Government believes that it can run the country on deficits. We happen to believe that you run it by putting people to work. You put people to work when they are properly trained and when they are able to take part in the new technology.


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, that means that Governments spend money. Since we are talking about deficits this afternoon, I asked the Hon. Member what the deficit of those states are. I think her answer says very clearly that she frankly does not know. A leading Member of the front benches of the Conservative Party does not know what she is talking about. I think that is regrettable.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, mea culpa. I do not know the deficit of Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Uruguay and a number of other countries. I have got to state that. I do know that there are a 1.5 million Canadians out of work. I do know that as long as they are out of work our deficit will keep soaring because they are not productive members of our economy and able to contribute to the growth and development of Canada. That I do understand, and that is something which, unfortunately, the Hon. Member does not.


An Hon. Member:: Oh dear, oh dear, that really hurts me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Willowdale.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that makes me sick as a politician it is the fact that Members on the other side will stand up and bleed in public to the extent that blood runs over the green rug in this Chamber, and yet will not come up with specific solutions.


An Hon. Member:: What have you done?

November 28, 1983
Supply


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, we on this side care as much, if not more, about the unemployed, the poor, the senior citizens, the people who suffer the ravages of inflation, and the people who have lost homes, property and income during this recession. The difference is that we are prepared to do something about it. We have seen from the opposite side today motions proposed by the Tories condemning the amount of Government expenditures. That is a condemnation of this Government. Yet we hear the Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) proposing one concrete program involving training in the new technologies, one program that is going to require additional federal expenditures. She did not say that that would immediately reduce the deficit, because she knows it will not. Training is a long-term investment which we make in our young. It is a necessary investment. It is a very valid one. It is one that we are making. I will go on to give you some figures on that. You might disagree and say we are not doing enough. Then I would applaud you for coming forward and saying it is a good program, we should do more of it. That would be an honest approach to dealing with the problem of people out there, rather than trying to make cheap policies on the back of the people who suffered from this recession.
Let us get on to what this resolution really calls for. The resolution states that the lack of the Government's ability to deal with expenditures has caused our financial situation today. According to the Opposition, it is a situation which should be condemned.
I want to establish the basis for the policies that we have adopted and have had in effect for some time and that we see taking us a long time into the future. They are policies which, 1 feel, represent a responsible way to meet the current economic realities.
Our White Paper, which was published on October 14, 1975, said:
The federal government shares the view that the trend of total spending by all governments should not rise more quickly than the trend of the gross national product.
The basis for this policy was then, as it is now, a wise one. It is the philosophy and approach of this Government to adhere to it and to emphasize the primary role that the private sector must play in our country in terms of generating wealth.
Let me go forward eight years from that statement in 1975 to the budget of April, 1983. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said, "This commitment", which we made in 1975, "was met until the recession last year." Since there was a recession, a world-wide recession of which we were a part and in which we suffered severely as Canadians, we broke that policy for a brief period of time. However, our commitment to maintain that trend still remains and we are still within the trend. Let me quote from the budget:
By 1986-87, federal spending will be virtuallly the same size relative to the economy as in 1981-82 before the worst of the recession.
We have taken a very serious approach to dealing with Government expenditures, making sure that Canadians receive
value for the money for which we are the custodian and trustee of the public to spend on their behalf.
I go back to the Glassco Commission on Government Organization in 1962 wherein the primary principle adopted was that we have to let our public servants who are the managers get on with the job of managing. We appointed the Lambert Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. It reported in 1979 and urged that managers be required to manage. It is not only their job but we should be sure that they do it. They should be obliged to pay attention to their respective assigned and acceptable responsibility and to understand that it matters.
We have followed up on what Lambert recommended. I refer Hon. Members and all Canadians to the report issued by the then President of the Treasury Board in 1981 entitled "Accountable Management". Briefly, the conclusion of this report was that the Government has taken the steps necessary to reaffirm control of the public purse. The Government has generated a momentum for continuing reform in financial and human resource management. As well, managers will be required to manage and attention will be paid to results. The Government will be better able to give Canadians value for their money.
We are doing this through a seven point program. First, it involves fiscal plans. We have introduced long-term fiscal plans which are contained in our budgets. They project the results of our initiatives and policies over a five-year period so that Canadians can see where we are going and so that we are not just focusing on the moment but looking for the long-term effects.
Second, we have introduced discipline in the resource allocation process related to the fiscal plan. In other words, we have introduced an envelope program so that various committees of Cabinet are required to have their expenditures kept within an envelope. If we want to introduce new plans within an envelope system in one particular Cabinet committee, the funding must come from the existing programs in that area. In this way we continually renew and get rid of the deadwood. It is a very sound system of financial control within which a Minister, in order to introduce a new program, must go to his fellow Ministers to request funds from their programs in the belief that his program is better for the people of Canada.
The third point concerns a new sense of accountability of the Government to Parliament. We are seeing this through the revised committee system and in the progress of the report on the regulatory reform. We have consultation with the private sector in which it is asked to get involved.
We have a new system of accountability within the Government itself, not only within the envelope program but in internal controls that we have brought into play, including the office of the Comptroller General, which is our creation, and an enhanced role for the Auditor General. Again, it is a Liberal Government that is bringing these tools for fiscal responsibility to bear, to make sure that Canadians are getting value for their tax dollars. We have also introduced accountability and effectiveness in the administration of our financial
November 28, 1983

systems. As well, we have brought in accountability and efficiency in our human resource management and a continuing strategy for reform.
Let me give an example. Opposition Members are continually citing the size of the Public Service. They condemn it and are the ones who are on record as wanting to slash it. They think that the way to achieve efficiency is to chop off large numbers. They would do it by percentages and by eliminating
60,000	public servants.
1 believe we have acted more constructively. In spite of the recession and the need to have programs in place to help those who need the social net during these difficult times, we limited the growth in the public sector, through sound management, to a maximum of about one per cent per year. The size of the Public Service under Treasury Board control today is the same in 1983 as it was in 1976-77. That is not a bad record considering that the expenditures of the federal Public Service have had to increase during that period. I do not know of any other Public Service, provincial or federal throughout the world, that has had this type of record.
Of course, a very important aspect of this debate concerns the size of our total economy that is occupied by governments in Canada. Is government becoming too pervasive? Is it taking over functions which the public sector should not be doing and should be leaving to the private sector? Are we decreasing opportunities for Canadians because of our role as a federal Government? That must be the issue to be addressed by the convoluted resolution of the Opposition today.
Let us look at the size of the involvement of all governments in the Canadian economy. In 1969 in Canada, governments occupied 35 per cent of our gross domestic product. This figure was up to 41 per cent in 1980, which is an increase of 6 per cent. During that period of time our increase was among the smallest of the western industrialized countries. Countries such as Italy, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have their governments play a much more pervasive role. We are not talking strictly about the federal Government's role but about governments at all levels. With regard to federal Government outlays, as I said earlier, the federal Government has respected that trend line in terms of growth of our expenditures. In 1981-1982 the federal Government's share of the GNP amounted to 20.8 per cent. In 1982-1983, because of the recession, counter cyclical measures to help Canadians during those tough periods, measures which I strongly support, rose to 23.1 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To 25.8 per cent.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In 1983-1984 they will rise a little bit again to 23.6 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: To 25.8 per cent, according to your own figures.
Supply


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We will then see a decline, according to our fiscal projections, according to the plans which we responsibly laid before Parliament, to 22.7 per cent.


John Carnell Crosbie: Try honesty for a change.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Use the national account figures.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Going on to the next year, they will be 22 per cent, and in 1986-1987 that figure will go down to 21.3 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Use the national account figures.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I am here to say that I am glad we have made the federal intervention at this time to help Canadians who need help most.
In our last budget we devoted S2.4 billion in new expenditures to the Special Recovery Capital Project to help Canadians bring on the infrastructure, accelerate implementation of capital projects that will benefit all of us over the long term but would not have been brought on because of the recession or would not have been brought on as quickly. These were brought on to create that type of economic wealth building system which we need in Canada. The amount of $2.4 billion was allocated to create employment immediately. What I think is even more important, and what I am even more proud of, is that we have brought on another $2.4 billion in tax expenditures, tax incentives to the private sector, tax incentives to business to go about doing the job which it does best and which it can do better than any other body in Canada, namely that of creating jobs. That $2.4 billion in tax incentives is being expended in a variety of ways.
1 want to go through some of them because I want Canadians to know where their tax dollars are going. I am proud of where they are going. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was talking about having to bring Canadians up to scratch in terms of the new technologies. We projected R and D expenditures of 1.5 per cent of GNP in 1979, and we will meet that commitment probably one year ahead of schedule. Many of us might have the feeling that we should have set a higher target. I would not disagree with those who argue for a higher target, but what have we done in terms of R and D expenditures?
In 1980 our tax incentives for research and development, scientific research, amounted to about $181 million. These benefits were enjoyed by about 343 firms in Canada. They cost us in lost taxes about $120 million. In our 1983 budget we took R and D tax incentives to the private sector, ones which were the most generous of any industrialized nation in the world, and we enhanced them even further in such a way that small business can use them and attract new capital investment. We made a tax shelter available so investors in new enterprises involved in high-tech can attract the equity capital necessary. Those firms that want to go out and increase their expenditures and increase their physical plant and equipment can do it now and get accelerated write-offs.
29260

November 28, 1983
Supply
What have we done in scientific activities alone? We increased our expenditures last year as a federal Government from $2.9 billion to $3.2 billion, a ten per cent increase. That is a very constructive way of meeting some Of the problems which the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands was talking about. But did she give us credit for that? No, she just stood up and bled all over the floor without coming up with anything concrete or constructive.


William Herbert Jarvis: I think I have heard you say that already. That was on page 1 of your speech, Jim; you forgot to turn the page.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let us look at the deficit. We have a problem, and we all agree with it. All of us wish we did not need to have a deficit.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We don't have to either. You are spending more than you take in.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: What caused that deficit? It was caused essentially by a decline in tax revenues during the recession. For the 15 year period prior to 1981-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Prior to 1975.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -business profits contributed about 11.2 per cent of our Gross National Product. In 1981 that figure declined to 10 per cent. In 1982, the worst year of the recession, we reached a post-war low of 6.2 per cent. In other words, during the recession businesses did not have the profits and, therefore, did not have the income to pay their taxes. This recession was marked by very high inflation, high interest, falling demand and dwindling profits. What have we done about it? I have talked about the $2.4 billion in Special Capital Recovery Projects. I have talked about the $2.4 billion to the private sector through tax incentives to get it going. We have also done some other things. We have the Indexed Securities Investment Plan. We have tax treatment of business losses for business. We have increased the loss carry forward from three years back to seven years forward. We now have an 11-year period over which losses can be absorbed instead of a seven-year period. We have cut back on some of the energy taxes, including the lORT and the PGRT taxes. We made mining depletion allowances available. You could write them off against other income. That is an incentive to increase investment in that sector.
Let me come to small business. Here we have the special recovery refundable investment tax crecit, a 40 per cent credit for small business.
Farmers get a 14-year period during which their losses can be absorbed-three years back and ten years forward. The Farm Credit Corporation has its resources expanded to $150 million. This was a $100 million increase in its time of difficulty and it means that farmers will be able to bet loans at 4 per cent below the going rate.
What did we do in the housing area? I am very proud of the initiatives of this Government. They were worked out in consultation with the Toronto Home Builders Assciation,
HUDAC Ontario and the Canadian housing industry. This is the way programs should be worked out. They were worked out to meet the needs of that industry. It was demonstrated to us that for every new house going up, a very desirable social objective, we create 2.1 person years of work. How was this done? We did it through a series of $3,000 grants. For each $3,000 grant, not only did we get 2.1 person years of direct employment and a home but we generated $10,600 of new tax revenue in the first year of construction of that house. That is a creative use of public money in order to create jobs and achieve the socially desirable results. I am very proud of the housing programs we have undertaken. I thing that in the future if we want to be constructive we will look to creating even more social housing for Canadians. This is a very pressing need. I am very proud of the programs we have introduced that give Canadians who cannot otherwise afford good housing the types of things we have demonstrated we are capable of doing in the past and that we are going to devote even more resources to in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kelly):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time lapsed some time ago. I had assumed he was concluding his remarks and that is why I let him continue. Are there any questions, comments, answers?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We must congratulate the Hon. Member as Chairman of the House Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Would he agree with the Prime Minister's statement in his press conference on August 13, 1969 when he said:
We'd soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, of course I agree with that. This is the whole gist of why this debate has been so unfounded. We have been doing things since that comment in 1969 to bring Government spending under control. We have a whole new system of fiscal management; the five-year plans we have been projecting, the six-year plans in our budgets. We have brought into effect the office of the Comptroller-General. The Auditor General has an enhanced role to play. Parliamentary committees, through the revised estimates, have better access to every type of expenditure being made so there is accountability of the Government to Parliament. We have the enveloped system, which is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that we do not bring in new programs just to be filed on top of old ones. We have a way of eliminating poor programs and replacing them with better ones.
The size of the federal Government's role in our economy, as demonstrated by the figures, has held pretty well firm throughout the period 1969 to now, hovering around 21 per cent of our GNP. Barring a recession, we had hoped to have it down to about 19 per cent by now. Because of that recession, we have undertaken to create social nets to protect people. Without them, it would have been a travesty in human terms and many people would have suffered. If you came to me and said, "Peterson, the Liberal Government has not created
November 28, 1983

enough social nets, it should be spending more to protect people during this difficult period", you might have received a little sympathy from this side with that type of resolution.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Wil-lowdale is totally misleading when he says that the Government is not building on old programs. One of the tragedies we face today is that there is no zero base budgeting going on. The A base in the estimates is the old program. If you go to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), he will tell you there is no zero base budgeting going on in old programs. That is why we are out of control. This House and our committee system is not doing the work it should be doing, examining and forcing zero-based budgeting. The only zero base budgeting is in the Department of National Defence. The rest of it is incremental additions of indexing CPI on top of old programs. That is what the debate is all about. When the Hon. Member for Willowdale tries to imply that we are going back and examining old programs, he is totally wrong. That is not true to fact.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I hate to inform the Hon. Member for Capilano that under the envelope system, if we are going to add a new program, we have to get it out of the same envelope. If you have an envelope with X number of programs and you want to add X plus one, you have to take it out of an existing program. That is the discipline that is imposed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You have not done that.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Hon. Member says we are not doing that. If Members opposite want to see a big cut in the federal role being played, I challenge them to come forward to us with concrete programs that we can cut out. I have heard nothing about programs that they want to add. I suggest they come to us with programs they want to cut out. If they feel they are wasteful, they may find a very receptive audience on this side, but stop coming forward to us with increased expenditures such as the Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands did, saying we have not spent enough to help those who have suffered.
Let me respond to what we have done in this period in terms of job creation. I will never tell any person that it is acceptable that we have an unemployment level that exceeds 11 per cent in Canada. This is our greatest challenge. Instead of just bleeding about it, we have been doing something.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You created it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands says we created that position. The fact is that we have created the best record of job creation in this country of any western industrialized nation since 1970. In the last 12 months alone we have created 350,000 new jobs. Since 1970 we have created 50 per cent more jobs in Canada than we had 13 years ago, this during a period when West Germany has suffered a 2 per cent decline in the number of jobs.
Supply
If you are comparing us to our neighbours, bring in those facts and recognize the fact that all the private analysts are now saying that Canada is better poised to come out of this recession better than any other western country, that our record has been very good. Those are the facts. Interest rates are down. Our six and five program has done something about inflation. We are creating jobs, even though they are not being created fast enough. Tell us how to create more jobs more quickly without increasing the deficit. Tell us how to do it by increasing the deficit reasonably so that we get value for our dollar. That is the type of constructive debate Canadians deserve in this House rather than the petty politics I have heard here today.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have to correct another very misleading statement made by the Hon. Member for Willowdale.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Perth.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) correctly, he said that the Government has taken steps to assume control of Government expenditure. I think that is what he said, amidst the rhetoric. I am about to receive my twelfth or thirteenth Auditor General's Report since coming to this House. Unhappily, every one of them has been a litany of horror stories with respect to the non-control of Government over expenditure. If the Hon. Member has inside knowledge, am I to expect that this next Auditor General's Report will finally concur with his proposition that the Government has assumed control and accountability over expenditures? The last 12 that I read said exactly the opposite to what the Hon. Member for Willowdale alleges.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: A brief reply by the Hon. Member for Willowdale.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make. Yes, the Auditor General will be doing a job that we asked him to do by pointing out where we have mismanaged funds. If anyone in this country thinks that we are not going to make mistakes, they are absolutely wrong. The question is, what are we doing to try to avoid making mistakes. That is why we appointed an Auditor General and a Comptroller General. This is why we are prepared to make these mistakes public. This is why we have enhanced the role of Parliament in making us accountable. This is why we have introduced the expenditure control system involving the envelope system.


William Herbert Jarvis: We did that.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Before you were elected in 1979, we had virtually developed to completion the envelope system. You are the ones who brought it in and we are the ones who are using it. If you are against the envelope system that you brought in, based on the work we have done prior to 1979, then tell us. We are very much in favour of the envelope system. It is a good system.

November 28, 1983
Supply
We are pleased to have the constructive input of Members of Parliament as to where they feel we can cut back expenditures. I heard one suggestion today from the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). He said that Pratt & Whitney should not have received a grant under one of our programs to start building engines in his riding. I hope more Members will come forward with examples of what they think is blatant Government waste. We can then take steps and act constructively to deal with the type of situation that we all want to eliminate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 did indicate that the Hon. Member for Willowdale ought to be brief. The time allotted for questions and answers has now expired. Debate. I notice the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) is standing. I think the proper order of speakers ought to be the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell), followed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and then followed, if there is one, by a Member to my right.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Fleming)-Criminal Code-Provisions dealing with hate literature; the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid)-Shipbuilding-Criteria governing contracts-Unemployment at Port Weller, (b) Subsidy to marine industries in Sorel, P.Q.; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms.	McDonald)-External
Affairs-Cyprus-Declaration of independence by Turkish Cypriots, (b) Suggested withdrawal of Canadian Ambassador from Ankara.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Huntington:
That this House agrees without reservation with the prediction of the Prime Minister made on August 13, 1969, in a nationally televised press conference when he said, "We'd soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were
done to bring spending under control" and calls upon the government to initiate policies which would avoid the Prime Minister's prediction.
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I can always tell that we have had an effective Opposition Day when we hear a lot of noise, a lot of defensive statements and a lot of poor points from the other side. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) who just spoke that I have a great deal of respect for him in committee. He runs a good show as chairman of a committee. He does the job well and with leniency. However, I would like to ask him if he knows who set up the new form of the estimates. If he does not know, I will tell him. It was the person who was the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee before the 1979 election.


John Leslie Evans: That's nonsense.


Thomas Scott Fennell: It was done during that term of office and he was responsible. I would also like to point out to the Hon. Member that most of the ideas for estimates, public accounts and Government expenditure have come from this side of the House and most particularly from the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We respect them.


Thomas Scott Fennell: But why does he not follow them? I would like to follow up on some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) and particularly to the questions he asked the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The Hon. Member is missing the point that the Government has failed to address the change that is occurring at this time and the structural unemployment that has resulted from this change. It has done absolutely nothing in that regard.
The Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) held a great three-day conference to advertise to the public that he has done something worthwhile. Everyone I have spoken to from the private sector who attended that conference said it was a waste of time but it gave them an opportunity to get together at Government expense and chat with their friends outside of the conference hall. I feel that that is only one example of how the Government has missed the point.
I have recently had the opportunity to review the 1983 report of the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry. If someone from our Government were to take the time to find out about the tax incentives and the methods followed in Japan which put Japan so far ahead of us, he would learn something that would perhaps help the country out of its dilemma.
We are arguing that welfare and social programs are not enough. We must develop policies and programs that create jobs in order to eliminate the unemployment that draws on society and that, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association, will take $50 billion out of the Canadian economy. The unemployment rate is not 11 per cent as was stated but is 19 per cent when those people who have lost hope are included.
November 28, 1983

The Government has done just about everything to destroy the country, discourage the investment sector and remove the incentive that will get the country moving. The Government should have listened to the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 13, 1969, when he said of programs:
Do they now serve their purpose? Should they be curtailed? How do we cut the pie to make room for today's new priorities? These are questions whose answers will affect the nature of our expenditures. These are questions whose answers will determine the distribution of expenditures in years to come.
The Prime Minister did not listen to his own speech.
This morning, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) made a number of statements that were rather interesting. He mentioned the recommendations of the Lambert Commission. The Government has really sidetracted the excellent Lambert Commission study. If the Government had followed the recommendations contained within that study, we would not find ourselves in the dilemma we are in today. That is only one example.
This morning, the President of the Treasury Board went on to state that the costs of handling the programs and the operating expenditures were minimal. The operating costs for expenditure programs amounts to $12 billion. That means that close to 15 per cent of the cost is spent on the programs themselves. That amount is spent so that civil servants may dilly-dally away their time creating bureaucracies without performing their functions. If the cost of raising money were included, it would be different. That expenditure is minimal because it is mandatory. We are not a volunteer organization like the United Way or the Red Cross, organizations which spend so much money raising money. This is money that the Government has spent trying to decide how to give it away. Most of the good ideas the Government has heard have been bypassed.
Hon. Members have spoken about the envelope system. We had good intent when we implemented that system. The Government has abused the envelope system. I think that the envelope sprung a leak, so the Government took a small envelope and put it into a bigger envelope and then into a bigger envelope. We have original Estimates (A), (B), (C) and (D) and there is a bigger envelope for each one. That was not the intent of the envelope system. It was intended to be used as a budget, and as the Hon. Member for Capilano mentioned, it was to begin as a zero-based budget. The Government does not do that. Whenever it has a new idea, it brings up another Supplementary Estimate. The Government has used the envelope system and it has abused it.
The President of the Treasury Board spoke about increased productivity in the national economy. I have spent quite a bit of time investigating what has been done in other countries. We could learn some lessons about productivity from the Government of Japan. Japan was defeated after World War II and does not have any natural resources. As a result, the Japanese had to use their brains. This Government opposite has not used its brains to increase the productivity of our country.


John Leslie Evans: What about the Americans?
Supply


Thomas Scott Fennell: I hear Hon. Members opposite asking about the Americans. We are not Americans and we are not Japanese. We have much greater advantages than either of those nations and we should be far ahead of them right now.
The President of the Treasury Board went on to mention the productivity of Government programs. When we look at the large increases, we can see that the Government's own programs have not increased productivity.
I am happy to see that the Minister of State for Economic Development has entered the House because there are a number of questions which I would like to ask him. I hope he is the next one to speak on this subject.
The President of the Treasury Board went on to speak about efficiency and effectiveness. We have not seen any effectiveness in the Government since 1980. Its budget and costs are out of control and it has not implemented efficiency and effectiveness. Government Members give us only dialogue and do not give us the facts.
The President of the Treasury Board mentioned how much the Government has reduced the cost of delivery of programs. No matter how effective it is, the cost of a program always seems to go up. He states there is a strong framework for controlling expenditures. Perhaps the framework cost more than the expenditures. The Government is not keeping an eye on things and has no hesitation in bringing forward Supplementary Estimates that make the original Estimates look ridiculous. We pointed this out to the Minister of State for Economic Development at a committee meeting last week. We asked him why so many items in Supplementary Estimates (B) were over 100 per cent greater than in the original Estimates. The Government has lost control.
I wish the President of the Treasury Board were in the House. When he had the portfolio of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he authorized a study of the steel bar mill in the Windsor area, which 1 understand cost about $750,000. That is an example of waste. At the time he requested the study, Stelco and Co-Steel the other major producers of steel bar in Canada were operating at 40 per cent capacity; today they are operating at between 40 and 60 per cent capacity, but that will slide back to 40 per cent during the winter months. How can the present Minister say that the government is still studying that problem when he knows that the industry is in a surplus position at the moment?
Let us deal now with the aerospace industry which the Government thinks is a winner, although it has been incredibly bad at picking winners and losers. Last year it blew $2 billion on Canadair and de Havilland. It produced a toy jet for corporate executives at Canadair and a small airliner at de Havilland. The two airlines that were the largest purchasers of the Dash 7 aircraft have gone into bankruptcy. That speaks well for a small number of passenger airplanes.
We have seen the Government pick the wrong things, and now it has decided to pick on helicopters. Why does it think it can be successful in this after the losses it has shown? Not only

November 28, 1983
Supply
did it pick helicopters but it put the original one up at Mirabel in an effort to justify, for the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc), that the expropriation in that area was a good idea in the first place. Imagine building Mirabel in order to land helicopters there! Imagine having that much runway for a helicopter! The Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars building a great industrial park that no one in the private sector will go near, even at a subsidized cost.


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Hon. Member should give us a few explanations about the Arrow program that was turned down by the Conservative Party. He should give us an explanation for that.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what year that was. 1 know that when the Hon. C. D. Howe was a Cabinet Minister in the House he indicated that the program would be scrapped. Imagine how many billions of dollars the Government would have blown on the Arrow program by now. Our deficit could be 10 per cent higher than it is today.


Henri Tousignant: Don't rewrite history.


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Government is always trying to justify its past expenditures, but it has not made any sound expenditures as yet. It put the Bell helicopter at Mirabel, surrounded by farmers. There is no technical expertise in that area and the people do not want any industry there. They just want to run their farms in an area which contains 1 per cent of Quebec's class one arable land. The Government wants to put the helicopters there so that it can justify the $1 billion that was spent to build a surplus airport. These must be dandy helicopters if they need that much runway.
I support the point made by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) in relation to the $500 million that is going to Pratt & Whitney. It is amazing how well that company has done in East Hartford, Connecticut, United States. I happen to have gone to school there. That company was very successful post-war and it still is. It is amazing how much it has done without Government subsidies. I admit it has had National Defence contracts to develop new technology. That is why the Americans are so much further ahead than we are. Our Government does not even contemplate that.
The Japanese leave it to the private sector to decide who should win and who should lose. I wish the Minister of State for Economic Development would read papers such as the Japan Robot News and that published by the Yano Research Institute. They would give him some lead information about where to go. I do not believe he knows how to get out of this dilemma.
We have to create jobs and we have to create wealth. The redistribution of wealth has not worked because there is none left to redistribute. We have to create wealth for jobs and new industries, and we have to stop these give-away programs wherever the Government sees fit.
Since 1968, manufacturing productivity in Canada has increased at the second slowest pace of any industrialized
nation. There are no incentives. Since 1979, $16.5 billion of investment capital has left the country because the Government is hostile to the private sector which has not been provided with incentives. From 1977 to 1982 productivity stood still and since 1982 it has been reduced by 2.8 per cent, the worst rate of any country in the world.
I should like to remind Hon. Members opposite of what some Members of the Government have said. In 1980-81, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), in his former capacity, said that in order to achieve the essential reduction in the deficit great restraint over expenditures had been required. Hon. Members opposite speak words but they do not mean anything. In 1981-82, the same Minister said that "we must reduce our deficit and our borrowing requirements substantially". You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was the National Energy Program that brought this country to a standstill. In 1982-83, the same Minister said that interest rates would rise even more and that Canada would price itself out of world markets.
Our export sales of manufactured goods have decreased so dramatically that we are no longer competitive, Mr. Speaker. We are not highly productive and we have lost our sense of innovation and of private enterprise.
In April, 1983, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said that he was presenting a fiscally responsible budget. Mr. Speaker, no budget that has increased our expenditures by up to $100 billion where the deficit is $31 billion, is a responsible budget. In 1968-69 our national debt was $18 billion; today it is $150 billion, and next year it will be ten times that or 1,000 per cent of what it was.
In 1968 Canada had 5.744 per cent of world trade, but in 1981 it had 3.8 per cent. In 1968 we exported more than Japan did; today we export half of what Japan exports. That is because Japan put plans and policies in place. It did it with thought. It did it with policy. Particularly, Mr. Speaker, it gave initiatives to the private sector which this Government has failed to do and, as a result, we do not have the jobs. We have this tremendous deficit because we do not have the industry. We have two million people unemployed who are drawing on society. Their costs, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association, could amount to $50 billion.
I believe this debate today is very important in order to make the people aware that this Government is misguided and misdirected. Its priorities are not where they should be. It is our responsibility, as the Opposition, before we form the next government, to let the people know what damage this Government has done to Canadians and the debt it has built up for every man, woman and child in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments. Debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this debate. The Conservative motion is that the House agree without reservation with a statement made by
November 28, 1983

the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1969 about the country being on the road to financial disaster if nothing is done to bring spending under control. The motion goes on to call on the Government to initiate policies to avoid that prediction. In other words, it calls for tight fiscal restraint. I have a question 1 would like to put to Hon. Members of the House, especially to my Conservative colleagues on my right. I see the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) looking up. I will put the question to her. Who said, "In spite of the very substantial deficit with which we are confronted, programs in very important areas necessary for the development of the country are being cut"? That speaker gave five examples, medicare, post-secondary education, scientific research, funding for the arts and international aid. Who was it who stood in this House and said that? I will give you a further hint, Mr. Speaker. The speech was made within a year of that quote from the Prime Minister. I will ask the last Hon. Member who spoke. Who said that?


Thomas Scott Fennell: I bet I did not say it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will tell you who said it. It was the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield who was the Leader of the Conservative Party and Leader of the Opposition. Is it not incredible that the Conservative Party offers a motion today which relates back to 1969? That was the era when "Wacky Bennett" had just won an election in British Columbia, Jean Lesage had just resigned in Quebec. There was a federal-provincial finance conference in Quebec which was supposed to be a watershed that year. The motion goes back to 1969 and quotes the Prime Minister, who was supposed to be against further federal spending, suggesting the Prime Minister should live by that today, when around the same period Robert L. Stanfield stood up in the Commons and said, "You really cannot cut federal spending because if you do, you are going to cut back medicare, post-secondary education, scientific research, funding to the arts and international aid." Is that not incredible? Why does the Conservative Party not get its act together?
The previous speaker said that the Government is misguided and misdirected. I cannot think of a Party which is more misguided and more misdirected than the Conservative Party when it has speaking for it, supposedly, a Red Tory, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, who would agree, I believe, with what Robert Stanfield said, and the ultra-blue Tory, the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and the ultra rightwing Tory, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). That Party cannot have it both ways if it is going to govern Canada. Which is it going to be?
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the spending of this Government is not under control. The question surely is, where is that spending going? The motion is simply designed to embarrass the Liberal Government-and that is pretty easy to do-and it has backfired and embarrassed the Tories. If one looks at Robert Stanfield's speech, one will see that it really makes the Official Opposition look silly in introducing this kind of text today, when there was so much more it could have put in a motion. I suggest that that Party look at the previous motion which the
Supply
Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands brought forward. She talked about unemployment and the new kind of economy we have to face in Canada.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are incompetent in managing the economy, but that does not have to be said in the House of Commons. One can ask a cab driver down the street, he will say the same thing. The method of the Liberal Government is really, "If it moves, throw money at it. If if has votes, throw more money at it. If it is one of your friends in an industry which is in trouble, give it more money". We give $2 billion in petroleum grants in this country. For what? For companies to have 105 per cent write-offs. We give money for unemployment insurance in this country, and the reason we do that is because of Government policy. That is how it tackled inflation, by slowing down the economy completely and by creating unemployment.
We are really dealing with a Government which has run out of ideas. Modern North American Liberalism is finished. It does not stand for anything. It zigs and it zags and it tries to build on the old programs. The Throne Speech which is coming up will tag a few things on to the Unemployment Insurance Program, move a little bit here, have a commission on medicare. But it is failing. And I say this to the Liberals who are listening: watch what the Conservatives are saying in North America. I disagree with them, but they are getting some support because of those Hon. Members have been saying what they believe in strongly, and they are not zigging and zagging. It falls to us on the left, as a Social Democratic Party, also to say what we believe in strongly. If that happens, you will find that there will be two major political Parties in Canada come the next election, the Conservatives and the New Democrats.


Henri Tousignant: Could the Hon. Member give us some explanations regarding the Arrow the Progressive Conservative Government dismantled?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Absolutely! It is the same in Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: Really?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes . . . wait and see!

I would just like to say one more thing to the Conservatives and let them consider whether they are for Mr. Stanfield or for the Hon. Member for Capilano. Perhaps as a little forerunner of what we may see from a Conservative government, I will quote from a book called, "The Contenders-A Tory quest for power". On page 86 of the book, I notice the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) says, in terms of what his government is going to be like, the spending of his government and the political appointments of his government, and I quote:
I am going to dance with the ones who hrung me.
I hat means l ories that's what this is all about.
Va dance with the lady what brung ya.

November 28, 1983
Supply
That means, of course, that he is going to continue the same patronage-infested system in Canada. The harbours will be built in a different riding in the Maritimes. It is the same kind of old system which we have to get away from. There may be a few changes, less money on social service, more money for armaments.


Mr. Epp:: Tell us about Manitoba!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 can see the new Leader of the Opposition now, who really is just a poodle for Conrad Black and the boys in Toronto. Is that not who is really calling the shots? When Conrad wants to take Brian for a walk and tell him what the new policy will be of the government, that is what the policy will be. He is simply the poodle. It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Robert Stanfield is not back in this House, because there is a man who understood what a deficit meant. There was a man who understood that you did not focus on a deficit. You focused on the programs. What does it matter, really, what the public debt is, although we should be concerned about that. If people are working and if the economy is prosperous, will people lose sleep over whether the deficit is $10 billion or $11 billion? No, Mr. Speaker.
We are faced with a high technological society, with rapid technological change. The previous speaker might want to listen for a minute. If he hopes to get into Government he will have to deal with the fact that we have a society which is rapidly replacing people with machines, not just blue collar workers but white collar workers, middle management, secretaries and so on, especially women. We are going to get more of this.
The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) said "we have created jobs". But what kind of jobs? "We have spent money", he said, but what have we spent that money on? The jobs being created are low-paying service jobs. We are losing the middle rung jobs. In five years we are going to have a society in which a few people at the top make big money and the great mass of the people are down at the bottom. We are going to lose the middle class. It is not just a question of bleeding for the unemployed or special groups who have problems. We are in real danger of losing our middle class, and I would think Members of Parliament would be very interested in that.
What can be done, Mr. Speaker? 1 do not think we should focus on cutting the deficit. We should focus on an industrial policy for Canada. We need economic democracy. It seems to me the Conservatives and Liberals have adopted the philosophy of "leave it to the magic of the marketplace". As 1 say that, I am looking over at the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston). Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that will not happen. First of all, Canada is a mixed economy. When you have problems at the public level, the civil service or Crown corporations, you do not throw them out like the baby with the bath water, you reform them. You do not stand up and attack Government per se. We saw in British
Columbia that people were very politicized as the general strike approached. Like the Hon. Member for York North (Mr. Gamble), people attack the whole notion of the Public Service. They say it is not a job if you are a public servant. It is not a job if you are a garbage man, police officer, fireman, a clerk sending out cheques or a nurse looking after old people. Somehow that is not a job. Well, it is and we should talk about that. You cannot say these are not jobs.
Getting back to my theme, Mr. Speaker, you have to have an industrial policy. We have to get labour, government and industry together. Not at that conference that the Minister had, the Canada Tomorrow Conference, although it was well intentioned. But if you want to get labour into it, you have to assure the working people of this country that they are going to be protected in some way from change. They are not stupid, they know they are going to suffer from change and there will be job lay-offs. But they have to be protected. The Government should look at some of the work of Robert Reich, a Harvard economist. He said:
Unless members of a democratic society are persuaded the benefits and burdens of change are being allocated more or less evenly, they will resist change, and their resistence will prove extremely powerful.
I saw that in British Columbia where the Government tried to come in with draconian restraint measures and the people resisted. They were pushed to a point at which they resisted. Why should the worker not have a say in technological change or safety in the work place? Why should the worker not have some say? Why should he not be put into a training program which will take him to a new level? Why should the safety net not be expanded? That is what the Canadian middle class is worried about. They are prepared to accept change, they know it is coming. They do not want to sit here and debate deficits or debate 1969 quotes, especially one which goes one way and to which Robert Stanfield takes exactly the opposite viewpoint. That is silly. They want us to make it easier for them to leave their homes and go where the jobs are. They want us to look for policies where the human virtues of participation, equality and security can be brought forward. That is the direction of the future economy of Canada. But let us not go back to look at what Trudeau said in August, 1969. Let us look ahead. Let us look to policies which will deal with this high-tech revolution which is coming fast. Let us make sure that it is not just Conrad Black and the boys who benefit from change. Let us make sure there is a recovery for everyone.
I suggest the Government look at some of the ideas I put forward today. 1 hope that in their next motion the Conservatives will give these people something to shoot at rather than these silly motions which really do not have very much substance to them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I remind Hon. Members that debate will terminate, according to a House order made earlier, at 5.45 p.m. The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly).


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, saving the best for last, as it were.
November 28, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The Chair has not been apprised of a point of order, but I will gladly accept one. My understanding is that debate ends at 5.45 p.m. If there is some indication to the contrary, would an Hon. Member please stand and indicate why?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there was agreement among the House Leaders that the vote, which would ordinarily take place at 5.45 today, will be deferred until 5.45 tomorrow and debate will carry through until six o'clock, the normal hour of adjournment. That is my understanding.


Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: The Chair is not informed of any agreement that the question might be put at
5.45	and the debate might continue until six o'clock. The information I have is that the Chair is obligated to put the question at 5.45. If some Hon. Member wants to seek unanimous consent of the House to permit debate to continue until six and the question put then, that is at variance from what I understand to be the existing order of the House. Everyone is clear that the vote is deferred until tomorrow, but normally a vote to be deferred is taken at 5.45 and then we move on to other business.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comments you made, could there be agreement that debate end today at six o'clock? There are a number of Members who want to speak and we might be able to divide the time, as we have done in the past, through unanimous agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am not going to attend too much to the essential formalities. The Hon. Member has risen on a point of order and cannot put a motion in that regard. I think he seeks unanimous consent, and that issue ought to be cleared up. I will repeat. The situation is that the Chair would, under House order made earlier, put the question at 5.45, which would then be deferred until tomorrow, unless of course the question is negatived. The Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) has sought unanimous consent of the House to change that House order and to have debate continue until six o'clock. Is there unanimous consent to have the debate continue until six o'clock?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, we agree to that, assuming that at
5.45	you would call it six o'clock. In other words, you would put the yeas and nays at six o'clock rather than at 5.45. I think we could agree to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I seek unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to see the clock at six o'clock for purposes of putting the question, the yeas and nays?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered. The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly).


Norman Kelly: Mr. Speaker, I have been handling the debate unofficially on this side of the House, and my understanding is
Supply
the same as yours, that the vote was to have been called at 5.45. I have no trouble accommodating the hon. gentleman for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I will speak for ten minutes and then relinquish the floor to whoever may want it on the opposite side of the House.
The Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) mentioned in his address that the esteem of this House in the eyes of the public has fallen to an all-time low. Most Canadians find that this House is irrelevant, not only to the life of Canadians in general, but to their lives specifically. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that the reason for that does not lie with the spiralling deficit, which he attacked so vigorously this afternoon, but can be found in the type of motion which has absorbed the valuable time of this House all day. The deficit is an archaic political issue. It was raised about four or five years ago. It tended to shape political behaviour or attitudes in the 1979 election. Since 1980 not very many people are paying attention to it. The reason they are not paying attention to it, quite frankly, is that they know that in a recessionary period you cannot eliminate the deficit or roll it back to any significant degree.
The Opposition, nonetheless, has decided in its wisdom to resurrect this issue and parade it once again before the House and, hopefully, before the media and the Canadian public, in an effort to try to recapture some of the lost political ground that will be revealed in the next Gallup poll.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are hoping.


Norman Kelly: If this argument worked once, four or five years ago, then, by golly, it just might work again. If we can revive it, if we can renovate it, if we can still address it as forcefully today as we did originally, then maybe we can hold on to those voters that we feel slipping from our grasp because we really do not have any specific, concrete policies in this Party or in this leadership. Mr. Speaker, I think the ploy is that transparent. They are desperately looking for the old winning issues that brought them victory in the old glory days of 1977, 1978 and 1979, when it felt good to bash Grits and finally win an election. It just might win again. Why, we even have more facts and figures this time. We have different and better speakers. Who knows, we may be able to ride this again into another electoral victory.
I wish the Opposition could see themselves as others see them when they try to make political points with this archaic, rusty old rhetorical issue. For heaven's sake, they cannot even agree on the nature of the debate in this House. One person gets up and says, "Cut." The other person gets up and says, "Well, perhaps cut but, by golly, we should be thinking of spending too." So you have got cutters and spenders in the same Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Norman Kelly: Not only are they inconsistent in where they are coming from and where they want to go, Mr. Speaker, but they do not even know their facts in this issue. The Hon. Member gets up and asks why this Government does not act

November 28, 1983
Supply
more like the Governments of Japan, France, Singapore and Governments like that. Why do they not? When you point out to her that those are high deficit Governments, she did not know that. Someone else gets up and asks if we realize that Government spending has gone from 33.7 per cent to 47.3 per cent of disposable income. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, he fails to inform the House, and presumably the Canadian public, that that increase in expenditures did not result exclusively, or even primarily, from the expenditures of the Government of Canada. If he had read the fine report produced by the Simon Fraser Institute, he would have found out that those increases have emanated from provincial Governments, most of whom are Conservative.
As the Tories develop the argument, Mr. Speaker, after making their first point that this Government is spending tons of money, they then go on to say that not only are we spending a lot of money, but we are spending a lot of it wastefully. They ask the Canadian public, through the media that reports the deliberations of this House, what they have as a result of those expenditures. What have you received? Nothing. All is decay around you. We live in a wasteland. You have got nothing. You have been robbed. Mr. Speaker, they say it with such passion, with such conviction, with such vigour in their voices that most Canadians say, "By God, they must be right. No one could speak like that. No one could speak with that authority if that were not the case. By golly, we must not have got very much from them. They are right."
I invite you and others, Mr. Speaker, to look at the society around us to see what is out there. You do not have to be a brilliant academician to test the validity of that argument. Just open the door and walk around your neighbourhood and see what it is like and how it has changed in the last 10 or 15 years while the Liberals were in power. What do you find? You find beautiful senior citizens' residences everywhere paid for by, in large measure, the Government of Canada. You find one of the best educational systems anywhere in the world funded primarily, at the post secondary school level, by the Government of Canada. Walk further and you will find the finest hospital system in the world funded again, through provincial authorities, by the Government of Canada. Everywhere you look, Mr. Speaker, no matter what part of Canada or what community you live in, you will find tangible, concrete evidence of what that deficit has given Canadians. It has given Canadians the finest social system in the western world. That is something that all of us in this House can be proud of.
After they talk about the wastefulness, Mr. Speaker, they then say, "We have solutions. We are not negative carpers or shrill harbingers of doom and gloom. We have solutions." The first solution proposed this afternoon was to have this House adopt the report of the Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. If somehow you can have special committees of this House with special obligations to review, monitor, curb and cut Government spending, then this House will bring to Government spending the rigour that has been hitherto missing. Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that there is a political system which already has that type of committee. That is the United
States. But the deficit down there is far larger than it is here. I would argue that committees of that sort, however well intentioned, are quite frankly not the issue.
Another solution is to elect a Tory government. The Tories say to elect them because they know the value of a dollar. But every Conservative leadership candidate went into debt during his or her leadership campaign.


John Albert Gamble: I beg your pardon? That is a Liberal lie.


Norman Kelly: I take that back, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected. Everyone of them but one. But all the major candidates, the serious ones, were in debt. They went hopelessly and shamefully into debt.
The only time the Tories have elected a Government recently was in 1979. What did they do with the deficit? They called it a stimulative deficit. But it did not matter how one called it, it was a deficit nonetheless. If Canadians entrust the Government of this fair land in the hands of the Party that now forms the Official Opposition, Mr. Speaker, they will be making the gravest and most irresponsible mistake they could ever make, if they think that electing them would solve the economic problems of the country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair heard earlier that the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly) wanted to leave time for Opposition Members, but there is no House order to that effect. I must put the question as to whether there are questions, comments or answers. If there are not, of course I will recognize the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are no questions with which we have to bother the Hon. Member because we heard nothing that would cause us to ask questions. What we heard, we wondered at. We have heard the same kind of Liberal serene talk as the people of Canada have heard since 1965.
The quotation which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave us on August 13, 1969, was: "We would soon be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control." That is one of the few accurate statements the Prime Minister has made in the last 14 years.
I have just two other statements which he also made. This statement was made in January of 1980 when he made a solemn commitment. I quote from the Prime Minister in Toronto-the fountain of financial rectitude is Toronto, of course-when he promised to, "manage more rigorously the nation's finances in order to make more effective use of the taxpayers' money."
A final quotation of the Prime Minister is from the Toronto Star, the Liberal Bible, on February 10, 1980. The Prime Minister said, "I want to manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would in fact come down because the economy would be administered in a sounder way ." Well,
November 28, 1983

interest rates after that went from 11 per cent to 23 per cent before they started to come down again.
Those are three of the economic statements of the world's elder statesman who is now going about the world making statements in another field. If his statements on this other interest of his, the peace interest, are as accurate and as full of fruition as his statements have been with respect to the Government's finances in Canada, the Canadian economy and interest rates in Canada, all I can tell you is, God help the world.
The worst advice 1 could give the Hon. Member who just concluded is to be himself or to continue to be himself. This country has been operating in the red for so long under the Government that the public accounts resemble a slaughter house. Not only is its deficit this year $31.3 billion, three times what it was in 1979-80, when we were in office and having to deal with the results of Liberal deficits for that year and the previous year, the Auditor General finds that there is a $5.3 billion hidden deficit. 1 am not making it up. It is in a quote from the Ottawa Citizen. We have to add to the $31.3 billion another hidden deficit of $5.3 million.
I point this out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, although I am not sure whether he reads or not. The article in the Citizen states that if appropriate accounting procedures were taken, the Government's final deficit figure for last year of almost $24.7 billion was understated by $5.3 billion, one reason being that it did not properly report unemployment insurance transactions and so on.
Is the Government spending money wisely? I hold up another clipping of just several days ago entitled "Kaplan accused of spending $43,000 to spruce up image." The unthinkable sprucing the unspruceable. There is $43,000 being spent by a Cabinet Minister to spruce up his image. We multiply that by the total number of Cabinet Ministers, because they are all sprucing up their images as well. They are trying to spruce up the unspruceable. They are trying to goose the ungooseable, not only spruce the unspruceable. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) is shocked by the ungooseable or the unspruceable. 1 do not blame her.
I want to refer now to the Government's greatest growth. The greatest growth it has had in the 18 or 19 years it has been in power is shown in the fiscal plan that was presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on April 19. I refer you to page 3 where it states:
Debt grew 26.6 per cent in 1982-83 and it is projected to grow a further 26 per cent this year.
That is the Government's record in growth, not the economy. The economy has not grown in the last three or four years. We are now in a worse position than we were three years ago but the debt has grown 26.2 per cent in 1982-83 and is supposed to grow at least 26 per cent this year.
Supply
The Minister of Finance goes on to say:
Declining deficits thereafter imply somewhat slower debt growth, but total net federal debt is projected to rise progressively as a percentage of GNP, from 34.4 per cent in 1982-83 to 46.0 per cent by 1986-87.
The financial requirements, which is the borrowing the Government makes to meet these deficits, will be approximately 6.9 per cent of the GNP this year. That is the record of the Government. Everything else declined except the public debt. The total amount of goods and services produced by the country's economy declined over the last two or three years. The total number of people working declined savagely over the last two or three years. But the debt continues to grow. For what purpose? It has not achieved either growth in the economy or growth in employment.
This is a 7D government. There are seven Ds comprised of equal parts; debt, deception, duplicity, deviousness, desperation, despotism and finally decrepitude. When one looks across the Chamber at the end of an Opposition day, one sees, in all its splendour, decrepitude unfolding before one. The Government is decrepit. Its policies are decrepit. Its debt is decrepit.
It is now engaging only in duplicity and deviousness in the desperate attempt to prevent someone else from forming a government to try to make this country one of growth, promise and hope. Again, it does not have the decency or good will even now to get out of office and call an election. It is clinging by its fingernails, toenails and its hangnails, afraid to go to the Governor General and ask him to dissolve the House, while half the crowd is out travelling around the world in the hope they will be forgotten before they return home so that people will forget what they have and have not done.
1 just have enough time to remind the House of one area of growth, which is loans and loan guarantees. We now have 19.1 billion in loans to the private sector by this Government and provincial Governments, 74 per cent of which is federal. There is $29.4 million in guarantees and loans to private bodies around this country by all 11 Governments, 97 per cent of which is federal. They include such fantastic companies as the Maislin Corporation-amazing Maislin. The friends of the Minister of Finance are among the latest to receive guarantees. One can only marvel that the Canadian public is not in here today ignoring the rules of this House and applauding us, making the Chamber rock with applause, as we attempt to point out how this Government has broken its promises in public spending, in public debt incurment, in every area we care to look at. The disastrous, decrepitudinous collection of twits that only an election can give the Canadian public-have I unanimous consent to continue, Mr. Speaker?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: -that only a dissolution of the House can give us the chance to rectify this wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The House agreed by unanimous consent a few moments ago that at six o'clock I ought to see the clock as 5.45 p.m. Accordingly, I must do so.

November 28, 1983
Adjournment Debate
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 62(10) to interrupt the proceedings and to put forth with every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply. Accordingly, the question is on the motion of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to the Order made Thursday, November 24, 1983 the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 29, 1983 at 5.45 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of participating in this debate tonight as a result of the question I posed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) on November 22, 1983 as recorded on page 29079 of Hansard. The question arose from The Globe and Mail news story that morning which suggested that Criminal Code omnibus amendments due early this year or early next year would include changes to deal more effectively with hate propaganda in our Criminal Code.
In asking the question of the Minister of Justice whether those reports were true, I also wanted to know whether the need for an Attorney General to give permission for the laying of a charge of hate mongering would also be withdrawn from the Criminal Code. I must say I was rather disappointed in the vagueness of the response from the Minister. I do appreciate the constraints he faces as a member of cabinet, that he cannot at random announce decisions that have been taken, although regretfully the suggestion was there in the newspaper and yet here in Parliament we were not graced with a response. However, I do hope that as he indicated the Government is moving in this direction.
This issue, the way our law can deal with hate in our country, is of great importance to our society, particularly following the establishment of our own Charter of Rights. The sooner these amendments we hear spoken of in the press, that may well be under consideration by cabinet, are acted upon the better.
I should say, and 1 believe most Members of this House would agree with me, that this is a country of immense tolerance, and yes, there are other countries that have records of tolerance for intolerance far worse than our own but I believe we have no reason at all to be complacent about the current situation in Canada. Certainly our history points out discrimination by the state itself-Government and Parliament-as well as by Canadians. For example, the Chinese people who originally immigrated to this country to assist in the building of the railway were not allowed to have women accompany them, including wives; there was the need for a fee in order to have a man's wife join him in this country, and there is the fact that women of Chinese origin were not allowed to vote in Canada until well after the second World War. We had black slaves in this country in the nineteenth century. Japanese-Canadians, faithful, good citizens who happened to be of Japanese origin, lost all their worldly possessions except what could be carried in a suitcase at a time of crisis during World War II, and were removed to camps. That is just one more example.
Even more important in contemporary terms, there are indications in Canada of a serious problem involving the hate of some Canadians for other Canadians based simply on race. Canada today is a major source of hate literature, distributed around the world as well as here in Canada. That material has been brought to the attention of various Members of Parliament by the Canadian Jewish Congress. In our newspapers, almost daily, there are examples of incidents of racism against Canadians, largely those who are visibly obvious to the larger society which is white. This country can only work if governments take the lead in breaking down barriers in education, in helping people understand each other better in order to get along as Canadians, and also in changing laws that now aid and abet intolerance to the point of creating real anguish for many good Canadians.
As a former journalist, Mr. Speaker, I agree that freedom of speech is fundamental to a healthy democracy but, no more than society would allow the preaching of insurrection of our state itself should it allow the preaching of insurrection to the principles of tolerance in our society and in our new Constitution. Hate that tears at the ability of honest, good Canadians to live in peace and without fear is every bit as damaging and wrong as attacks on our democracy itself.
If free speech is the freedom to tear away the principles of our Charter, then in the name of one freedom we will destroy the others in that Charter. Individuals must remain free to express their views, no matter how unpalatable those views may be to another, so long as that freedom of expression does not in itself lead to pain and real suffering for other Canadians
November 28, 1983

who are innocent of any wrongdoing. That is the essence of my concern. I hope the Government will not be long in responding to a situation that scars the very essence of our new Charter of Rights.


Mr. Paul-Andre Masse (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to reply to the question raised by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Fleming) regarding Criminal Code provisions dealing with hate literature. 1 think his questions are quite appropriate and timely.
Canada is a multicultural society. This is an undeniable fact which is now formally recognized in our Constitution and one which is welcomed by a vast majority of Canadians. Nevertheless, this reality is one which some individuals and groups find distressful. This attitude may result in overt or covert discrimination, and even acts of vandalism or violence. Many federal and provincial agencies are working to demonstrate the important values which flow from the multicultural nature of our country. They seek to bring about a progressive change in the views of those individuals who are prejudiced against visible minorities and other groups in society. This objective is yet to be attained. Therefore, the law continues to play an important role in the protection of various disadvantaged groups against discrimination.
There are several statutes which provide protection and relief to the members of visible minorities who have been discriminated against. This evening, however, I would like to discuss the provisions of the Criminal Code which deal with hate propaganda. These provisions are found in Part VI, Offences against the Person and Reputation, of the Code. More specifically, 281.1 and 281.2(1) and (2) deal with hate propaganda. The first section makes it an offense to promote or advocate genocide. The second makes it an offence to publicly incite hatred against an identifiable group, and the last section is directed at those who promote hatred by communicating statements in public.
Recently, minority groups have expressed their concerns about the lack of prosecutions under the hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code. They point to a growth in the prevalence of hate literature and suggest that the protection offered by the Code be improved in several ways.
Some of these suggestions include removing the element of wilfulness in the offence of promotion of hartred; doing away with certain statutory defences currently available to individuals charged with a hate propaganda offence; allowing prosecutions for promotion of hatred without the prior consent of the provincial Attorney General; and, as has also been suggested by some, that historical misrepresentation or the denial of historical events be made an offence if used to promote hatred. With the exception of the last suggestion, the Minister is currently giving careful consideration to all of these recommendations.
Adjournment Debate
! am inclined to believe that the maintenance of harmonious relationships between the various racial, ethnic and religious components of our society warrants a strengthening of the protection against incitement to hatred found in the Code.
With respect to the last recommendation, the issue of historical denial, we are somewhat hesitant to expressly incorporate this notion into the hate propaganda provisions of the Code. The implications of such a proposal are far-reaching. First, historical facts frequently depend upon the perspective from which one views the past. There are numerous incidents in history which are disputed by individuals and groups. Many of these incidents are not clearly defined or cannot be proven. That is why we believe that the courts are not the appropriate forum in which to resolve questions of this nature. Second, we believe that a prosecution under the existing provision could now be attempted against anyone who promoted hatred against an identifiable group on the basis of historical denial. Last, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.
As you already know, Mr. Speaker, Cabinet approved the creation of a special parliamentary committee to deal with this matter, and I believe that we should wait until that committee presents its report before making further recommendations.


SHIPBUILDING-CRITERIA GOVERNING CONTRACTS- UNEMPLOYMENT AT PORT WELLER. (B) SUBSIDY TO MARINE INDUSTRIES IN SOREL, P.Q.
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, on October 31 last, I raised two questions with respect to the awarding of the six Class 1,100 icebreaker contracts. The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Lapointe) responded by saying that the lowest bid is the criterion which is always used by the Government in a public call for tenders. However, the Minister was contradicted by a statement which came from his own office that very day.
That release clearly stated that national socio-economic considerations had to be a factor in virtually any contract the Government awarded. Of course, socio-economic considerations have to be factors in order to be consistent with the budget speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in April of this year. He said that earth will be moved, steel will be rigged and concrete will be poured in all parts of the country. The $630 million spent to upgrade and modernize the Canadian Coastguard fleet was to relieve regional disparity. However, nothing was said about the Government's selectivity program.
Adding insult to injury, the Minister's statement concluded by citing the reduction of unemployment as a key objective in the awarding of federal contracts. If unemployment is a factor at all, then St. Catharines-Niagara should be a prime candidate for favourable consideration.
For the past two months, St. Catharines-Niagara has led the country in urban unemployment rates. Last month, 26,000 people were out of work in the Niagara area and that figure is expected to rise over the next few months. Port Weller dry-

November 28, 1983
Adjournment Debate
docks, once the most efficient and competitive yard in the country and once an employer of some 950 ship workers, now employs less than 200. That Port Weller drydocks was not included in the new ship program was the final straw for the area and for an industry which has been neglected and discriminated against far too often by an uncaring Government.
Despite the fact that there are three Liberal Members who represent the Niagara region, that area was overlooked and bypassed by the 1LAP program. The response from the Minister remained that the Niagara region was being monitored closely. We are now being tantalized by a program which calls the area a qualifying centre for special Tier 1 designation.
Following on ILAP came the Industrial and Regional Development Program designed to promote industrial renewal and modernization in areas where long-term employment strategies are needed. Unemployment rates are said to account for 50 per cent of the weight when assigning tier designations.
St. Catharines-Niagara was given a tier one rating, the lowest possible. Mr. Speaker, there can hardly be much credibility in an employment program when the area with the highest urban unemployment in Canada fails to qualify for meaningful assistance.
What is more, the Government's own bureaucrats point out in a confidential report to the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), that meaningful recovery in St. Catharines, utilizing the existing local economic base, cannot occur. It went on to say that "it is within the urban centres of southwestern Ontario and the Niagara Peninsula that much of the industrial renewal and export development efforts will need to be directed." Those views and conclusions, Mr. Speaker, were submitted to the Minister last February.
How well received was that economic advice? From that time, the Niagara region has essentially been bypassed in the Special Recovery Capital Projects; it has received the lowest possible tier designation for the IRDP; it did not receive any LEAD funding and no shipbuilding contracts.
Consequently, when 1 hear Minister after Minister talking about bold initiatives to combat unemployment, I am led to ask-where? Why are unemployment needs elsewhere addressed more rapidly than in Niagara?
1 am struck by the irony of the Minister's response. After having been granted a contract, a further $2.2 million advance had to be made for yard improvement, but the Minister says that there is no relationship. It all depends upon who is signing the contracts. That money was advanced at least in part for shipyard renovation. Without that renovation, the bid on the icebreaker contract from Marine Industries might well have been higher. Indeed, Marine Industries received two icebreaker contracts. Fair is fair.
I would like to know which to believe as between the Minister's statement in the House that the lowest bid is the only criterion and the news release from his office which gives consideration to socio-economic factors. Which is it?


Paul-André Massé: Mr. Speaker, I understand the concern of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) and I will do my best to lay to rest his doubts about the policy on Government contracts.
I would like to point out that between May and September 1983, Port Weller Dry Dock Limited was invited six times to submit tenders for the construction or refitting of ships belonging to the Government of Canada. Unfortunately, the tenders submitted by the company failed to win any of the contracts. 1 may add that it was mainly on the basis of the principle of the lowest bidder that the Port Weller proposals were not chosen. As the House is aware, this is one of the basic rules of our policy on Government contracts.
1 also may remind the House that the concern for regional balance which was maintained in awarding the contracts demonstrates the Government's clear intention to act in the best interests of the country and its various regions.
The point I am trying to make is that Port Weller was not in any way discriminated against, compared to other Canadian shipyards. Moreover, the company was able to benefit from assistance under the Shipbuilding Industry Assistance Program administered by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley).
To get back to the criterion of the lowest bidder, I would like to add the following information. In May 1983, Port Weller Dry Dock submitted the highest of ten tenders received for the construction of a 72-metre patrol boat. In June 1983, we had the same situation for the construction of a 69-metre hydrographic survey ship, and during the same month. Port Weller Dry Dock refused to submit a tender for refitting the HMCS Protecteur, since its technical department could not handle any more work.
In July 1983, Port Weller Dry Dock submitted the fourth highest tender out of six from Eastern Canada-and only from Eastern Canada-for the construction of the type 1100 icebreakers.
In September 1983, Port Weller submitted the ninth highest tender out of ten for replacement of gas turbines and modifications to be made on the ship Norman McLeod Rogers. Finally, Port Weller submitted the highest of six tenders received for the refitting of the Sir Humphrey Gilbert. On Tuesday, November 15, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Lapointe), his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) and the Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) met with representatives of the company and the unions to examine the situation. Together they considered various contracts the Government would be letting to shipyards within the foreseeable future, and for which Port Weller would be asked to submit tenders. Mr. Speaker, I hope this answers satisfactorily
November 28, 1983

the question raised by my hon. colleague from St. Catharines, and I hope the Niagara region will continue to benefit from the Government of Canada's recovery program.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CYPRUS-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY TURKISH CYPRIOTS. (B) SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF CANADIAN AMBASSADOR FROM ANKARA
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the recent declaration of independence on the part of the Turkish Cypriot community is a matter of grave concern to Greek Cypriot Canadians in my riding, Broadview-Greenwood. My predecessor, Bob Rae, took a great interest in the Cyprus issue, raised these as concerns forcefully in the House and defended the continuing Canadian presence of our peacekeeping forces in Cyprus. I intend to carry on in the same way to raise Cyprus issues, new and old, as long as is necessary.
The Cypriot Federation of Canada has made clear what it considers needs to be done. Let me quote:
We condemn without reservation the Denktash regime for its illegal declaration of independence of the Turkish occupied part of Cyprus. We call upon the Canadian Government to do whatever necessary to nullify this breach of the London-Zurich Agreement including the imposition of sanctions on the Denktash regime and on the Turkish Government, which is responsible first for the invasion in 1974 and now the attempt at illegal partition of the Republic of Cyprus. We further ask the Canadian Government to condemn this illegal declaration of independence in all appropriate international forums of which Canada is a member.
Well, Canada has condemned this action. It has protested diplomatically. The Government has made clear it will not recognize the pseudo state so illegally declared. Canada has spoken strongly at the United Nations; all this is to the good, but it is not enough.
On November 17 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) if he would show the disapproval of our Canadian people of the Turkish government's role in recognizing the new regime, such as by withdrawing our ambassador to Turkey. This has been a request of the Cypriot Federation of Canada, among other organizations.
The Minister's reply was wholly unsatisfactory. He noted that the Turkish government has stated it was not behind the unilateral declaration of independence. So be it. But the Turkish government was the first to recognize the illegal regime, despite its responsibility in guaranteeing an independent Cyprus back in 1960. The Turkish government should not have recognized the new regime. Indeed it should have told the Denktash regime to withdraw that declaration.
It is well known that intercommunal difficulties in Cyprus are of long standing. Nevertheless there has been a considerable time in which the two communities have lived fairly well and peacefully side by side. I believe it can happen again, but not while one community has the Armed Forces of another country to back it up.
The sad fact is that Cyprus was invaded in 1974 by Turkish armed forces. The result is that 18 per cent of the population is occupying 40 per cent of the land mass. Some 6,000 Greek
Adjournment Debate
Cypriots were killed in the war of invasion. There are 200,000 Greek Cypriots who are refugees from their homes, and some thousands of Turkish Cypriots had to go in the opposite direction. Turkey now has some 25,000 soldiers on Cyprus. About 2,000 Greek Cypriots are still missing from the war of invasion. There have been sightings of these people. There is enough to suggest that some, if not many, are still alive in camps in Turkey.
On October 3, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to put pressure on the Turkish government to seek release of these people as a humanitarian concern. The Minister replied that he would investigate. He subsequently said he would not take any action on behalf of Canada. He did not consider it appropriate for Canada on grounds of our role as a member of the peacekeeping forces. In my view this answer is inadequate. The people are still missing, we have reason to believe they are in Turkey, and the pressure has to be put on there.
The Minister said in his letter that a solution to the problem of missing persons in Cyprus will only be possible through an ongoing dialogue between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, and that in view of the sensitive relations between the two sides this issue can be dealt with most effectively through appropriate UN channels or intercommunal talks rather than on a bilateral basis. 1 do not agree, Mr. Speaker. UN channels have been tried for years. Naturally we should continue but further action is also needed.
This is not just a Greek-Turkish Cypriot problem. The missing persons have been seen in Turkey, another country, not in Turkish occupied Cyprus. They were captured by the Turkish Army. In keeping a strict neutrality on Cyprus affairs, Canada has been too neutral, in my opinion. The missing Greek Cypriots constitute a humanitarian issue on which any country should feel free, indeed duty bound, to speak. Yet Canada abstained on the UN resolution on the grounds of its participation in the peacekeeping forces. Other peacekeeping participants have taken positions on the missing persons issue, including Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland and Sweden, without hampering their effectiveness.
Cyprus is a situation in which there is an aggressor and a victim. No one is suggesting there is an equal number of Turkish Cypriots missing in Greece. The Cypriots are being held in camps on Turkish territory. Turkey is a much larger and more powerful country with a massive standing army. When it comes to an issue like missing persons, a human rights issue, we must not let some arbitrary principle rule. We must stand up and speak forcefully on a matter of injustice.
On the issue of Canadian peacekeeping forces, I was pleased to see the reassurance on the part of the Canadian Government to keep our forces in Cyprus. We need them there as long as foreign troops are on the island. At the same time I must express considerable concern with the statement made by the Conservative critic on external affairs. That spokesperson has used the latest crisis to raise the possibility of Canada with-

November 28, 1983
Adjournment Debate
drawing our peacekeeping contribution. In my view this is the worst time we should be raising this issue. Certainly we want to get our troops home, but only when the need no longer exists.
I am sorry to have to note the Conservative hypocrisy on this matter. On Sunday, November 20, I spoke at a rally organized by the Cypriot Federation of Canada in Toronto to protest the illegal declaration of independence. The Conservative representative at that rally said the Conservative Party was with the Greek Cypriot community, but where is it when we have to talk about peacekeeping forces? They have either been silent or on the wrong side.
To conclude, I just want to express the concern of all Canadians to the families of people who have members missing or refugees. We will continue to work to see that these people are returned to their homes. I will certainly, and 1 can speak for my Party, continue to work for justice in Cyprus.


Paul-André Massé: Mr. Speaker, I really did not intend to monopolize the adjournment debate today. Nevertheless, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), 1 shall be glad to answer the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mrs. McDonald).
The position of the Government of Canada on recent events in Cyprus was made very clear in statements made in the House by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, and more recently by Canada's intervention in the UN Security Council. The Government of Canada deplores the unilateral declaration of independence of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, made on November 15, 1983. Canada recognizes only one Cypriot state, the Republic of Cyprus, and it has no intention of recognizing the new state that was proclaimed unilaterally. We firmly support action
being taken by the Secretary General of the UN with a view to reconciling the Greek and Turkish communities in Cyprus. The unilateral declaration of independence by Turkish Cypriots can only obstruct such action and compromise any chances of arriving at a fair and durable settlement.
When we intervened in the debate on Cyprus on November 15, in the UN Security Council, we reiterated our firm support for the efforts of the Secretary General to arrive at a negotiated settlement and urged other countries to do the same. The resolution adopted by the Security Council clearly reflects international reaction to recent events in Cyprus. In addition to its intervention in the UN, Canada has made its position known to the parties directly concerned by the Turkish Cypriot proclamation, including the Governments of Turkey, Greece and Cyprus. Turkish Ministers stated that the unilateral declaration of independence had taken place without the consent or knowledge of their Government. Nevertheless, Canada expressed its concern about the recognition by Turkey of the new Cypriot state and asked the Turkish Government to use its influence on Turkish Cypriot leaders in order to promote a settlement of this dispute.
The Government of Cyprus has, in fact, expressed its satisfaction with Canada's attitude. Canada, which for nearly twenty years has taken part in the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Cyprus, is very anxious to see a negotiated settlement. The Government of Canada believes it is essential that there should again be a dialogue between the two communities, and we shall do our best to make this happen. However, we do think a measure of the kind suggested by the Hon. Member would bring about a reconciliation between the two parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.33 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 29, 1983