1983-03-04

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, the Subcommittee on Acid Rain of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry published its report in 1981. Among its recommendations, there are two which read, and I quote:
The Sub-committee recommends that Canada and the United States reach an agreement on the necessary legislation and mechanisms to substantially reduce transboundary air pollution particularly as it relates to acid rain, by the end of 1982.
The Sub-committee recommends that Governments, public interest groups, and individual Canadians in general explore and utilize all possible political, legal, administrative and media channels to ensure that acid rain-causing emissions originating in the United States are substantially reduced and that a Canada-U.S. agreement on the long-range transportation of air pollutants is signed by the end of 1982.
Madam Speaker, negotiations between Canada and the United States have failed, because although many years of research have already been done, our neighbours to the south insist that further research is necessary.
I would therefore ask Canadians to do everything they can to make Americans aware of this very serious problem, and to support the efforts of the Canadian Government. Canadians may be sure that private conversations, written statements or meetings will not be subject to censorship, unlike the NFB films.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I and other Manitobans were shocked to hear from a Winnipeg open line radio broadcast, the Peter Warren Show, on radio station CJOB, that the federal Government plans to eliminate 250 jobs in Winnipeg by closing down the air traffic control centre located there. These jobs are going to be relocated in Edmonton and Toronto.
Winnipeg has been an important centre of Canadian aviation for 40 years. The Winnipeg air traffic control office handles all aviation control functions for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and northwest Ontario as far south as Sault Ste. Marie. Now that long and distinguished tradition is going to be forcibly terminated, ostensibly to avoid building a new control centre. The real reason, however, probably lies in a phrase used by a civil servant in discussing this matter. He said that "a greater federal presence was needed in Alberta." I find the implications of this remark deeply repugnant.
The loss of 250 jobs and the closing down of the air traffic control centre would have an extremely detrimental impact on Winnipeg's and Manitoba's economy. I have seen the federal Government repeatedly ignore Winnipeg's efforts to become more actively involved in Canada's growing aviation industry. This additional blow would openly confirm the suspicion shared by many Manitobans that the Government has absolutely no understanding of the skills and services the people of Manitoba have to offer. This move must be stopped.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Madam Speaker, I stand to draw attention to a persistent and increasing problem in the apple growing industry in Essex and Kent counties of Ontario. Given the extreme southwest location of these counties, the apple industry faces significantly different growing, climatic, and disease conditions than other regions of Ontario. These local growing conditions have resulted in adverse responses by many of the rootstocks and, therefore, the recommended rootstocks are proving to be totally undesirable in Essex and Kent counties.
Apple growers continue to suffer financial losses because of the lack of local performance and inadequate research information being supplied by the Departments of Agriculture, both provincially and federally. To rectify this problem, and to respond to the concerns of the growers, I urge the federal Department of Agriculture to take immediate steps to set up and finance a study at the Harrow Research Station. This study should adequately test the performance of the presently available varieties and rootstocks of apples, to determine their suitability for commercial use by the growers in these counties. The Department of Agriculture should also undertake to

March 4, 1983
recommend those varieties and rootstocks that are found to be best suited to the particular conditions in the area.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, the federal Government has developed a set of guidelines affecting the placer mining industry in Yukon Territory which, if implemented, will bring tremendous hardship to this industry and further unemployment to the people of Yukon. In fact an Environment Canada impact study, which has yet to be released officially, shows that the implementation of these guidelines would cause 47 per cent of the placer mines in Yukon to close. Consequently the Environment Canada report suggests that these guidelines be modified for the good of all Yukoners.
This is obviously the reasonable approach, but it appears the Government is not interested in the reasonable approach. Not only does it refuse to release the impact study officially, but it is now editing and tinkering with the study in order to maintain the credibility of those officials who drafted these unworkable guidelines. Clearly, the Government should scrap the proposed guidelines altogether and develop alternatives which are both practical and acceptable to the placer miners. At the very least it should release all relevant materials for public scrutiny, not merely some doctored document designed to help some Ministers and bureaucrats save face.
This is a very important matter because, unlike certain members of the cabinet, the Yukon placer mining industry will have to adhere to both the spirit and the letter of the guidelines, once they are set down.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, the Ontario Indian Fishing Agreement was signed on December 17, 1982, in Ottawa by the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and the five Ontario Indian organizations. The federal Government refused to sign on the grounds that the Agreement was unconstitutional. It has since come to light that both the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) have indicated that they misunderstood the Agreement and that it is in fact not unconstitutional.
In September the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development committed himself to the principle of the Agreement, including 100 per cent funding of 20 Indian conservation officers to be trained and made responsible to the Minister of Natural Resources. At the December 17 meeting both federal Ministers undertook to conclude the Agreement as soon as
possible. They have reaffirmed through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans their commitment to sign the Agreement. The Agreement has since been amended and sent to them. This was done on February 4. Although there was considerable public debate, the opposition to the signing of the Agreement was greatly reduced, to the point where, at a recent anglers' and hunters' convention, they endorsed the position of the chiefs of the Indian Bands.
It is necessary to go ahead with this before the fishing season starts. There is a constitutional conference coming up on Indian and Native Rights. It would be a gesture of good faith on the part of the Government if in advance of that conference it were to sign that Agreement which now appears to have almost total, if not total support, from all of the people most involved.


CALL FOR COMMITTEE ON GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, it is urgent and indeed essential that the federal Government take positive steps to promote the growth of research and development in the field of biotechnology. One manner in which this can be accomplished is through the formation of a House of Commons Standing Committee or Subcommittee on genetic engineering and biotechnology. Such a committee would regularly call on scientists and industrialists who are expert in these areas, for advice and direction in order to supply the Government with ongoing recommendations in this rapidly escalating field.
Second, I would urge the Government to reconsider its intention to turn down an application to host the proposed International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology which is being sponsored by the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. Granted, such a centre would direct research and training in biotechnology toward the specific needs of developing countries, but this centre would be a world class research institute attracting scientists of international stature. Investment in such a project would have effective spin-offs for the biotechnology industry in Canada. It would be a catalyst for the application of science and technology in the numerous industries with a biological orientation, while at the same time it would give positive help to fill the social and economic needs of developing countries.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, some years ago the then Member for Leeds noted for the first
March 4, 1983

time in this House the name of CBC producer Mark Starowicz in connection with the expelled KGB agent, Konstantin Geyvandov, who masqueraded in Ottawa as a Soviet journalist. Two years later the Attorney General of Ontario quoted in the Legislature an RCMP document according to which a Canadian media person over a period of five years was selling Geyvandov reports at clandestine meetings. Next day CBC producer Mark Starowicz identified himself as the person who, between 1970 and 1973, had accepted money for reports written for a Soviet correspondent in Ottawa.
Three months later Peter Worthington published excerpts from an RCMP document dated March 24, 1976, as well as this passage:
The RCMP report says Pravda's man in Ottawa, Geyvandov, was expelled from Canada after persuading a Canadian journalist to act on behalf of Soviet interests when reporting Canadian political events.
Mr. Worthington, as well as the Toronto Sun, were promptly charged under the Official Secrets Act. Needless to say, the mercenary agent of influence receiving rubles for services rendered was not charged.
I am strongly inclined to believe that the Canadian media person in the McMurtry statement and the Canadian journalist in the report referred to by Mr. Worthington are the same person. I wrote about it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). He is reluctant to reveal the man's identity. In the meantime, CBC keeps on its payroll a senior executive who, by his own admission, was also on the payroll of a Soviet official and who, I strongly suspect, is the same person identified by the RCMP as acting on behalf of Soviet interests.
I do not believe at this stage that the Liberal Government with its track record-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, the Government's latest broadcasting announcement contains a few new policy initiatives, some recognition of technological reality, and a whole lot of rhetoric designed to make policy inertia sound like dynamic action. Nowhere is that facade of dynamism more transparent than in the call of the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) for a new native peoples' thrust in broadcasting policy.
Two years ago next month, the CRTC granted the Council of Yukon Indians and the Dene Nation a licence to distribute radio and television services in the North via the Cancom satellite system. The CRTC made clear in that decision what everybody else already knew, that, if native broadcasting were going to exist, funding would have to be provided by the federal Government. The Government has had comprehensive
Oral Questions
funding proposals for native broadcasting in front of it for almost two years and has been apologizing for delays in acting on them for almost a year and a half.
The channels are there, the personnel have been trained, and the ideas and programs are ready to be developed. Let us cut out the rhetoric and provide native broadcasters with the longterm funds which they have been promised.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: My question, Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs-there is not even a quarter of Cabinet here-is directed to the Minister of State for foreign affairs.
This Sunday, March 6, His Holiness the Pope, will visit El Salvador. The guerrilla or rebel movement there suggested or agreed to a ceasefire while the Pope was visiting El Salvador. The whole of Central America, of course, is a dangerous area. We have just seen the kind of obnoxious behaviour which is occurring in Guatemala just before his visit there. Has the Canadian Government made representations to the Government of El Salvador, which has refused to have a ceasefire on Sunday? Have we made representations urging it to do so? If we have not, why have we not? Are we intervening in the matter at all?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must know that the Canadian Government is extremely concerned about the situation in El Salvador and is showing a continuing interest in the subject. In fact, a few weeks ago, we received the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of El Salvador and informed him of our concern, especially with respect to the general human rights situation in his country.
Futhermore, as the Hon. Member may know, we have now submitted a draft resolution to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, in which we are supporting as much as possible the conclusions of the U.N. Special Attache on the human rights question in El Salvador, and we have tried to submit a resolution that would be endorsed by as many countries as possible in the international community.


CONTENT OF CANADIAN RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question was specifically about the visit of His Holiness,

March 4, 1983
Oral Questions
the Pope, to El Salvador this Sunday, and on whether the Canadian Government has taken any interest in his safety by making a representation to the Government of El Salvador that it declare a ceasefire while His Holiness is there, in response to the same suggestion from the guerrilla side. The Minister has not answered that, and I would like him to do so.
The Minister mentioned the resolution which Canada introduced at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. There has been a wave of protest across the country about the fact that the resolution is weak. It was no teeth. It fails to call for any political dialogue between the Government of El Salvador and the rebel forces there. Why has the Government in its resolution not called for a political dialogue between the contending forces in El Salvador? This is the only way that human rights violations will cease. Why have we not done that? Are we opposed to such a dialogue? Are we urging such a dialogue on the United States? If the Minister would deal with both those issues, I would appreciate it.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, regarding the U.N. resolution presented to the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, it is a draft resolution which we are negotiating with a number of other delegations. As far as appealing to the parties to initiate a political dialogue, we are certainly prepared to include that aspect in our resolution, and we are also prepared to appeal to the international community to cease all military aid to El Salvador. Therefore, as far as the first half of the question is concerned, namely, whether we have made any direct representation recently, urging a cease-fire during the Pope's visit to El Salvador, I can inform the Hon. Member that we are urging the Salvadorean parties to initiate a cease-fire, without specifying any particular events to justify doing so. The Pope's visit as such should not be grounds for bringing about a cease-fire which we have been seeking for quite some time.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I gather from the Minister's reply that we have not made representations to El Salvador in connection with the visit of His Holiness the Pope. I can assure the Minister that there are many hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are very concerned about the Pope's safety, and I think representations should be made today.
same treatment accorded to the Committee on North South Relations. Three months have passed and we have had no response to the recommendations, although the Prime Minister indicated he favoured our joining the OAS but he was just waiting for a report from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can the Minister tell the House if the Government is going to observe that request by making a written response to the Subcommittee's recommendations, and schedule a debate in the House on the report? Further, what is the position on the OAS? Are we going to have an answer on the recommendations of the majority, in that area?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I am indeed aware of the contents of the report of the Sub-Committee of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which examines Canada's policy on Latin America. After the report was published, it was said on several occasions, and in fact I myself made this clear, that we were very impressed with the excellent work done by the members of this committee. However, I am not in a position today to give exact dates for our response to the committee's report, but I think it would be reasonable to assume that such response will be forthcoming by the beginning of this summer.
* *
*


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works regarding the sale of land at Mirabel. Mr. J. P. Goyer, head of the Canada Lands Company, has issued a notice to tenants of surplus Mirabel lands to the effect that those wishing to purchase the property they occupy must put down a 5 per cent deposit immediately and arrange for full payment within 30 days. If they do not, the deposit is lost. Can the Minister say if this is accurate?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with those facts. I will look into this and report.


IMPOSITION OF TIME LIMIT ON PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. The final report of the Subcommittee on Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean was tabled on November 30, 1982. The Minister will know that report asked the Government to make a written response to the Committee's recommendations and to schedule a day's debate in the House, the


Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I am amazed that the Minister who is responsible for Canada Lands is not aware of how those lands are being disposed of, since it has been brought up in this House so often. Does he feel that 30 days are an adequate amount of time for these tenants to arrange financing to purchase the property? Does he feel it is fair that these people will lose their deposit if they cannot arrange the financing within 30 days?
March 4, 1983


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, obviously I am not in favour of being unfair to anyone. However, I have to be cautious, because the last time the Hon. Member and his former Leader raised this issue, both of them were misinformed and I had to provide both of them with a legal opinion. 1 would like to check the facts before I try to answer the Hon. Member's allegations.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, 1 think the Minister of Transport is well aware that the United States is holding thousands of Canadian tourists hostage in order to bail out Continental Airlines of the United States. Is the Minister also aware of the possible links this airline has with the CIA, the White House, and the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board which cancelled Air Canada's discount seat fares and, if so, what is the Canadian Government going to do about it?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot interfere in American policies. I am aware of the power of Continental Airlines, and I am aware of the power of the American Government. But I am a realist, so we have been discussing this for a number of days. At eleven o'clock it was go; it 11:10 it was touch. We are working on it now. I am very attentive to the western interest and to CP Air's interest in that, and my western caucus is following me very closely.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You have nothing to lose, so you are gambling everything.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am very cautious, particularly about the route that exists between Canada and Australia in the Pacific. That route has been developing for 20-odd years and we are not about to give it away. We are having discussions now and we hope that they will work.


U.S. POSITION ON CANADA'S AIR AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER NATIONS
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, Continental Airlines wants to cut Canadian traffic to the Orient because it has lost business since the end of the Vietnam War.
1 know that negotiations are extremely sensitive at the moment, but I should like to know in greater detail what action the Canadian Government proposes to take to prevent United States authorities from interfering in Canadian airline policy and our foreign relations and treaties, and transport relations with Australia?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, "interfering" is not really the right word. There is a border between Canada and the United States. It is undefended. We have to negotiate with the United States in order to ensure that trans-border routes are established between the two countries, and in order to maximize communications between the people of our two countries. This is terribly difficult because of the geography and the numbers involved. The population of the United States is ten times that of Canada; consequently, to the United States, Canadian points are but an extension of their hub and spoke system. To us, each of these routes is single; it has to be developed, it has to be fed, and it has to be viable.
Some Americans do not understand that too well, and I do not blame them. It is the right of a big power not to understand the rights of smaller powers. That is why, for a number of years now, we have been discussing this. We are now into the seventh round of discussions on air relationships with the Americans. We have failed, up to now. We feel that they do not understand our case, and they feel that we are dragging our feet.
This is a symbol of what can happen. In their instance they have tied a decision on Air Canada and American Airlines' special fares to a resolution of the question of Continental. We are being careful because, in the resolution of the Continental question, they might establish beach-heads or points of principle with which we do not want to live. That is why the negotiation is quite complicated. It is very difficult, but we hope that good sense will prevail and that people will be able to travel.


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, the Minister is too diplomatic to mention the fact that deep philosophical differences are involved as well. There is a difference between the regulation and protection of our airlines and the deregulation policy of the United States which has left many American airlines flat broke and in hock to the bank. I am not interested in saving Continental Airlines in order to save the Rockefellers, and neither are other Canadians.


DANGER PRESENTED BY U.S. POSITION
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister to reassure the House that no beachheads will be established on the Canada-Australia line. If we allow U.S. airlines to siphon off Canadian traffic to Australia, how soon will United States authorities be up here trying to siphon off Canadian traffic to Europe?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his advice. I had thought of a number of these things, if not all of them, before. The difficulty now is that we are trying to take three major points into account. First of all, there are the 100,000 people who had made plans to go to the United States to see Aunt Annie and Uncle Charles, and so on. We are mindful of that, and we are mindful of the route that I indicated, the Pacific

March 4, 1983
Oral Questions
CP Air route. Also we are mindful of the general mood, climate or atmosphere of Canada-United States relationships. We are trying to combine that, shake it well, and serve it dry.


PLIGHT OF WEEKEND TRAVELLERS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Philosophy to one side for a moment, can the Minister tell those Canadians who are planning or hoping to travel later today whether or not they will be able to, and briefly can he indicate the nature of the proposal made by the United States late last night?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, on the first question, I cannot really say. I think sometime after twelve, one or two o'clock, we will have to cut whatever it is that we cut.


An Hon. Member:: Bait.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Cut bait. Let us say two o'clock, but the problem on Continental is that in the many conversations to which I have referred, with Mr. Harman, the Canadian negotiator, or I directly with Mr. Trent of the Transportation Department of the United States, reference was constantly made to mirror image. I understood that to mean that we would give Continental the equivalent or the mirror image of what Canada has on the Pacific. It is a strange mirror, because it tends to agrandize what it is supposed to reflect. They have been asking for much more than the mirror image. The name of the game has been to reduce that and bring it back to the normal job of a mirror, which is to reflect reality.


SUGGESTED NEGOTIATION OF OVER-ALL CANADA-UNITED STATES PROTOCOL
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In view of the 100,000 Canadians who are on pins and needles with regard to their travel plans, and who must be very happy that the United States is our friend, not our enemy, will the Minister of Transport have his officials instigate negotiations once this immediate problem is resolved with the United States, to arrive at some kind of protocol whereby this kind of ham-fisted action will not occur again?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, to speak very frankly and confidentially on this subject-


John Carnell Crosbie: We won't say a word.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, you don't. Traditionally, negotiating with the Americans has always been very complicated because power in the United States is divided among many people, agencies, departments and so on. It is always very complicated. If I look back 15 years, we have always had in the United States a number of people in the American administration or
in Congress who sympathized with Canada, who had a knowledge of it, who understood and made it a point of honour for them to understand our situation. Maybe through lack of effort on my part, or on our part generally, we do not find this commodity as often as we did in the past. The Ambassador is helping tremendously in establishing that good relationship.
In air transportation, because of this crisis on Continental we may have reached a number of them by constantly repeating that Canada is not the United States, that what is good for the United States is not necessarily good for Canada. They are not even sure their deregulation is good for the United States, so how can we go ahead and accept that? The present situation has given us plenty of opportunity to contact a great number of people in the United States. Maybe it will be a blessing in disguise, the fact that we have reached so many of them.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Some time ago the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for the administration of freedom of information and, I gather, privacy, indicated that Bill C-43 would be proclaimed and put into law on April 1, 1983. Is that still the intention of the Government?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I do not know the answer to that. Perhaps my hon. friend could ask it again on Monday when the Ministers will be here.


NOMINATION OF COMMISSIONERS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Minister another question with respect to Bill C-43. There are now public stories appearing in the public press about the nominations of the Government for the positions of Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner. It is important with respect to those two nominations that these matters not be dissipated in rumour, and that those people be appointed prior to April 1 which, as far as I know, is still the date the Government has in mind, and the Acting Prime Minister will check that.
Will he also undertake to consult with his colleagues and whatever officials are necessary in order to make the appropriate announcements at the earliest possible date prior to the proclamation of the statute, so that those individuals can be in place before that time?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton-in fact, he can check with his Parliamentary House
March 4, 1983

Leader-that I have already initiated negotiations with the representatives of the two Opposition parties, since the appointment of the Information Commissioner requires a joint resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate. I know that my counterpart in the Senate is doing the same. We are now at the consultation stage. Obviously, sooner or later a joint resolution will have to be presented in the House. Up to now, a number of Members have indicated that they were not necessarily opposed to the proposals but would like to express certain views.
However, our parliamentary schedule is pretty full. We have some very urgent bills that must be adopted before we consider representations on any other motion, so that as soon as we have dealt with the urgent legislation, and if we get a consensus in both the Senate and the House of Commons, we shall then table the appropriate joint resolution regarding this important appointment.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a couple of security matters which have been before the House before, that I would like to get cleared up. My first question is for the Minister of Justice in his role as Attorney General. Since November 23 last, when it was publicly announced that the matter had been placed in his hands, the Minister of Justice has been pleading ignorance about the case of Long Knife, the pseudonym for the ex-RCMP corporal who recently admitted selling out a potential Canadian double agent to the Soviets for more than $4,000. I do not know how much more bluntly, simply, or directly, I can put it to the Minister: Will James Morrison be charged or not?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I have to tell the Hon. Member that I have still not received a report from my Department on this matter. Until such time as the matter is brought before me, I am not in a position to be able to make a decision.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That is almost unbelievable, but I guess not.


REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF GOUZENKO INQUIRY EXHIBITS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is now over 18 months since the Gouzenko trancripts were released and we were told an internal departmental inquiry was underway which would report back to the House and to the Minister as to whether the actual exhibits and transcripts, the documentation of 30 years ago which Gouzenko took out of the Russian Embassy, should or should not be released. Will they be released, or will they not be released?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, as the Hon. Member indicated in his question, the transcripts have already been made public. The review process has turned its attention now to a collection of materials which are of great interest to the public that were generated by various Government Departments in the course of the hearings. These materials are contained, of course, right across the whole of the Government, not in one place. This inquiry, which I think is of great value and should be given priority, is underway now. As those documents are reviewed for the purpose of gathering them to make them public, the review will then turn its attention to the numerous exhibits to which the Hon. Member referred. It is a matter to which attention is being given.
If there were more resources available for allocations, it would go more quickly. But the job is being done, and it is being done seriously. I hope very shortly it will be possible to make public all the internal material generated within the Government in relation to the hearings, because there have been many requests for it.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State of External Affairs 1 will direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Minister knows, his Government is hosting a conference in Ottawa starting on Monday, called "Hi Tech 83", to promote increased participation by Canadian manufacturers in foreign, defence, and related high-tech areas. The Government has refused to release information requested by Members of Parliament and has restricted their access to this conference. Will the Minister tell the House why such secrecy is being used, and what the Government is hiding?


Miss MacDonald:: It is the age of information.


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of my colleague I will take notice of the question and I will try to get an answer back for the Hon. Member.


PROMOTION OF ARMS SALES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. Since the Government has invited to this secret conference not only U.S. military officials and Canadian trade commissioners from sixty posts abroad,

March 4, 1983
Oral Questions
including Chile, Argentina, South Korea, and the Phillipines- governments with shockingly bad records of vital repression against their own people-will the Minister tell us why the taxpayers' money is being used to promote arms sales abroad, and especially why the Government is promoting high-tech arms sales to such repressive governments as Chile, Argentina, South Korea, and the Phillipines? Will the Minister also tell us how this conference fits into U.S. military plans?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, quite obviously I do not know the exact answer to this question, but a reflection comes to mind. If Canada were going to trade only with countries that were universally loved in Canada, Canada would not trade much. Presumably some of my friends in the New Democratic Party would probably indicate that we should break commercial relations with the United States quite regularly. That is my reflection for today. If you trade only with countries you love, you diminish singularly your chances of economic wealth. As different Canadians love and dislike different countries, the choice would be quite difficult to make.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs or whomever will be taking his place in the House today. In view of the fact the Government feted and honoured in various ways the Foreign Minister from Nicaragua, does the Government plan to extend an invitation to President Majano of El Salvador to come to Canada to have some discussions, and present his point of view with respect to the crisis in that country, and, if so, has any overture been made?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier today in my first reply, three weeks ago we met with the Deputy Minister of External Affairs of El Salvador for the purpose of continuing the dialogue with the authorities of this country. Our own Assistant Deputy Secretary for External Affairs went to El Salvador about two months ago, I believe it was last December, to pursue this dialogue with the Salvadorean authorities.


PROVISION OF EXTERNAL AID
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. He must be well aware of the fact that aid in the millions of dollars is still being extended to Nicaragua, yet El Salvador, which has chosen the democratic route and plans a general election later
this year, in December, has been virtually cut off from all aid. Would the Minister indicate whether this matter is being reconsidered and, if not, how can he justify such aid to a socialistic country such as Nicaragua and no aid, to speak of, to a country that has opted for democracy?


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to have forgotten that fighting is going on at the present time inside Salvadorean territory, and we have every reason to believe that foreign military support is involved. Generally speaking, Canada's policy has always been to avoid any involvement with countries where armed conflicts or civil wars involve rebel movements and actual fighting. As far as aid to Nicaragua is concerned, I believe this country is among the poorest in the world, and that whatever its political affiliation, it has a stable government and its reconstruction plan needs the assistance of all undustrialized countries, and I believe that Canada is fulfilling its role in the international community as a responsible partner by providing assistance to this country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (External Relations) and is supplementary to the question put by the Member for York-Peel, which concerned an invitation sent to President Magana of El Salvador to visit Canada. If we intend to invite the real head of Government of El Salvador, I would suggest to the Minister of State that perhaps it would be better to invite General Garcia and Mr. Roberto Da Buisson, who are the two real bosses of El Salvador, not the President.


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I think these two questions have amply demonstrated our problems in sending an invitation to El Salvador.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance respecting his Deputy Minister. Can he tell us whether his Deputy Minister received a reply to his Deputy Minister's memorandum of January 15, 1981, to his then Minister, respecting the Gillespie affair?
March 4, 1983


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, obviously this is a question which should be addressed to the Minister of Energy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Cover up.


ADVICE ON POSSIBLE BREACH OF MINISTERIAL CONDUCT GUIDELINES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy will recall that I asked him the other day whether there had been a reply to the request that the now Minister of Finance act or comment on the memorandum of January 15, 1981, from his then and present Deputy Minister, Mr. Mickey Cohen. The Minister, 1 am sure, is interested in knowing all of the details and revealing them to the House. Has he asked his colleague, the present Minister of Finance, whether that colleague acted on the advice given to him in the January 15, 1981, memorandum that there was an action in breach of the conflict of interest guidelines respecting Mr. Alastair Gillespie? What was the action taken by the present Minister of Finance?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have checked this question of the Hon. Member and I think this note was mentioned on the memorandum. There was no discussion about it with the Minister and this note has not been followed up by anybody else.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Ping pong.


ROLE OF FORMER ENERGY MINISTER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, just so I can be clear about this, is the Minister telling us that the present Minister of Finance was advised on January 15 by his Deputy Minister, as indicated in a document tabled in this House, of dealings in breach of the conflict of interest guidelines, and that Minister did nothing about it? Is that what he is telling us?

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, that is not what I said. I said there was no discussion about it with the Minister and that the note that was in the dossier was not brought to his attention.


AIR TRANSPORT
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Manitobans generally were shocked to learn this morning of the proposed shut down of the air traffic control centre in Winnipeg. The services of that centre are to be relocated in both Toronto and Edmonton. On
Oral Questions
top of that there is the loss of some 250 jobs to the Province of Manitoba, more specifically to the City of Winnipeg. This proposed move cannot be allowed to happen at this time. Winnipeg has asked for a new control centre to be built, and six new control centres have been built across Canada. Could the Minister intervene to put a stop to this insane action which will severely damage the economy in Manitoba and also hurt the whole aviation industry in the Province?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to comfort my hon. friend for the weekend. I will read a note which I have just received. It states, "There is no talk by Transport Canada officials of a permanent move from Winnipeg. Stop. All that is being considered is a temporary relocation of controllers while asbestos problems are being resolved to protect controllers' own health."


Some Hon. Members:: Stop.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Stop.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: Watch those stops.


TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF CONTROLLERS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. His answer, which he received just a few minutes ago in the form of that note, is reassuring. Can he indicate to the House the length of the temporary relocation, and will this "temporary relocation" be carried out in Edmonton and Winnipeg, as the information available to me has indicated? Lastly, if it is the case that there will be construction, as is my assumption from his answer, could he also indicate when the construction of this new terminal or facility will be started in Manitoba?


Mr. Nielsen:: Got another telegram?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I cannot do that, but I will make sure that my hon. friend has the answer before the end of the morning. This asbestos situation has created problems in all airports. Taking it off walls, ceilings and floors has necessitated some adjustments. What is taking place in Winnipeg also took place in Ottawa some days ago. I will inform the Hon. Member of the exact number of days it will take to adjust to this necessity.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, on a

March 4, 1983
Oral Questions
number of occasions, has acknowledged that unemployment levels for this year will remain at very high levels. The Minister will know that if one factors in the number of people entering the job market for the first time this year, and recognizing the number of jobs that are being permanently lost, one will find that, simply to maintain the status quo, new jobs will have to be created to the extent of 5.5 per cent above the existing level.
We have been listening for many months now as the Minister has promised to take stimulative measures with regard to the economy by a variety of techniques. We were hoping to have a budget, first of all, at the end of February. Then we were hopeful that it would be in March. Now rumours are that the Minister is probably considering April. Will the Minister of Finance please give a clear message to the people of Canada on when he will make that budget statement so that we can begin the process of rebuilding the country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am certainly very eager to present a budget. I can indicate to you that if the House were to proceed expeditiously with the various Bills dealing with the Income Tax Act and borrowing authority, it would be easier to proceed with a budget shortly thereafter, but quite clearly the debate on those Bills is dragging. The debate has been proceeding for days and days and we still do not see the end. I can tell the Hon. Member that 1 am just as eager to introduce a budget as he is eager to hear one.


Walter David Baker: Produce.


Marc Lalonde: We will see when it can be done, when it will be convenient for all concerned.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I do not suppose that the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Opposition is holding up any of the Bills. When the Government is asking for $19 billion after only two or three days of discussion, I certainly do not think it amounts to holding up any Bill.


ROYAL BANK POLICY OF SEIZING FARMS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question, which is directed to the Minister of Finance, relates to the action of the Royal Bank of Canada. The Minister will probably be one of the most able in the House to appreciate the value of the family farm, having himself been part of a family which has lived on the land for many generations. Does the Minister support the new policy of the Royal Bank of Canada whereby it will foreclose on a family farm and will then be prepared to lease or rent the land back to its original owner as a way of adjusting to these difficult times?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is not so much a matter of whether I support or oppose the policy; rather, it is a matter of policy decided by a private institution. What I have noticed from the press reports on this plan of the Royal Bank is that it has indeed been very well received by some spokesmen for the agricultural and farming
community who said that this would at least ensure that families would remain on the farm. They have hoped that there would be some arrangement whereby these families could return to their farms when their financial situation improves, rather than having them removed from the farms they have occupied for many years, and sometimes for generations.
Some farming community spokesmen have noted that the Royal Bank has acted in a very humane way compared to the alternative of removing the people from the farms they have occupied for years. It is a matter of judgment, and 1 will not stand up here and condemn the Royal Bank for doing this. It is a matter for people to decide as to whether they would rather have the Bank exercise its full right rather than lease back the farms to the families concerned. Obviously and ideally, my objective is to reduce interest rates in this country and ease the interest rate burden on farmers and small-businessmen and others. The Hon. Member will have noticed that yesterday the Bank of Canada rate was the lowest in four and a half years. That is action which will benefit the farmers as well as everyone else in the community, and we will proceed with the kind of action which 1 hope will lead to lower interest rates and make things easier for everyone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I have received representations from my constituency with respect to the closing date for applications for the various elements of the Summer Canada Program. I suppose I would like to address my question to the Acting Prime Minister of the day and request that he draw the fact to the attention of the Minister of Employment and Immigration that there has been no advertising of this Program and its closing date in many rural areas. I would ask whether the Minister would extend the date for receiving eligible applications for all elements of the Program for at least two additional weeks?


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that many Government Members have also made representations to the Minister of Employment and Immigration regarding this possibility. The proposal has been analyzed within the Department and we are certainly going to examine it and consider the feasibility of extending the deadline for a few days after March 4. I can inform the Hon. Member right now that departmental employees across Canada are considering this possibility and that projects will be accepted after March 4.
March 4, 1983


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF CLOSING DATE
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte): Madam Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary question. The officials of the Department in the various areas of Canada cannot act unilaterally and must have authority from the Minister in charge because he is the one over whose signature the regulations and directives have come down to these people. Without ministerial authority and prompt ministerial decision, it will be impossible for many deserving people to take advantage of the various elements of this program. I would urge the Minister to act immediately by extending the closing date by a minimum of two weeks so that the proper publicity and application opportunity may take place. Would he please make that representation to the Minister?
Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Madam Speaker, 1 will try to answer the Hon. Member's question more slowly this time. I said just now that representations had been made to the Department and that employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration across Canada were informed that they would be able to accept applications after March 4.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, it has been announced that there is to be some doubling up of prisoners who are inmates in the cells of the Edmonton Institution. To what extent is it intended that this be carried out? Is the Minister satisfied that it is proper policy, in view of the objections of both the guards and the inmates?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I think that reports have greatly exaggerated the amount of doubling which is occurring in the institution.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There are close to 11,000 inmates in federal penitentiaries. Less than 400 are in double cells. This compares very favourably with any other penitentiary or correctional system in our country. It is certainly much better than that found in Provinces and which I have viewed directly. Also, we have a far lower crowding problem, if I can put it that way, than any system at all in the United States. Still, I am not happy about it. I am looking for alternative ways of being able to maintain our policy of having a separate cell for every inmate.
The difficulty now is that there has been a rapid increase in the inmate population, which is really the result of the imposition of longer sentences and of a far more conservative policy
House of Commons
by the National Parole Board than has ever existed in the past. Inmates who apply for parole are being released at only one-half the rate that they were being released ten years ago.
There is a construction program under way. It will not provide an immediate solution because we are not in a position to open any of these institutions in the immediate short term. I am concerned about the problem; I am looking for solutions, and it is not my intention to institute double-bunking as a permanent feature of the federal penitentiary system.


THE SENATE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and concerns another federal institution in this country, the other place. It is based on a rumour emanating from a highly placed source in this House that Mr. Alastair Gillespie is being appointed to the Senate. Could the Acting Prime Minister rise at once and reassure this House and the country at large that there is absolutely no foundation to this rumour?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, it is well known that under any regime, that of the Hon. Member for Yellowhead as well as this one, appointments to the Senate are the exclusive prerogative of the Prime Minister, and comments on those appointments are not particularly welcomed.


APPOINTMENT OF LAW CLERK AND PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL AND OF CLERK ASSISTANTS
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that the Governor in Council has appointed Marcel Pelletier, Q.C., as Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and P. A. C. Laundy and Robert Marleau as Clerk Assistants of the House of Commons.
I must say that I am very sorry to see Mr. Pelletier leave the Office of the House, where he worked for thirteen years. I wish to express my warm appreciation for the services he has rendered to the House of Commons of Canada. His competence and his vast knowledge of parliamentary procedure as well as his cheerful and calm disposition have made it a great pleasure to work with him. I am sure that all Hon. Members will agree that he leaves behind him a tradition of tremendous intellectual integrity and unconditional dedication to the institution he has served so well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 4, 1983
Petitions


Madam Speaker:: Fortunately for us, he is not leaving us altogether. In his new duties as Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, one of his tasks will be to forge links between his new office and his former one, so as to improve the capabilities of the Office by establishing the necessary liaison and structured exchanges.

It is with much regret but much gratitude that I wish Mr. Marcel Pelletier well in his new function as Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. I am only comforted by the thought that in his new responsibility he will still be able to serve the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I know it is not customary to comment on announcements from the Chair but I rise to associate the Opposition wholeheartedly and completely with every comment you have made with respect to Mr. Pelletier.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my party I also wish Mr. Pelletier well in all his future endeavours. I am sure he will handle them as well as he has served this House.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to add that I am happy to see my Opposition friends appreciate this judicious decision by Cabinet, since these appointments are made by Order in Council. Furthermore, I would like to extend my best wishes to Mr. Pelletier and to our new Clerk Assistants who, I am sure, will serve the House and its Members very well in their new functions.


Madam Speaker:: Now may I welcome to their new responsibilities Mr. Laundy and Mr. Marleau as Clerk Assistants. They both come to their new responsibilities in the full knowledge of the importance and difficulties of that function. Of course, their performance up until now at the Table and elsewhere is a guarantee to us all that we do have a very strong team to assist the Chair and the House in its proceedings. Welcome to you both, and congratulations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the
petition presented by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on Thursday, March 3, 1983, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition, the intent of which is to pray this House to take note of the grievance stated by 68 members of Grace Lutheran Church, Lakeview Heights, Kelowna, British Columbia, who ask this House to ban pornographic material on First Choice Pay TV or any other Canadian TV stations for home viewing, and further request that legislation and any other appropriate steps be taken to stop existing pornographic TV programming and further expansion of the same.
The petitioners pray and beseech this House to consider this vital issue which concerns them, with due respect for the moral quality of life in our Canadian society in the certain assurance that this honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,529 and 4,646.

DOCUMENT "CANAGREX: RESPONDING TO A NEED"


Mr. Wise: 1.	Did the Department of Agriculture publish a document entitled "Canagrex: Responding to a Need" and, if so, how many copies were (a) printed (b) distributed?
2.	Were the documents distributed according to an automatic mailing list and, if so, to whom were they distributed?
3.	Were the documents distributed on a request basis?
4.	Did the Government only include the two editorials which have come out in favour of Canagrex and not the more than 20 editorials which have opposed the legislation as presently drafted and, if so, for what reason?
5.	What were the total publishing and printing costs for the document?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Yes. (a) 750 copies of the publication were printed, (b) approximately 600 copies have been distributed.
2.	Yes, only to the news media and Members of Parliament.
3.	Yes, the publication is used to answer general enquiries about Canagrex.
4.	Yes, articles opposing could be found but not editorials.
March 4, 1983

5.	Total publishing and printing costs amounted to approximately $3,100.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was an Advisory Committee on International Collaboration in Microinformatics established and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the background or expertise of each member (c) what are the terms of reference (d) how often has it met and how often is it required to meet (e) what is the budget or anticipated cost of the Committee and for what specific tasks will monies be allocated?


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned:
(a)	MOSST is now in the process of deciding how to form an Advisory Committee on International Collaboration in Micro-informatics. Members will be drawn from business, universities, research institutes, labour and Government.
(b)	Members will be experienced in education or in information technologies such as micro-informatics.
(c)	This Committee will advise the government on Canada's involvement in the World Centre-Informatics and Human Resources.
(d)	To be determined.
(e)	Costs will be minimal. Non-government members will be reimbursed for their travel and accommodation expenses.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 4,397, as revised, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 4,397, as revised, be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

DIAND-EMPLOYMENT OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS Question No. 4,397 (revised)-Mr. Shields:
1. Were outside consultants employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 and, if so, how many and what was the total amount paid?
Borrowing Authority
2. Were any consultants paid more than SI0,000 and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) what was the amount paid (c) what services were provided?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary once again with respect to Question 2,042, that was asked on January 29, 1981, asking simply what was the total cost of the Prime Minister's Decem-ber/January world tour of that year, 1980/1981, and what percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by the Canadian taxpayer. As we have been asking for some time why this information has not been given to the Canadian public, I am getting more curious all the time as to why it is being hidden.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, there is no question whatsoever of anything being hidden, of course.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: This is a complicated question and providing the answer to it will take some time. However, I am delighted that the Hon. Member has drawn this to my attention. I can assure him I will look into it on his behalf.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 28, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Skelly, (p. 22957).
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, Bill C-143, the borrowing authority for $19 billion, is another illustration of the ineptitude and irresponsibility to the taxpayer of the present Liberal Government. Once again the Liberal Government is in need of funds, but funds which so far have no direction. Where and how this enormous sum is to be

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
spent is yet to be stated. Projected shortfalls seem to be constant with the current Government.
The present deficit is approximately $23.6 billion and the estimated deficit for the fiscal year 1983-84 is $29 billion. The Government has asked the Canadian people to follow a program of restraint, although the Government itself is unable to control its spending. The attitude is: "Don't do as I do, do as I say"
There are a number of occurrences which exemplify my point. On November 17 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) if he could give any indication of what the total cost will be to administer the Charter of Rights and patriate the Constitution. The Minister evaded the question. 1 followed up with a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) as to whether he has conducted a cost-benefit analysis of patriating the Constitution. He evaded the question as well.
Canadians have a right to answers to questions about how much of their tax dollars are being spent and on what. They have a right to know what benefits these expenditures will bring them. The Auditor General has reported sloppy accounting procedures in the Government. It was found that the Government over-estimated its worth by $ 11 billion, assets are $4 billion less than projected and liabilities are in fact $12 billion more than were outlined.
Once again the Government is proving itself to be irresponsible to Canadian taxpayers as it persists with blank-cheque spending. No cost-benefit analysis has been done. The Government is voting for legislation on expenditure programs about which it does not have any idea of the cost involved.
The problem is escalated in that expenditures are being advocated of which no one seems to be aware and which certainly are not approved by the legislature. I ask that the Auditor General be requested to review legislation in aid of providing an estimate before the House is asked to vote on expenditures. Members do not actually know for what they are voting.
Negligence on the part of the Government has given rise to various inefficient and costly Government policies which can readily be cited. Complications in the Charter of Rights have caused an outlay of $102,000 for a contract from the Justice Department to study this entangled state of affairs at the University of Ottawa. Coupled with this expense is a $1.8 million increase in administrative costs and related expenses for the proclamation of the Constitution which are also to be borne by the Justice Department. Where is the cost accounting? Who knows how much more wasteful expenditure will be permitted while jobless Canadians suffer because of this flagrant exhaustion of funds that should be put to better use for their benefit?
To add insult to injury, the official languages program is costing more than $448 million annually. Apparently there is no actual figure available. Either no one knows or no one is willing to let the cost be known of trying to force bilingualism on an unwilling work force. In 1982 one Member of the Liberal work force was most willing to learn French. Janet Smith, an assistant secretary to the Cabinet, was sent to Nice in Southern France for four months to learn French. The cost
to the taxpayer of this Riviera education was $12,000 plus Ms. Smith's salary, which is in the range of $60,000 to $70,000 per year.
Friends of mine in the federal civil service in Ottawa, after receiving a language diagnostic analysis, were informed that it will take 11 months to learn the French language. They were sent back to the Department and are dead-ended. They will only be trained for eight months. If you work for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), you are sent to the South of France.
Between September, 1981 and August, 1982 another civil servant, this time a field officer in the Barrie office of the Department of National Health and Welfare's income security program, attended a French language training course in Toronto at the expense of the taxpayer. The cost to the Government in wages was between $22,000 and $25,000, plus the same amount in wages for this individual's replacement employed in an acting position. The accommodation expense for 11 months totalled $9,295 plus $6,000 in other expenses. This is another example of the double standard of the Liberal Party. Those who cannot learn the French language in eight months are dead-ended. Their careers are finished. Others receive expense accounts and apartments and are sent to the south of France.
The translation of 276 million words at 24 cents cost Canadians $66 million last year. Training for the Armed Forces will cost $59 million. Between 1973 and 1977, $268 million was spent to make only 8,300 civil servants proficient in a second language. Although billions of dollars have been spent, only some 14,000 public servants have become bilingual.
These constitute the visible costs only. To date no one has recorded the indirect costs that a forced bilingual program has on private companies which must deal with the federal Government. Incidentally, the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) has legislation to deal with the private sector. If they do not comply with the Official Languages Act, they will receive jail sentences and fines. How does one put a dollar figure on lost time and misinformation because of communication restrictions? The Members of this House should decide whether Canadians would prefer to stand in the soup lines and ask for soup or be able to ask for it in either language.
The ominous dissipation of public funds by this Government has been exemplified time and time again. Illustrative of this fact in broader terms is the national deficit which has been revised twice since November 1981 from $10 billion to $25 billion. This is an increase of 250 per cent. The projected figure for the upcoming fiscal year is $29 billion. Bill C-143 is breaking all records. It is the largest borrowing Bill in Canadian history. Is this the example the Government is setting for the public?
I stand again today to make an earnest appeal to the Government to find a system of cost-benefit analysis before enacting any further blank-cheque legislation. Canadians want to know the benefits accrued to them through their ever-increasing tax dollars.
March 4, 1983


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-143 is only two pages in length but it speaks volumes about our current financial state in Canada.
Since the November, 1981 budget when the 1982-83 fiscal deficit was estimated to be $10 billion, we have seen an incompetent Government plundering our Treasury and watched the deficit increase by 260 per cent.
While the Government has argued that much of this extra funding has been needed to finance cost increases in programs related to the recession-for example, increased UIC and welfare payments-the problem is much deeper than that. It is the culmination of 15 years in which the size of the Government has increased at a rate much faster than the ability of Parliament effectively to manage it. What has resulted is a system that is cumbersome, expensive, inefficient and virtually unmanageable.
In a recent column by W. A. Wilson in the Saturday, February 26 Ottawa Citizen, he said and I quote:
The Government now makes a determined and dishonest effort to attribute its huge deficit to the decline in revenues brought by the recession, ignoring the fact that it was chronically in deficit for years before the economy turned down. The deficit will not disappear when times improve. Economic recovery will bring tax increases to pay for the excesses that are still going on.
When Government becomes so large after a decade of sprawling, cancerous growth, the fact that recession has no power to force the elimination of fat becomes serious. It matters now in a way that it did not matter when the '60s ended.
This leaves a troubling question: If severe recessions do not force Governments to pare away the wasteful fat, what will do it?
That is a key statement, Mr. Speaker, and I will repeat it:
If severe recessions do not force Governments to pare away the wasteful fat, what will do it?
Every year the Auditor General in his Annual Report to Parliament brings forth new evidence of financial mismanagement and waste. Every year the Government bobs and weaves and soldiers through the criticism and makes vague promises about trying harder next time. And every year we see little action to encourage financial responsibility. This past year the Auditor General spoke of the lack of accountability of the 480-odd corporations in which the Government has an interest. He told us of how PetroCan purchased oil companies at will, without requiring the approval of even the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, much less the Parliament of Canada. Rather than examine these purchases to see how they may or may not improve the lot of Canadians, the Government has treated each and every trip to the consumers' pockets as a triumph.
Spending of Crown Corporations amounted to over $25 billion annually at the end of 1979, and it has been growing steadily ever since, largely as a result of a sort of blank-cheque mentality, the same mindset, the same malignancy, that is destroying our entire federal system. The greatest single obstacle to an economic recovery for Canadians is the wastefulness of the federal Government and the intolerable burden which this has placed on our economic system. If we simply took less out of our economy to pay for mismanagement, then
Borrowing Authority
we would not need "injections" by Government to stimulate- or more accurately, "simulate"-demand.
I am not asking the Government to save money by cutting Unemployment Insurance payments or by taking welfare payments away from the needy. I am not saying that we should decrease payments to pensioners. However, we should, and can, manage our existing programs in a more efficient and effective manner without causing suffering by the disadvantaged.
As an example of a program which is mismanaged, I would like to cite the Summer Canada Student Employment Program. Every year the Department of Employment and Immigration allocates many millions of dollars to provide jobs for students. Every summer, the Government also habitually delivers cheques late to some program managers, instructing these individuals to go to a bank and make personal loans to pay program workers who are waiting for their cheques. This has happened every year since I have been associated with the Program in my constituency as a Member of Parliament.
Who is supposed to bear the interest costs on these loans? I wrote to the Minister about this problem last year and in his response he indicated that if the Program sponsor, or manager, would contact one of his officials in Vancouver, they would then be compensated for interest paid on these loans. If the Government proposes to solve our unemployment problems with these make-work programs, you would think it would be well enough organized to at least pay the workers on time. After the Program has become established, as this one has, one would at least expect that Government would have figured out a way of performing this simple task.
It is not simply the interest charges which must cost the Government in this situation. The Minister, of course, must assign someone to administer the payment of these interest charges. There is also considerable cost and frustration caused to the sponsor, and many people in my riding have indicated to me that they will not apply for the Program again because it simply is not worth it. There are just too many problems.
The Department has also become less efficient in another area of the "Summer Canada" Program. In 1981 I knew how much money my constituency would be allocated by January 19, and the deadline for applications was March 16. This gave project sponsors almost two full months to develop worth-while projects and to submit proposals. This year I found out how much my constituency would be allowed on February 25, just a week ago, and the dealdine for submissions is today, March 4. Many of my constituents are only now finding out that there will be a Summer Canada Program. This smacks of gross lack of planning by the Government, if not downright mismanagement. Today, Mr. Speaker, this matter came up in Question Period, and I would urge the Minister to see if he could give us another two weeks before the cut-off dealdine on this Program. One would think that the process would become more efficient as the kinks were ironed out and as established procedures were set up. What has in fact happened is the opposite.

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Another such example within the same Department is the Employment Bridging Assistance Program. Last August I wrote to the Minister indicating that this Program was being very poorly administered. 1 sent him copies of newspaper articles and editorials condemning the fact that participants in this Program were simply not receiving their pay cheques from the federal Government on time, and that this was placing them under considerable hardship. What is interesting is that during this same time there was not one single complaint of late pay cheques issued by private sector companies which were also involved in the Program. The Minister responded to my letter on September 30, saying, and I quote:
As you pointed out in your second and third letters, there have also been legitimate concerns relating to late payments to Employment Bridging Assistance Program participants. Although these will continue to be an unavoidable delay of approximately two weeks while participants' claims are transferred to our manual pay system, because of the tighter administrative control that is now being exercised, there should be no further lengthy delays of the type that occurred in the past.
Ele goes on to say:
I have been advised as well that courier service is being used to transport claim cards in order to help ensure that participants are paid as quickly as possible.
The problem has not been resolved, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago I received a call from a distraught constituent who was participating in the EBA Program. His cheques were still arriving anywhere from four to eight weeks late. The situation has become so serious that many people who joined the Program are now considering dropping out, because when they are collecting Unemployment Insurance, at least they receive their cheques on time, even though they are smaller. Almost all of these people are in desperate financial straits. Some of them have had to borrow from friends and relatives simply to feed themselves and their families while waiting for their cheques.
If this is the result of the Minister's "tighter administrative control", imagine how things operated when the administrative control was less efficient. Even after half a year and the added expense of having a courier service deliver the claim cards to the head office in Vancouver, the Program is so poorly run that participants must wait up to two months to collect their pay. If a private employer involved in these programs had been similarly inefficient, he would probably be out of business by now. But when the Government does it, the employees have no alternative. They must simply wait and hope for the Government cheque to appear some time in the future.
These people are not lazy, Mr. Speaker, they want to work. Everyone who has contacted me about this Program has said that they approve of it because it at least gives them a job. They do not want to simply sit and collect Unemployment Insurance benefits. However, the sloppy administration and poor management of the Department is driving people away from such programs. This is a complete and utter disgrace.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, about two weeks ago I received a news release in my office from the Public Service Alliance of Canada. In the release, the PSAC condemned the Government for its proposal to decentralize the Department of National Health and Welfare as "a totally inexcusable waste" of public funds. It goes on to state that restraint and decentralization are mutually exclusive terms. The 505 positions being moved
deal with the administration of the Canada Pension Plan, Family Allowances and Old Age Security benefits. The Government is asking those least able to afford it, the pensioners, to exercise restraint, yet feels no compunction at all in spending large amounts of money in relocating 505 positions for reasons described by the PSAC as "politically motivated". Personnel will be moved from Ottawa to Timmins, Chatham and Peterborough, and from Halifax to Sydney, Nova Scotia. The Vice-President of the Public Service Alliance has said, and I quote:
The decision by Cabinet is a politically motivated plan designed to help improve the chances of the sitting Liberal Members to retain their ridings in the next election.
This is typical of the present administration. When it comes to taking care of Liberal MPs who are about to lose their seats in the next election, or with Peter Stollery, Donald Macdonald, Michael Pitfield and Alastair Gillespie, the Government spares no expense.
The decentralization of National Health and Welfare employees is a perfect example of the Liberal style of governing. They are willing to abuse the system to retain power, but are incapable of effectively using that power for the public good when elected. They have no sense of direction. The Government's effort at restraint is limited to a slogan, "six and five", but it is incapable of putting in place a program which would put substance behind the slogan.
Its continued mismanagement of existing funds and programs has resulted in Bill C-143, a request to borrow a further $19 billion, and that makes the six and five program a farce. No amount of gloss and slick public relations can hide that simple fact. That Bill is an admission of failure by the Government. It has failed to exercise the restraint it urges upon all other Canadians, and by doing so it has failed to provide the economic leadership which this country so desperately needs at this time.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-143 is only two pages long, but it speaks volumes about the incompetence of this Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) and I must say I agree with the concerns he has raised and the problems he has identified with so many of the direct job-creation programs of the Government. I certainly would like to lend my support to the concerns he has raised.
However, in the few minutes that I have this afternoon I want to focus on the issue before the House now to refer this matter of borrowing $19 billion to committee for further discussion and examination. I would like to list the groups from one constituency in western Canada who have communicated to their Member of Parliament on this matter. Various priests and ministers, mayors and councils, labour
March 4, 1983

councils, chambers of commerce, business and professional groups, church groups, specific unions, community groups and ethnic organizations, service clubs, special interest groups, and a variety of businesses and different individuals have taken time over the last number of days to communicate to a Member of Parliament a simple question to be raised in the House. This is from a community which is experiencing unemployment levels of nearly 30 per cent as defined by Statistics Canada. The question is: What indication is Government giving to justify borrowing $19 billion?
With some reluctance, Mr. Speaker, I have had to respond to each and every inquiry that I do not know. Members of Parliament are unable at this time to determine the Government's priorities when it comes to spending $19 billion. I know the Minister, when he introduced this request some days ago, suggested that we simply have to wait until the Estimates are tabled and then there will be a very clear indication what the priorities and goals of this Government are. Well, I have looked through those Estimates. I discussed them with a number of my colleagues and it is difficult to say, looking at that information, just what the specific goals and objectives of the Government are. Are they to work towards a full employment option? Are they to work towards higher productivity in Canada? Are they to restrain or stimulate the economy? Are they to move more towards the process of Canadianization? One can list a whole number of questions. Yet looking at the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, it is unclear what the Government's priorities are.
Another question usually raised is: What is the Government trying to do? Is it trying to assist us in some direct way? One can lay out the list of job-creation programs which the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin mentioned in his remarks, the alphabet soup of LIPs and FLIPs and BLIPs and NEEDs, a whole list of things that the Government has in place designed to create jobs. But we as Members of Parliament know that that is by and large an ad hoc approach, a band-aid approach. They do put a handful of people to work for a short period of time, hopefully to allow certain people to requalify for UI benefits; but by and large, if we are talking about thousands out of work in a particular region, we are creating jobs for a few hundred and obviously it is not solving the problem.
What frustrates people, Mr. Speaker, is when they read on a regular basis about the millions of dollars going to assist certain firms in bail-outs, or assisting certain firms to reorganize their financial affairs. I am not talking about millions of dollars or tens of millions of dollars; in many cases we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars which go to a single firm. Dome Petroleum, Chrysler and Massey-Ferguson spring to mind. I could go on because there is a whole variety of firms receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to assist them in restructuring their financial obligations so that they can continue in business.
Small businesses and farmers and ranchers, and I suspect fishermen in other parts of Canada, are asking why it is they get no assistance, absolutely nothing, other than being possibly eligible for some of these simplistic make-work programs with
Borrowing Authority
all the red tape and hassle and so on that the previous speaker mentioned. Is this what we get? Why do we not get these other forms of assistance? Then, Mr. Speaker, they begin to get very cynical when they see certain businesses collapsing, such as in the forest industry, with thousands of jobs lost, which jobs will not return as the result of restructuring going on in that sector. Then they hear that a certain industry in central Canada will be getting a bail-out to enable thousands of jobs to remain in place. They will get financial assistance to shore up that industry to enable them to continue. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but the point is that if they are going to do it for one industry, one sector in one region of Canada, what about the other parts of Canada? What about industries in other parts of Canada which some of us would argue get very little assistance? In some cases they get absolutely no assistance at all.
We have been listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) saying: "Just wait until the Estimates come out and then you will understand what is going on"; or more recently he is saying the budget will soon be coming down, perhaps in March, maybe April, and then we will get an idea of how the Government plans to spend the $19 billion. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is asking a great deal of the people of Canada, remembering this was the Government whose leader back in 1980, in Toronto, said this Party will not stand by and let the recession come. Unfortunately, he meant it. The Government did a whole number of things to ensure that the recession came, faster and bigger than perhaps it normally would.
This is the same Government that says yes, we have an industrial strategy in this country. It is called dependency on the oil industry. We have identified the petroleum industry as the goose and the revenue coming from that industry is the golden egg. That was our strategy, our economic saviour. That was what we were going to depend on for economic recovery in this country. When the Government reached into the nest and lifted up the goose to get at the golden egg, what it found was not an egg. It found other material and the whole thing collapsed. The one strategy in place collapsed because of the assumption that energy prices were going to continue to increase forever.


Mr. Corbett:: What did they find?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What did they find? I will leave that up to one's imagination.
This is the same Government, Mr. Speaker, which says: "Have faith in us and the upcoming budget". This is the same Government which created a situation in Canada where people went to sleep one night and when they woke up the next morning they could easily have thought they were in Poland. Workers in the public sector across the country found that some of their basic rights had been dropped stripped away. They found that the basic right of free collective bargaining was no more. This is the Government that time and time again has told us that Liberals are good for us. Hon. Members opposite say that their policies are good for Canadians, but that is like saying that bush fires and floods in Australia are

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
good for Australians. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker, and it is not the kind of statement that builds confidence.
I suspect that the scorched earth policy that the Government has introduced, the fact that 1.6 million people are unemployed and that the Estimates tell us that the Government's commitment to direct job creation is an increase of $100 million from last year, all demonstrate very clearly that solving the problem of unemployment in the country is not a priority. The Government has another priority. As the Minister of Finance told us recently, the Government is not interested in promoting a major stimulus in order to get people back to work. Contrary to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said recently, the Minister of Finance now says the Government is backing off from that idea and this hesitation is gaining strength in caucus and in Cabinet.
I want to end my remarks by saying that economic recovery in the country cannot occur when 1.6 million people are out of work and increasing numbers of people are threatened with losing their jobs. The consuming public must regain confidence before recovery can occur. But this confidence will not build while people see their neighbours out of work and face the prospect of unemployment themselves.
I make a plea to Members of the Government, Mr. Speaker, to see to it that the budget contains serious, major and bold steps toward short-term and long-term job creation. Unless it does, economic recovery will not occur in 1983 as we had all hoped it would.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to speak on this Bill. I will address it from a very positive point of view rather than a negative point of view and make some concrete suggestions about what the Government might do with the $19 billion it intends to borrow. I take it as a positive sign that the Government has not yet made any announcement about the plans for the utilization of that $19 billion, a sum that would have made old "What's a million" C. D. Elowe blush with shame.
I think it is unfortunate that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who was in his place a short time ago and obviously has other business, is no longer present. The bulk of what I have to say and the suggestions that I will make during the short time available to me will be directed to transportation and in particular to matters that I have dealt with in the House from time to time in the past. I think my remarks will be of particular interest to the Department of Transport and to the Minister.
I feel it is vitally important for the future confidence of Canadians that they feel that this enormous sum of money will be utilized for the benefit of Canadians generally rather than for a select few in a select area for a period of time of short duration. What they are talking about is something that is close to the heart of all Canadians-their future and their jobs.
The Government has taken the position that, in the final analysis, the six and five program may prove to be of some
benefit to Canadians. I hope that will be the case but I think the program has to be implemented and has to be shown to be implemented to the benefit of all Canadians.
I want to stress the issue of the six and five program in relation to the CPR, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that the CPR has become part of the legislation. It has included its employees in the legislative process; it has legislated its employees into the six and five program. We know that the CPR is the beneficiary of a great amount of money through various Government programs, not the least of which is the Crowsnest agreement and other subsidies, such as those conferred on VIA Rail and through other associations with the government.
I think it is necessary that we petition the CPR on behalf of its employees. I know that many Hon. Members have concerns both outside and inside Canada, such as the right of human beings to live in dignity and in the style that we as Canadians should be accustomed to. My plea will be for those employees of the CPR who are particularly affected by the six and five restraint program yet who, unfortunately, are not being treated in a manner which befits an industry of such substance and of such high profile in this country as the CPR.
I want particularly to refer to the group of Canadians who belong to the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks in the Saint John region of New Brunswick. They are concerned about their future, the future of their families and their jobs. They have been tied to the six and five program since its implementation. Their main concern is job security, as many of them have lost jobs. For some of them the job future is bleak. They have petitioned Members of Parliament to urge the Government to impress upon the CPR its responsibility to the community to act as a good corporate citizen benefiting from the six and five program.
I urge the Minister of Transport to appeal to the CPR to recognize that job security is not only vital to the individuals involved but is vital to the security of the entire region. Many of these people have lost their jobs and now other jobs are in doubt. Twenty-eight jobs have been lost in the customer service centre, 62 truckers in the Saint John area recently lost their jobs and there are rumours that another 17 jobs will be lost in the McAdam and Saint John area by May 1. All these people are entitled to know what the future holds and they are also entitled to benefit from some of the money that will accrue to Canadians through the Government's proposal to borrow this $19 billion.
I am glad to see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) in his seat. Two months ago I questioned him about the shipbuilding policy review that the Government had announced. I asked him when he would be undertaking implementation of that legislation for the benefit of shipyard workers in the Saint John area. At that time the Minister assured us that, if we gave him some assurance of co-operation in the passage of the Bill, he would introduce it forthwith or within a very short period of time. We have anxiously awaited
March 4, 1983

introduction of this particular Bill in the House but to date we have not seen it.
We know there is an accelerated program before Cabinet at the present time which deals with shipbuilding and that the Minister will have some input into those particular measures. This accelerated program would be used to stimulate the shipbuilding industry, and hopefully the Minister will see fit to encourage his colleagues to spend some of this $19 billion in this area. We know that $150 million, for instance, was allotted for the purpose of the construction of two buoy tender icebreakers, that there is a program in place for modifying offshore vessels for aid in navigation and that $78 million has been allotted for that particular construction project. We also know that this accelerated program is now before Cabinet. We hope it is implemented and that Cabinet agrees to it, so that some people in the area will have the advantage of at least future job security. There are many things for which the Government can utilize that money to enhance the security of people in job-related areas and in a meaningful way, not in a band-aid way. I strongly urge the Government to do that.
Also I urge the Minister of Transport to implement his program for increased VIA Rail services rather than decreased ones. We know that when the matter of the elimination of the Atlantic Limited was raised here some time ago, the Minister promised that the Maritimes region, in particular southern New Brunswick, would have LRC participation by 1983. Now we understand it has been extended to 1985. Perhaps the Government will use some of the $19 billion for the restoration and improvement of rail services in southern New Brunswick which have been taken away from us. We see that another ten VIA Rail jobs in the Moncton region will be cut.
I ask the Government to allow this money to be used for the benefit of Canadians in a universal manner, not only in band-aid projects or for the benefit of a few constituents who happen to be located in constituencies represented by sitting Liberal Members and support the Government. I see the Hon. Member Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) is present in the Chamber. I know his concern for the people of his region. I encourage him to rise in his place and urge the Government and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) to meet with officials in that area so that they will have access to some of those funds. I ask the Government to let this money be used for the benefit of all Canadians.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow in this debate the very positive note established by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) and also the other Hon. Members on this side of the House who have spoken. We have noticed the absence of Government Members participating in this debate. Perhaps that this is to be expected, but I think the tone of the debate is a positive one which should be supported by both sides of the House.
Bill C-143 is in several parts. The first part would allow an additional $5 billion worth of borrowing power for fiscal year
Borrowing Authority
1982-83 and an additional amount of $14 billion which will give us borrowing authority for fiscal year 1983-84. Obviously our major concern is the second part of this two-page Bill and the $14 billion which will be borrowed by the Government without it having established what are its priorities and what the money will be used for.
This entire debate takes place in a context which is unfortunate for Canadians. It sees us in the midst of a recession which has been unparalleled, certainly in my lifetime and probably in the lifetimes of most Members of the House. This recession is marked by a lack of confidence which is also unparalleled in my experience. There is a lack of certainty about where the Government is going, what it will do and what are its priorities.
We all know too well that it is clearly the priority of politicians to be re-elected. Many of the moves of the Government in the allocation of funding and in looking at opportunities in Canada have unfortunately been misdirected toward allowing the Government to assume the best profile in the eyes of the electorate. It has failed miserably, as indicated by the feelings of Canadians across the country in different polls. In fact, this is one of the essential ingredients in its planning and its approach to the allocation of public funds. We regret that and can only encourage Government Members, instead of viewing their position from the point of view of trying to get re-elected, to try to think of the interests of the country and the future planning which is necessary if we are to develop our potential.
I would like to spend a little time establishing what are our debts and liabilities in Canada in contrast to our assets. This borrowing Bill has established that our cash requirements for the fiscal year will be $26.1 billion. If we add that cash requirement, Government deficits and so on together, we end up with a total debt of approximately $120 billion. There are different methods of figuring this amount. I found it somewhat confusing. I do not think it would be extraordinary to think that other Hon. Members and the public in general would find it confusing.
One of the best short explanations I could find appeared in The Financial Post on February 26, 1983. I would like to read into the record our assets and liabilities. First, under liabilities, on top of the $120 billion in securities that we have as liabilities, which include Canada Savings Bonds, Treasury bills and Government of Canada marketable bonds, we have $20 billion or so in liabilities. They are comprised of the following. There is $3 billion in loans from domestic and foreign banks to support the Canadian dollar. There is $1 billion in coins. Coins are a direct liability of the federal Government, whereas dollar bills are a liability of the Bank of Canada. There is another $1 billion in life insurance and pensions, mostly annuities which were sold by Ottawa up until 1968, and there is $15 billion in such things as matured debt, bonds which have reached maturity but have not yet been cashed, provincial tax collected but not given to the Provinces, money owed to the Canada Pension Plan but not yet paid, and interest due but not paid. I will talk about the total of these in a minute.

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
After we have listed our liabilities, under assets we have, as the federal Government's major asset, about $32 billion representing its share in the assets of Crown corporations. There is also about $7 billion in loans to the Provinces, Territories, other countries and international organizations. There is $1 billion in things such as taxes accrued, the Veterans Loans Act, mortgages and Ottawa's 48.5 per cent interest in the Canada Development Corporation. Fixed capital assets are also included. They are buildings, Armed Forces equipment, machinery, other equipment, natural resources and so on.
It would raise the assets total considerably if we combined all these items. Indeed, if natural resources were included, we would see the federal Government in a very large surplus position. We cannot for our balance sheet count on those. There has been very clear demonstration in the past several months, particularly with what is happening in OPEC and so on, to show that we cannot rely in a traditional manner on natural resources. We are in a pinch right now because the Government counted on the revenues and taxes it hoped to achieve through the National Energy Program. Indeed, they will fall far short of the expectations of even a few short months ago.
My time is coming to a close. I have had very little time to contribute to this debate, except to read into the record what are our assets and liabilities. But in conclusion, as I call it one o'clock, let me indicate that Canadians are really looking for an indication of confidence in leadership and management of Government. This Government has not shown that. It is its responsibility to establish that vital link as soon as possible in order to achieve economic recovery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth reminding ourselves that Bill C-143, which is now before us, is intended to empower this Government to borrow, first, $5 billion before the end of this fiscal year, and to pass $2 billion of that borrowing power, if that amount remains, on to the next fiscal year. In addition to the $5 billion, the Government is seeking from Parliament the authority to borrow another $14 billion for next year. The Government is seeking the authority to borrow that amount without telling Parliament or anyone else the purpose for which that $14 billion is intended.
We are also dealing with an amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party which asks that the subject matter of this Bill be referred to a committee, especially the $14 billion portion of it. The New Democratic Party is concerned about
that, as we are. Members on the other side of the House do not seem to be concerned about it at all.


Walter David Baker: Look at them, they are unconcerned.


Donald W. Munro: But $14 billion for next year's unspecified purposes is the basis for our consideration this afternoon.
This is the first time to my knowledge, and I venture to say within the experience of anyone in this chamber, possibly the first time in the experience of anyone in any democratic parliamentary institution, that a Government has dared to put out its begging bowl to ask for authority to borrow an amount of this magnitude, $19 billion without showing cause. This is the first time; may it be the last.
Even more reprehensible, the Government is asking this Parliament in March, 1983, to authorize this Government, which has shown its disregard for public finance, to borrow funds for the next fiscal year. I think it is worth reminding those who are listening that kings have lost their heads for less.
Parliamentary control over Government spending by long tradition-going back at least three and one-half centuries, possibly even longer-rests on the proposition that no Parliament will grant funds that are to be spent beyond the fiscal year in which they are requested. This principle after a long struggle was embedded in parliamentary practice as a result of Parliament's long struggle with Charles I; and we all know what happened to him. "Pierre the Terrible" may suffer the same fate.
We are being asked, let me repeat, to empower the Government to borrow $19 billion-$5 billion this year and $14 billion next year. But for what purpose? For further interventions in the economy? For further purchases like Petrofina which cost a little bit more than $1.5 billion? A purchase like that would use up about 10 per cent of the $14 billion. Perhaps the Government wants to advertise more about energy self-sufficiency, which we are told is "that close" to being realized. That is not quite true either. That energy advertising cost just less than one million dollars. Those are the sorts of things the Government presumably wants the $14 billion for-


Walter David Baker: They are closing bases in the riding of Northumberland-Miramichi.


Donald W. Munro: -and possibly to pay their friends, the Gillespies of this world, for their participation in projects which, if we are to believe the documentation brought forward most recently, are uneconomic.
[DOT] (M10)
Perhaps it is to find the $11 million which the Minister offered to an enterprise in my riding last weekend, if I remember correctly, or perhaps it was the weekend before, of which $7 million would be a straight grant and $4 million would be an interest-free loan. This money was offered in order to create an automated chip industry, to be run by
March 4, 1983

people whose experience in this particular field is nil. The Government wants a test bed for automating the development of the chip industry in my riding. That would amount to $11 million. Is that the sort of project that the Government has in mind? We must bear the fact in mind that $19 billion will be adding almost 13 per cent to the federal debt which now stands on our books.


Walter David Baker: Think of it!


Donald W. Munro: Thirteen per cent will be added to our debt if this Bill is passed.
Here is the record. In 1970 there was a budget surplus of about $400,000. The net debt at that particular time stood at $17 billion, less than what we are being asked today to authorize the Government to borrow. That $17 billion represented 20 per cent of the GNP. In 1975, five years later, the net debt amounted to about $20 billion. It had grown slowly over those five years, but the proportion of the GNP that that debt represented had dropped to about 13 per cent. Between 1975 and 1983-84, the period we are now discussing, Ottawa's cumulative deficit has brought our total net debt to $152 billion, which represents almost 40 per cent of the Gross National Product.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about the transfers to the Provinces.


Donald W. Munro: It had risen from 20 per cent in 1970 to 40 per cent in 1983-84. That is really quite a record for a Government, but I suppose it has been working on it pretty hard.
What does this mean to me and to you, Mr. Speaker? When I was discussing the financing of various enterprises and Government interference in the economy, I was reminded of having seen the most recent edition of Chimo, the publication with the dartboard on the cover. There was an interesting series of articles by 17 prominent businessmen who spoke of this very matter concerning state intervention in the economy, raising the questions: "Is it a blessing? Is it a curse? Is it good? Is it bad? Is it for co-operation?" I would highly recommend that issue of Chimo to Your Honour as something which ought to be read.
Let me return to the subject of what this large debt of $152 billion means to everyone. Here I have recourse to The Financial Times of February 28, an article on the front page dealing with this matter in some detail. For example, that debt represents $6,200 per man, woman and child in this country, no matter the age of the child. A child who is being born now already has a debt of $6,200 on its shoulders. The debt interest is $530. For a family of four, the debt is $24,800, with interest of $2,100.
You are not uneasy, are you, Mr. Speaker? My ten minutes has not nearly come to an end.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes.
Borrowing Authority


Donald W. Munro: Oh, Mr. Speaker! I am just beginning to explain to you the seriousness of this particular problem.


Walter David Baker: The House will give him all the time he needs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member has explanations but ten minutes has expired.


Donald W. Munro: May I continue with unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Shame!


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-143 asks this House to approve borrowing by the present Government of Canada of an additional $19 billion. The Government already has a borrowing authority of $21.1 billion for the current year, consisting of $3.5 billion of authority carried over from previous years, $6.6 billion from Bill C- 111, $7 billion from Bill C-125, and $4 billion from Bill C-128.
Additional borrowing authority of $5 billion for 1982-83 is requested in Bill C-143, which would bring the total authority for 1982-83 up to $26.1 billion. As much as $2 billion of the $5 billion requested in this Bill, if passed, may be used in future years. In addition, the Bill would permit the Government to borrow an additional $14 billion in 1983-84, which just happens to be close to the time for another federal election. It will be interesting to see which ridings and interest groups will be pork-barreled as we enter the pre-election period.
Buying votes has been successful in the past but people have now begun to appreciate the fact that they will be made to suffer, along with their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren, as a direct result of the Government's misspending and mismanagement. The day of short-term gain to retain power has gone. It is unfortunate that future Governments, whatever their political persuasion, along with the people of Canada will have to pay dearly for the costly mistakes that this so-called "Liberal" administration has been and is hoisting on the richest country in the world. It is sad to see such potential wasted and Canada being compared to a banana republic.


Walter David Baker: The nation weeps.


William John Vankoughnet: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has refused to provide a forecast of the Government's financial requirements for the fiscal year 1983. The Government has had the audacity to imply that we should trust its statement that it needs $5 billion now and $14 billion to start off next

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
year on the right foot. Parliament, in effect, is being asked to grant authority for a year for which there are no current projections. No other authority would grant a line of credit to a bankrupt creditor who refused to provide up to date financial statements, so why should the House?
As of mid-February, the Government had $4 billion in cash deposits, of which $2 billion could be drawn before there were problems, and $500 million in unused borrowing authority. If Bill C-143 is passed, the Government will have $21.5 billion with which to operate.
Over the past 15 years, Government spending has risen at an unprecedented rate. On a national accounts basis, where data is comparable over time, spending climbed some $12.4 billion in 1968-69 to an estimated $90.6 billion this year, an increase of 630 per cent. A significant portion of the increase has occurred since the re-election of the Liberals to the House in February of 1980.
Relative to 1979-80, spending has risen by 59 per cent on a public accounts basis, or 66 per cent on a national accounts basis. Spending in 1982-83 alone increased by 20.5 per cent on a national accounts basis, or by 19.6 per cent on a public accounts basis. So much for the six and five program. Spending on a national accounts basis is now equal to 26 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product. The deficit today is equal to 34 per cent of all expenditures. For every $4 the Government spends, it must borrow $1.
There are only two ways to finance the deficit. One is by borrowing more money. In 1982, borrowing by the federal Government accounted for 51 per cent of all new security issues placed in Canada. The other way is by printing money. Over the past 12 years, the Bank of Canada has monetarised a total of $12 billion of the Government's financial requirements. Borrowing of that magnitude clearly must have an effect on the supply and demand for money, and thus on the interest rates which must be borne by the private sector, and on average Canadians, of whom 1.6 million officially, and many more thousands unofficially, are out of work through the policy of the Government and previous administrations over the past decade.
Government debt and the interest on the debt is becoming a very serious problem. The gross debt, which amounts to the total liabilities of the Government of Canada, includes not only interest but pension fund liabilities and several other items as well. At the end of the 1981-82 fiscal year, the gross debt was $134 billion. By the end of the current fiscal year the gross debt will be as high as $160 billion. In comparison the gross debt was $31 billion when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. The cost of interest on the debt in fiscal 1982-1983 is forecast to be $16.7 billion. That is the equivalent of one revenue dollar in three, or one expenditure dollar in five. It is more than double the cost of interest that prevailed only three years ago in 1979-1980. It is more than ten times the cost of interest in 1968-1969. If the Government only borrowed to pay interest on the debt, its annual financial requirements would soar to $40 billion by the end of this decade. The
ever-growing interest burden which this year will cost $16.7 billion is the equivalent of $700 for every man, woman and child and $1,700 for each taxpayer in Canada.
Bill C-143 is dangerous because it creates further uncertainty and can only lead to disruptive speculation in the financial markets as to the state of the federal Government's finances. Parliament is being asked to vote borrowing authority without being given information as to the future direction of Government finances. Canada's poor economic performance will continue to have a negative impact on the finances of the Government as the cost of social assistance rises and revenues stagnate or fall. Any recovery that does occur is likely to be a weak recovery, based mainly on external factors.
People to whom I talk are sick and tired of being told by Government that this is a world recession and therefore it is the fault of our major trading partners, such as the United States, Germany, Britain and Japan. The fact is that whatever the world problem, Canada should be one of the most successful countries because of the human and natural resources which we have in this country. However, because of bad management and incompetence, Canada is now listed as being twenty-fourth out of 24 OECD countries in economic performance.
Confidence in this Government not only because of its fiscal conduct but because of the moral conduct of its members, is at an all-time low. How can Canadians have respect for Parliamentarians when Cabinet Ministers are continually mixed up in affairs such as the Gillespie controversy, the so-called judges affair or the Minister who forged the signature of the husband of his mistress for an abortion, a married woman with whom he was having an affair?
I have just received a petition of over 1,000 names objecting to pornography and obscenity on Pay TV. In recent weeks many Canadians have expressed their concern that First Choice Pay TV would be introducing a Playboy channel. We live in an era that does not need any further promotion of sex or the permissive attitude which lowers public morals. How can Canadians have respect for a Government which has lost control of its bureaucracy, or for a Prime Minister who courts Marxist policies? Is this $14 billion going to be used to support Marxist regimes or will it be used to help farmers, whose bankruptcy rate in January of 1983 was up 32 per cent over the same period in 1982?
I would like to see some of this money that the Government throws away to Marxist countries used in the federal riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. It would be a welcome relief to eastern Ontario if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which is responsible for federal Government efforts to overcome regional economic disparities, had some of this $19 billion to implement a program to develop economic and social policies designed to reduce disparity and increase employment opportunities in eastern Ontario.
March 4, 1983


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish we were not engaged in this debate. I think it is extremely difficult to Hon. Members who take their jobs seriously to discuss honestly the request of the Government for some $19 billion, $14 billion of which will be spent in the early part of the coming fiscal year.
I was saying to my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) just a moment ago that I had a constituent call me yesterday to discuss, among other things, the Government's request for additional borrowing. He said to me: "The hard part for us who are away from Ottawa and trying to follow the events is trying to make a determination as to how the Government might spend the money". He said to me: "Tell me, Ian, how do you think the Government will spend the money?" 1 could only think of one way to reply-"Badly".
I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the Government was not in control of the expenditures of the country, was not clear where it was going, had very little to offer in the way of programs that even appeared to begin to meet the obvious needs of the majority of Canadians and was in fact engaged in a hanging-on process. It reminds me of the poster that one can see in a poster shop of a kitten hanging over a bar and it says: "Hang in there, baby." That is how I thought of this Government as 1 watched it operate over the course of the last two years.
My colleague has put in an amendment that suggests that at least the $14 billion should be referred to committee for a very careful review, and I think that any fair-minded person in the House of Commons who honestly took their job seriously and thought that it was in fact the responsibility of the Hon. Members of the House of Commons to be scrupulous in their review of Government taxing measures and expenditures could come to no other conclusion than that this $14 billion, needed though it may be, has not been brought forward with adequate justification to back up the request. They would conclude that it has not been brought forward in such a way that those of us who do in fact report back to our constituencies on a regular basis could feel confident of knowing how to answer the serious question: "What is this money to be used for?"
I suggested, and I continue to suggest, that the Government ought not to be borrowing in March for next year. What we should have had in March was a statement from the Government as to its spending intentions. We should have seen quite clearly a program-by-program outline of how the Government proposed to deal with the social and economic problems of this country for the next 12 months. That should be before us now. We should also have before us the proposals of the Government with regard to how they propose to raise money, including this borrowing; how they propose to tax; how they propose to deficit finance, if they do; and to what extent deficit financing and subsequent borrowing will play a major part in the coming 12 months as far as the careful management of Canada's economy is concerned.
I would have liked to see the Government get into the habit of putting before Parliament in the early months of the year- in fact, I would go even further and say I would prefer that the Government put before Parliament in the last quarter of the previous year-its projections for the coming fiscal period,
Borrowing Authority
both in terms of expenditure and in terms of revenue and taxation. I think we have to try in this House, if we are ever going to get responsible Government, to sell the idea that responsibility for spending and for taxing rests with Parliament. It is not just the domain of the Government. It is not just the Cabinet which makes those decisions. Neither is it simply Cabinet in consultation with some, if not all, of their backbenchers. The final decision and responsibility must surely rest with all Members of Parliament.
The only way that that concept can be approached is if we change the system entirely. Before the Government is given any further authority to go to the money lenders of the world and raise additional capital, we in the House of Commons should demand that the Government bring forward all of its projections, its expenditures and program projections. Then, having looked at the overview, we can reasonably and sensibly come to conclusions as to what is being asked.
I said earlier that there are certain things for which borrowing may well be appropriate. In our daily lives, we all engage in borrowing at some time or other. However, there is a distinction between borrowing in order to take a trip to Las Vegas to put money in the slot machines or on a gambling table and borrowing for the purchase of a home. Anyone would say that is a pretty simple comparison and they know the difference between the two. Borrowing for the purpose of buying a home and paying it back over a long period of time is a worth-while investment in one's future.
If the Government were borrowing for the purpose of establishing some stability in this country, if it were in the business of borrowing money in order to expand the railroad and transportation system, if it were in the business of coming to Parliament and asking for the right to borrow in order to build a new and modern port system on the coasts of this country and in the interior, or to develop a system which would allow us properly to exploit the resources in the long-term, best interests of this country, I might be inclined to say that kind of borrowing makes sense. That is the kind of borrowing from which you derive a significant return. It is truly an investment borrowing.
Members of Parliament have a responsibility to attempt to extract from the Government those kinds of commitments. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who adopts his normal smiling posture, is listening to me. I know he will take this to heart and dash back to the appropriate people in Cabinet and suggest that if only they were only to listen to Deans, things would be better around here! Others say that too. I do not personally say it.
I want to stress that the kind of borrowing we are now doing does not meet the justification, at least none that we have now, that would allow us to feel confident that what is about to be done will serve us well either in the short or long term. We all understand that even now this country is capable of massive

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
economic undertaking. This country is second to none in terms of its resource capacity and its ability to be self-sufficient both in energy and in food. We have access to two entire worlds, the Pacific rim on one side and the European sphere on the other.
Before you rise to your feet, Mr. Speaker, let me say that with that potential and with proper management of our finances, I am confident that this country will go ahead by leaps and bounds. If the Government were kind enough to heed what we are asking for, we could achieve the goals we are setting.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this legislation. It is one thing to be asked to okay a $19 billion spending Bill, although that figure is so large that even Members of this House of Commons cannot grasp the significance of it. It is something else entirely to be asked to approve the borrowing of that amount of money without any information as to how, when or where it will be spent That is what I find most offensive about this legislation.
We have been asked to sign a blank cheque. The Government wants $5 billion for the current fiscal year, which ends in approximately five weeks. We have already been asked to grant authority to borrow $14 billion for fiscal 1983-84. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has suggested that, depending on the economy, that amount might last until midsummer.
It is madness to ask Members elected to this House of Commons to deal with figures that we cannot in good conscience grapple with. We are asked to pass this legislation when we have no idea in the world where the money will be spent. That is not only true of Opposition Members but of Members on the Government side as well.
The amount of the borrowing will have a very dramatic effect on the business community over the next number of months. It may threaten the recovery we all hope will take place. It will fuel inflationary expectations as we look further into 1983. This will have a direct effect on other segments of the economy which will have to compete with the federal Government when borrowing money. This will not only affect how Canadians view their Government but people outside Canada. The credibility of the Government in the whole area of economics has been totally shattered.
In 1981 the then Minister of Finance, now Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), budgeted for a $10.5 billion deficit for the 1982-83 year. Seven months later that figure was revised to $19.6 billion. By October of that same year the deficit had increased to $22.6 billion, and it is still climbing. Today we are talking of a budget deficit in the neighbourhood of $27 billion. Many people now believe that the budget deficit will go as high as $30 billion. The figures are becoming astronomical. They do not mean anything to the Canadian people. Canadians do not realize where we are going. They only know that we are in very serious financial trouble.
This Government thought its financial requirement for this year would be $6.6 billion. It is total madness for the Government to come to us now and ask for, in effect, a blank cheque. It is, in effect, saying: "Pass this legislation and trust us".
Surely, this is not the way to run a country. Given the Government's track record, how could we support such a request without proper documentation? Back in 1982, the then Minister of Finance, the Hon. Allan MacEachen, indicated before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on May 31, 1982, and I quote:
I do not think it would be appropriate to ask the House for additional borrowing authority until I have laid out in some detail an update of both the economic situation and the fiscal situation.
At page 20081 of Hansard of October 27, 1982, the present Minister of Finance said this, and I quote:
In the budget I intend to present early in 1983, I will review again the fiscal situation for the current fiscal year, set out estimates for 1983-84 and future fiscal years, and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
Obviously, that has not happened and, Mr. Speaker, we are going to take as long a period of time as necessary in dealing with this particular legislation because we do not know where we are going. We do not know what we are doing, and I believe the Canadian people do not deserve this kind of representation from their elected Members of Parliament.
This is the largest borrowing in Canadian history which we have been asked to comment on. The $19 billion which we are talking about today equals total federal Government spending for 1973-74. When I was first elected in the fall of 1970, Mr. Speaker, total federal Government spending was only $15.8 billion. Today it is estimated at $88 billion. The $19 billion which we have been asked to comment on and give our approval to means, Mr. Speaker, that the Government wants to borrow for six months the equivalent of $3.16 billion per month, or $100 million per day, or $4.5 million per hour for every 24-hour day. We are spending money at that great rate in this country without any direction as to how the money should be spent.
The Government has failed to give us leadership, not only in the economy but in the area, for instance, of training Canadians for skilled jobs. This is all part of the economy. Newspapers are filled with ads at the present time offering employment to Canadians, but they have to be skilled. We have not made the transition yet in terms of training Canadians for skilled work. We have no industrial strategy to show us exactly where we are going.
I would like to comment briefly on the effect of the mismanagement which has taken place in this country. Of course, I am better able to comment on my own constituency of Lisgar in southern Manitoba. The mismanagement of this Government in my particular part of the country has caused a tremendous degree of uncertainty and low morale. There is indecision as to what will happen in the future even in terms of the coming spring. There is no trust in Government, or Government institutions, and that may be, Mr. Speaker, one of the worst results of the Government's mismanagement. It has caused a general lack of the objectivity which is going to be needed if
March 4, 1983

we are going to pull ourselves out of our current economic situation.
This Bill is inappropriate because of the numbers we are talking about, but it is even more inappropriate because we have been asked to deal with something and we have no idea where we are going with it. We are faced with the Estimates and we desperately need a budget, and a budget now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this is the second occasion on which I have had an opportunity to speak to this particular Bill. On the previous occasion i covered certain other ground but this time I want to talk about the nature of the amendment. I also want to talk about the clear and absolute breach of the undertaking of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) not only to this House but the undertaking to the members of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee given by his predecessor. Surely to goodness, the present Minister of Finance is in a position to be able to consider what the former Minister of Finance said, because he echoed it last October.
It may be that some Hon. Members have already referred to the particular words which I will quote shortly, but I believe Hon. Members should be reminded of them, as well as people from one end of the country to the other. They indicate the "loosey-doosey" nature of the Minister's principles, not only from what we saw in Coalgate, but the attitude of the Government on its own guidelines, and what 1 believe was a clear breach of those guidelines, albeit by some peculiar twisting of logic, guidelines dependent upon what they mean to the individual concerned.
There has been since 1982 a number of borrowing authorities, which incidentally totalled approximately $21.2 billion compared to the projected financial requirements of only $17.1 billion as outlined in the June 28 budget. The Official Opposition was able to get the Government to reduce the amounts which were projected in these various Bills. In Bill C-125 the borrowing authority asked for was trimmed from $11 billion to $7 billion. Bill 128, which replaced it, gave the Government the necessary borrowing authority. At present there are no up-to-date forecasts to show that the Government needs even $5 billion in borrowing authority because there is money left over. There is money on hand. By some rule of thumb the Minister says he requires $5 billion to carry him to mid-summer. This is what the present Minister of Finance said last October 27 when he made his budgetary statement, as recorded in Hansard at page 20081:
In the budget I intend to present early in 1983-
May I interject here that even today he indicated it would be likely some time late in April before he delivered a budget. That is "early in 1983", four months into the year? He continued:
-I will review again the fiscal situation for the current fiscal year, set out estimates for 1983-84 and future fiscal years, and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
And I wish to underline these words, Mr. Speaker:
-and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
Borrowing Authority
Bill C-143, Mr. Speaker, is the answer as to how much faith we should put in the words of the Minister of Finance. He says not only does he need $5 billion until June, but then he comes along with the second portion of what is an omnibus Bill. I would have thought that after the lesson of last year the Government would keep away from omnibus Bills, which this
is. There is a borrowing authority for 1982-83 and then there is added a second part to the Bill known as the borrowing authority for 1983-84, for $14 billion.
I sympathize with the objective, I suppose, of the amendment before us, although with the greatest respect I frankly do not understand what the amendment is going to do. Frankly, to me it is written in pure Sanskrit as far as I can understand, because it asks that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof, particularly the $14 billion section, be referred to committee. But why? The budget has not come down. The Government has said, through its most authoritative Minister in this field, that there would be a budget before he sought borrowing authority. I do not know what our friends in the New Democratic Party are trying to do when they say refer that portion to committee. What is it to do with that? What is it to report back and in what way?
There is only one way to deal with this Bill, and that is insist that it be split and we vote on the first portion, and I think generally, after some hemming and hawing, we would accept
it,	but not the second portion. I referred to this in my speech the other day. I said that I am unalterably opposed to the second portion of the Bill. With the greatest respect to the mover of the amendment, I do not see what the amendment is going to achieve. As a matter of fact, I have some doubt as to why the amendment was ever accepted. However, it was; therefore, I can only say that this Bill has to be defeated or the Government backed into the corner of withdrawing the second portion.
Hon. Members opposite, Mr. Speaker, do not question the $14 billion. Not one of them has said to his Minister: "Well, why are you not waiting until after the budget, as you said?" No, they are sheep. I doubt if the Minister of Finance has consulted his provincial counterparts to see where on earth they are going to borrow all that money this year. In other words, that there is going to be an orderly placing of Government obligations on the market. That is another point. The federal Government is going to go rampaging in, snare off all the ground, and the Provinces who have legitimate needs are going to be told to go peddle their wares with others who have had to go to Europe to try to get money.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, because this Bill is probably the single most important piece of economic legislation and will affect every Canadian today, allow me to repeat briefly some of the massive statistics which have arisen as a result before I outline what I believe could and should be some potential and perhaps definite solutions.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government is not only asking for a further $5 billion to supplement the $21.6

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
billion it has already borrowed for the fiscal year 1982-83, but the Liberals have the audacity to demand from Parliament a further $14 billion borrowing authority for 1983-84 with absolutely no accounting or explanation whatsoever. We, and Canadians in general, do not know how, where and why this largest money grab in Canadian history will be spent. What will the interest cost be? How much will be collected from personal income tax and corporate taxes? What does the increased outlay consist of?
In effect, Parliament is being asked to grant authority for a year for which there are no current forecasts. Will the deficit next year be $20 billion, $25 billion or $30 billion? No banker would grant a line of credit to a bankrupt creditor who refused to provide up-to-date financial statements. Therefore, why should Parliament grant it to the Government under these conditions? These are just some of the questions that must be answered.
However, and unfortunately, what is abundantly clear is the reason for this massive tax grab by the Government. The reason, of course, is the Liberals' continuing and growing rate of excessive, wasteful, unnecessary, shameful and perhaps even criminal Government spending. This is not a temporary phenomenon either, because ever since the Grits were returned to office 15 years ago, all caution and control on tax dollars spent went out the window, creating a spending bonanza unparalleled not only in our nation's history but anywhere in the industrialized western world. No wonder we rank 24th out of 24 countries on the economic and productive scales. We are dead last, but that does not have to be in this nation of wealth and potential unmatched anywhere in the world. We should be number one, but immediate changes in spending habits must be made.
For example, we cannot continue to prop up the CBC to the tune of $800 million per year when private networks can provide adequate service at no cost to the taxpayer. Nor should the taxpayer pay $800 per day to former Liberal Finance Minister Donald Macdonald for ascertaining what is wrong with our economy today and telling us about it three years from now. The Liberal Government should stop advertising itself, a selfish and political habit which cost the taxpayer $100 million last year alone. The Post Office is yet another example. While postal rates have more than doubled in recent years, the Post Office still has a deficit of approximately $500 million and it is not even efficient. If it was not so important a service, the Post Office would be a joke.
There are virtually hundreds of other areas where the Government can and should make spending cuts in order to prevent this type of massive borrowing. Time does not permit me to name them all, but there are some I would like to bring forward. For example, the costly and bloated civil service should be reduced by attrition and the introduction of sunset laws. Even the Auditor General says one third of civil servants do not even know what their jobs are supposed to be. Cutting the cost of Government Departments is possible, as demonstrated by the short-lived Conservative Government in 1979. Liberal consulting costs, Mr. Speaker, totalled $2,010,874,347
last year. That is over $2 billion, Mr. Speaker. Surely some of the highly paid mandarins who are supposed to be so knowledgeable in their areas of responsibility should be able to do their jobs effectively rather than having to demand the services of consultants and consultating consultants and probably consulting civil servants sitting in an ivory tower who do not know what the real world is all about and do not listen to the consultants in any event, just as the Liberal Government does not listen.
Foreign aid is out of control. Spending through CIDA alone has skyrocketed to a record $1,089,000,000, not to mention the long list of other Government agencies that are paying out millions of dollars to various countries in the world, including some countries behind the Iron Curtain.
Then there is the cost of Unemployment Insurance benefits. Canadians know that the cost to the taxpayer increased by 134 per cent last year to $2.9 billion. I do not suggest that it should be eliminated. Instead of the Government creating jobs in the private sector through the offer of incentives, it is spending hundred and hundreds of millions of dollars on phoney temporary make-work programs, many of which existed under a different name in the First place. It does not create long-term jobs and therefore unemployment continues to grow to 1.6 million people and the cost has skyrocketed to $2.9 billion.
Whatever happened to the Government's much touted six and Five program? With all the examples I can give and the hundreds of others that exist, it seems that the Liberal Government is telling Canadians, "Do as I say, not as I do". In short, Mr. Speaker, this irresponsible Government has increased Government spending by 630 per cent in the last decade to the point where the federal deficit is now projected to be $30 billion this year. That will increase our national debt to $200 billion or, to put it in simple terms that we can all understand, $8,000 for each man, woman and child in Canada. As soon as a child is born, he or she is immediately saddled with a $8,000 debt. That debt will increase, rather than decrease. I do not think it is fair-it is not fair to allow the costs of mistakes of this Liberal administration to be passed on to our children and grandchildren.
It is no wonder that the Auditor General of Canada concluded as early as 1976 that the Liberal Government "had lost or was close to losing effective control of the public purse". Subsequent reports of the Auditor General were even more scathing. The Government does not act on the recommendations; it does not even listen.
There is no doubt that it is imperative that Government spending be cut. The fact is that unless measures are taken immediately to control spending and to create economic growth, it can be expected that the current economic situation will not improve in the near future. The argument that deFicit financing is necessary under present economic conditions, is hogwash. As I said, Canadians are sick and tired of passing on the Goverment's debt load to their children.
March 4, 1983

To back up this comment I want to share with the House the results of a questionnaire that I sent out to my constituents last month. 1 asked whether deficit financing-and 1 explained what it meant-would be preferred to a reduction in Government spending. A staggering 99.8 per cent of respondents chose a reduction in Government spending and emphatically wrote in every response that Parliament must take action in this regard. I believe that the wishes of my constituents are indicative of the wishes of Canadians in most other parts of the country.
The need to get federal Government spending under control is obvious, Mr. Speaker. The problem is: if a majority Government, like the present Liberal administration, refuses to act in this regard, what can be done?
First, I believe that a special all-Party parliamentary committee should be struck forthwith to do nothing else but deal with Government expenditures. It should be able to come to Parliament, take specific action and have Parliament take the necessary action to reduce spending, and it should insist that Parliament listen to the recommendations of the Auditor General. Only then will Parliament and Canadians be able to fulfil their potential.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak briefly on Bill C-143 which is before the Housing asking for borrowing authority in the sum of $19 billion. Recently when I was in my constituency, a constituent who came into my office shook his head and asked how it could be that the Government would come to Parliament and ask for $5 billion in this fiscal year and some $14 billion for the next fiscal year, when no statement whatsoever had been made of the Government's priorities and objectives for this money.
Surely that is the fundamental question before us as we debate this Bill today. No one in this House would suggest that if the Government is prepared to come forward with sensible objectives for spending money to create jobs in difficult economic times, Members would resist it. However, we take strong exception to the Government saying, "Trust us. We want $14 billion for the next fiscal year ending March 1984 but we still will not tell you what our priorities are." I suggest that that is an irresponsible approach to financing this country, and certainly 1 believe that the question my constituent asked has not yet been answered by the representatives of the Government in the House today or on any other day.
There are a number of areas of concern about this proposal. As the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) put it, basically we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are being asked to authorize the Government to spend $14 billion in the next fiscal year when we do not have the confidence that the Government will spend it wisely. In fact, the record of the Government is such that I do not believe it should be authorized a single penny until it indicates a fundamental change in its priorities.
There are still some 2 million Canadians out of work and literally millions more who, while they have a job, are working in an atmosphere of insecurity and fear of losing it. There are
Borrowing Authority
thousands and thousands of Canadians who are in part-time jobs and who are not using their full skills, and so their talent is being wasted.
What has the Government proposed in terms of priorities and job creation? Mr. Speaker, it has offered no real alternative whatsoever. It is clear that the major victims of the Government's lack of priorities on job creation are women and young people. These are the groups that are disproportionately affected.
We are not talking about short-term job-creation programs, important though they may be. In the last few months the New Democratic Party has put forward a number of proposals for creating jobs in the short term. We have come to grips with the fact that in a civilized society today, every Canadian who wants a job should be entitled to a job. It is absolutely and fundamentally immoral that 2 million Canadians, half of them young people, still do not have work. Not only is it immoral, but it does not make any economic sense.
We have seen the Estimates with respect to Unemployment Insurance for the coming fiscal year. We know the cost of welfare in all Provinces is increasing dramatically. Recently, an article in the Vancouver Sun indicated that one out of three residents of British Columbia presently receives all or part of his monthly income from some sort of Government assistance. On this side we advocate that Canadians should have an opportunity to work. They want that opportunity; they do not want to be on the welfare rolls or collecting Unemployment Insurance. Not only does that have an economic impact but it also has a profound social and personal impact.
I could give many illustrations, as I am sure all Members of the House could, of the devastating consequences of the failure of the Government's economic policy, but I shall just give a couple.
About two weeks ago in my constituency office I received a telephone call from a grandmother. She was phoning because she did not know where to turn, she said. Her grandson has just graduated from UBC where he had spent six years getting a degree in applied science. He is a qualified engineer, but some eight months after he graduated he is still looking for a job. What kind of society is it or what kind of Government is it that would permit that tragic waste of human potential?
There are many illustrations, as I said. There is the 56-year old gentleman who got off the bus in Burnaby and came into my constituency office. He sat down and said "Mr. Robinson, after some 30 years in the same job I have been laid off. I have lost my job, not because I did not do a good job, not because I did not want to work." He had lost his job simply because the downturn in the economy was such that his employer could not afford to keep him on any longer. Also he said, "How do I go back home, face my family and tell them that we will get Unemployment Insurance as long as we are entitled to it, but after that we will have to go on welfare?" There are far too

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
many Canadians who are faced with that reality today, but not everyone is hurting in these difficult economic times.
There are a number of examples of people who are not hurting. One is the Canadian banking community. It is doing quite nicely, thank you very much. In fact its profits last year were incredibly high, particularly by comparison with the previous year which was a record year. Even though it was a very difficult time for thousands and thousands of Canadians, the banks did very well. They managed to look after themselves with the assistance of their allies in Government, to the extent that many of them effectively paid no taxes whatsoever.
What about equity and fairness? What kind of fairness is there in an economic system which allows those who are big and powerful to continue to get bigger, more powerful and more wealthy, at the same time as it literally condemns millions of Canadians to economic servitude? In their recent statement the Catholic Bishops said it far more eloquently than I could, that this system, which is based upon the pursuit of profit and upon the aggrandizement of capital at the expense of labour, is fundamentally immoral. We must reshape our priorities so that we have an economic system which serves the needs of people, not an economic system which increasingly serves the needs of only a wealthy few. There are a number of recipients of this largesse. We need look no further than the friends of the Liberal Government such as Michael Pitfield who was appointed to the Senate. Surely that must be one of the most cynical appointments at a cost of literally millions of dollars to Canadians. Also there is the appointment of Donald Macdonald, leadership candidate and former Conservative-former Liberal, I should say. I am sorry I confused the two, but there is not a great deal of difference. Mr. Macdonald, who is receiving some $800 per day, says that he needs money for the overhead of his law firm.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Macdonald is not serving the people of Canada as a lawyer. He is serving the people of Canada, his good friend, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and his colleagues as a commissioner. To suggest that he needs overhead for his law firm is absolute rubbish.
I suppose none of us should be particularly surprised at this gravy-train approach to friends of the Liberal Government. We need look no further than the recent Gillespie affair for a further illustration of that. I know that my time is limited, but I want to say that the Bill is fundamentally wrong. It continues to reflect the policies of a bankrupt Government, policies which have not in any way represented a significant difference from those of the Conservative Party.
For example, the Conservative Party is silent on the scandalous situation of bank profits and the fact that both the Liberals and the Conservatives receive some $50,000 a year from each of the major banks, which I am sure has something to do with it. These are the same banks which have refused to allow Canadians to renegotiate their mortgages. If their mortgages
have terms of less than five years, they are locked into them at very high rates of interest.
I am sorry my time has come to an end. I very strongly urge all Members of Parliament to reject the Bill and to call upon the Government to come to its sense and reorder its economic priorities to create jobs for all Canadians.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to follow the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The New Democratic Party is guilty, and the more guilty it feels the louder it gets. To listen to the Hon. Member for Burnaby rise on behalf of unemployed Canadians and say to the House that it is immoral to have a society in which people cannot have jobs is to assert a truth. It is immoral, but the real immorality of which 1.6 million Canadians should be aware today is that back in December 1979 a Government was defeated, one which had been in place for nine months, and it was not a Liberal Government. Jobs in this country had increased on an average of 35,000 per month in the private sector; in nine months over 300,000 more jobs were created. For that little rump group from the West to rise in the House and throw out a Government which was creating jobs was truly an immoral act.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The people of Canada passed judgment on you.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: For it to stand in this House and throw out the Government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) when in fact its budget was judged by the Canadian Welfare Council to be the fairest budget-


Svend Johannes Robinson: The people of Canada threw out that Government.


Mr. Roche:: You threw it out.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is rising on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe the record will show that it was the people of Canada who decided that the Progressive Conservative Government should not continue in power.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In this Chamber on that night I was here, and you stood and you threw out the Government. It was your motion, and it was a budget which was the fairest-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's remarks should be addressed to the chair, and I assure him that this occupant of the Chair was not here on that occasion.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. I hate to saddle you with their burdens, because their guilt is so deep and so true. That Government created 35,000 jobs per month in its nine-month life. That Government was reducing the federal deficit and the interest payments. That budget was reducing the burden of regulation on the small-business sector.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Then why did the people of Canada throw you out?
, -'
March 4, 1983


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That Government was putting a transportation system in place in the West to export food. That Government was treating the poor people of Canada in a fairer manner than they had been treated in a decade. That Government was giving pensions to widowers between 60 and 65 years of age. That Government was doing everything which the New Democratic Party stands for in the House and which it says needs to be done, but the immorality was in standing in this Chamber and throwing that Government out of office; that was an immoral act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Louder.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We have a situation in the country today where the Liberal Government spends $150 for every $100 it collects. If one does that in one's budget month after month or year after year, one is bankrupt in a big hurry. This Government is bankrupt. Where is the history of that?
I should like to refer to the time when that history began. It was in 1973 and 1974. I was not in the House at that time, but it was a minority Liberal Government. John Turner was the Finance Minister, and the NDP supported those budgets in good times. This caused Canadian taxpayers to go into debt in ever-increasing amounts. Those were the budgets which the NDP supported. They were good-times budgets under which they were borrowing money instead of paying their way. In hard times, when there is not enough money for welfare, Unemployment Insurance and job creation, we ought to know that the reason for that is that in good times the New Democratic Party, in its marriage with the Liberal Party of Canada, was borrowing money that was not necessary, to do things that were not necessary but had the consequence one decade later of reducing the degrees of freedom which Parliamentarians and Canadians have to help people who are in trouble.
That is another immoral act. It sits there unchallengeable in the history of the country-vote for budgets which put taxpayers in debt when they do not need to be, then stand in the House a decade later and say that we should be doing things differently.
Now let us go into modern history. The federal Government is borrowing this year something very close to $1,100 for every man, woman and child in this country. Fifty one per cent of the money borrowed for new securities in this country last year was borrowed by the federal Government. Every time the federal Government goes to the marketplace to borrow a dollar, it competes with you, me and everybody else who wants to borrow a dollar. The federal Government competes with those people who want to borrow to buy a home, a car, a washing machine. The consequence of that borrowing in the first instance is to raise interest rates. That is the first thing. It also makes the cost of borrowing more expensive for every single Canadian who needs to borrow money.
Second, this Government, in conjunction with the New Democratic Party, spends today, which means that all the
Borrowing Authority
children who are in school now will have to pay it back tomorrow. In other words, it is okay to waste money today because others will be the ones having to pay it back tomorrow. That is the second consequence of borrowing which is not fair to future generations.
Although we see this particular $19 billion borrowing Bill, we may not realize that we are participating in history as a result if it. No government in the history of this nation has ever brought forth a piece of legislation in which it asked to borrow so much money at any one time. This is the largest borrowing Bill in our history.
This makes me think of my own family budget. I borrow money for things that will last a long time. I borrowed money to buy a home, to buy a car, to buy a washer and dryer, to buy living room furniture and beds, but I pay off my debts as quickly as I can.
Why is the federal Government borrowing money? The federal Government borrows money simply to spend it. It does not borrow money to produce the kinds of things that will last, endure and help.
If the Government were here today asking for the support of Parliamentarians to borrow money to improve the transportation system in our country, significantly and if the Government were asking us to borrow money to get a sector of the economy going, perhaps the oil and gas or the lumber or food sectors in order to put in better infrastructure so that in the long-term we would be a more productive nation having more taxpayers and fewer tax spenders, we could stand in the House and support the Government.
However, when in this fiscal year alone the federal Government, through hidden and direct subsidies, has given $1 billion to one company called Petro-Canada and another $600 million-odd to it so that it could buy service stations that already exist, what happens, Mr. Speaker, is that 5 per cent or 6 per cent of that money is completely wasted.
Petro-Canada has not produced a single job in this country. It simply bought out an existing company? It changed the name of the employer. If this sum of money were put into new developments and new jobs, we could support the borrowing.
I say to Liberal Members opposite and to Members of the New Democratic Party, "Wake up, bring this borrowing to a halt and let us defeat the Bill together."


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to sit in the House and listen to our socialist friends to the left who speak in very pious, sanctimonious and puritanical tones and then make snide remarks to Members of the Opposition and to Members of the Government. But when someone either from the Conservative or Liberal Parties makes any comment about them, their very thin skin shows through because they shout, they scream and they howl.
We are dealing today with Bill C-143, a Bill made up of two parts. The first part contains a request to borrow $5 billion by the Government of Canada for the period ending March 31, 1983, which is less than a month from now. The second part
23472

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
contains a request to authorize the borrowing of $14 billion for the 1983-1984 taxation year. The total of these two sums amounts to $19 billion. When and if this Bill is passed, it means the Government will have had the authority to borrow $26.2 billion in the fiscal period 1982-1983.
It is interesting to note that this Bill for $19 billion is the largest borrowing Bill that has ever been put before our Parliament. Equally it is very enlightening to look back at statistics over the years. If one goes back to the 1968-1969 fiscal year, the figure for the public expenditure or the Estimates-the total cost of operating our whole country-was some $12.39 billion. In that same year the interest on the public debt was about $1.4 billion or 11.7 per cent of the total budget expenditures. That year, 1968-1969, was the year the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took power. Then if we look ahead from 1968-1969 to the 1983-1984 fiscal year, the one into which we are now entering, we find from the Estimates tabled by the Minister a week or so ago that expenditures for the coming fiscal year are some $88.9 billion. Of that $88.9 billion, some $18.5 billion will be used to pay interest on the public debt or to service our debt. That figure of $18.5 billion represents 20.9 per cent of the total estimated budgetary expenditures. If we compare those two fiscal years, 1968-1969 and 1983-1984, we find that public expenditures have risen some 750 per cent, or 7.5 times. The interest on our public debt has risen some 1,285 per cent, or 12.8 times. In other words, the interest that we will be paying in the 1983-84 fiscal year on our public debt exceeds the total cost of running the country in 1968-69 by over 50 per cent. I want to impress upon Hon. Members the fact that I am referring to the interest only and comparing that to the total cost of running the country. It is almost unbelievable.
It is also interesting to relate these figures on a per capita basis. If one considers the Estimates for the coming fiscal year which amount to $88.9 billion, one finds that this amounts to some $3,560 per capita, or for every man, woman and child in Canada. If one relates this figure to the 282 constituencies, one finds that each constituency is faced with a debt this year, or cost of running the country, of some $315 million. Let us consider the interest on the public debt of $18 billion plus. If one relates that on a per capita basis, one finds that this year alone every man, woman and child in Canada is responsible for $700 of interest on our public debt. That has nothing to do with paying back any part of the capital.
People ask me, "How long can this continue? What has happened to our country?" One can tell people that the Government has overspent, and they understand that fact. However, I think a simple way of explaining it to people is to compare Government to a small-businessman, a farmer or another individual. If one spends more than one takes in, one will eventually end up in trouble. In the case of an individual, he or she ends up in bankruptcy.
In normal times, when a businessman sees that he is running into financial difficulties, he has one or two options. He tries to
increase sales, but if times are tough, he sometimes has difficulty in increasing his sales and cash flow. However, most important, he cuts his costs. He looks around and tries to find where he can cut back on an expenditure so that his costs will not exceed his income. A businessman who is shrewd enough to do those things usually survives.
The Government has a similar option. It can cut expenses, but it can also increase its income through taxes, which it does, and it can borrow.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my allotted time has expired. I will simply say that that is exactly what the Government has done. It has not cut expenses. It has borrowed and borrowed and borrowed, year after year, and that is why we are in this trouble today.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering why so many Conservative Members are rising to oppose the Bill. Not least among our reasons is that, despite the sanctimonious offerings of the NDP a few moments ago, as we tried to find any representatives of that Party to oppose the Bill, there is not even one Member of the NDP in the House of Commons at this moment. That is why the Conservative Party is needed to fight this kind of Government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order!


An Hon. Member:: You were not in the House at the right time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is normal practice for Hon. Member to refer to people who are absent from their seats. However, I want to remind the Hon. Member that I was standing at the back-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has made his point.


An Hon. Member:: You do it all the time.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Low blow.


Douglas Roche: I am glad that the spokesman for the NDP is-


An Hon. Member:: The sole Member.


Douglas Roche: -is present to hear these words, because-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Be specific.


An Hon. Member:: He is leaving again.


Douglas Roche: Maybe he likes my television image and he wants to watch the proceedings on TV, and that is all right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why don't you say something, Doug? You are above those comments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Don't be bellicose.


Douglas Roche: To get down to some serious discussion, Bill C-143 comprises two pieces of paper without any kind of
March 4, 1983

explanation, and asks for $19 billion. It is the largest borrowing authority Bill in the history of our country. I must ask whether or not seven out of ten Canadians can be wrong. The latest Gallup poll showed that seven out of ten Canadians have little or no confidence in the Government. It is no wonder that is so, when the Government has a deficit of $27.5 billion and now comes before us with a small, two-page Bill requesting authority to borrow $19 billion, when the debt servicing of the federal deficit has now reached 20.9 per cent. Those figures are horrendous. It is the Conservatives who are fighting the Bill, and if anyone asks why that is so, that is the reason.
The performance of the Government reminds me of that of many of the developing countries around the world today. I often speak, in my responsibilities here, about developing countries. I can tell Your Honour that as I rise to speak to Bill C-143 this afternoon, I almost feel as though I were referring to a developing country. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that of the 24 industrialized countries in the OECD, the economic performance of Canada was ranked last? That is a shocking statement, a shocking performance by the Government.
My objections to the Bill concern both what the Government is doing and how it is doing it. It is requesting $19 billion, which works out to $1 billion a week from now until the Bill constitutes the largest borrowing authority Bill in Canadian history. It must be viewed in the context of the deficit of almost $27.5 billion.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power in 1968, the deficit stood at $497 million, meaning that it has increased some 60 times since then. In 1968, there were 358,000 unemployed. Today, there are 1.6 million. The $19 billion in spending authority sought through the Bill represents the size of the entire budget of the federal Government from 1973 to 1974, the very first year I came to Parliament.
The current deficit of $27.5 billion means that every man, woman and child in Canada carries a debt of $1,125 or $3,700 per family. I cite these figures to highlight the magnitude of the Bill. It is a comment on the Government's economic mismanagement. In the future, moreover, the massive size of the deficit will place severe constraints on economic policy, leaving a legacy of debt to the taxpayers of the future.
I do not have time to go into detail concerning how the Government's deficit could be both reduced and better applied. However, I refer Hon. Members to the excellent three-point program introduced earlier in the debate by my Party's finance critic, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), and the nine suggestions offered by the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). 1 remember the words of the present Prime Minister who, in the 1980 election campaign, said that the Government was going to hold the line on Government expenditure growth down to below the rate of the GNP. The Prime Minister said that the deficit would be reduced in a phased and orderly fashion and any new expenditure programs to meet the evolving needs and requirements of Canadians would be financed by reallocating existing expenditures or by increases in revenue. So much for those words and that campaign rhetoric that was forced on the Canadian
Borrowing Authority
people by our friends from the NDP, who voted out the only decent Government that this country has had in the last 20 years.
Since returning to office, the Liberals have spent at twice the rate of growth in the GNP and their deficit has more than doubled, all that since 1980. No wonder we are standing in our place to oppose this kind of Government performance.
The substance of what the Government is doing through this Bill is made much worse by the incomprehensible manner in which it is being done. In November of 1981, the then Minister of Finance predicted a budgetary deficit of $10.5 billion for 1982-83. In May, 1982 he was speaking in terms of a deficit of $19.2 billion. Last October, the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) forecast a deficit of $23.6 billion. Now it is up to $27.5 billion, with anticipation of going up to $30 bilion next year.
This fourth borrowing Bill now before us, the fourth in the last eight months, stands for an increase in the deficit of well over two and one-half times, in just 15 months. What guarantee do we have that the Government will not come back to the House within a couple of months, arrogantly demanding more and more and using its majority to force such a Bill through the House of Commons, despite the fact that seven out of ten Canadians today have no confidence in the economic record of this Government?
In view of this abysmal record, Sir, I would expect the Government to be concerned about its own credibility. Such does not appear to be the case. This failure to project with a modicum of accuracy and to fulfil its promises with even a modicum of decency should have brought expressions of remorse. Above all, we on this side of the House would have liked to have seen an explanation of why the Government had so erred, as well as some signs of measures to rectify this colossal error. Instead, no documentation has been provided to us beyond specifics such as figures on the Unemployment Insurance fund, financing for established programs, and the entire question of revenue. What is more, this kind of accounting had been explicitly promised by both the present Minister of Finance and his predecessor, now the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who promised, and I quote:
I would not expect the House to act upon an additional request for borrowing authority without providing it with detailed information on the economic situation-
So much for another broken Liberal promise!
Notwithstanding, Bill C-143 effectively asks the House to sign a blank cheque. Any creditor who walked into a financial institution asking for this massive line of credit without spelling out how the loan would be used and how it would be repaid would be thrown out in an instant. That is what the Canadian electorate is going to do with this Government-throw it out the instant they get that first opportunity, in an election.
In conclusion, this supplementary borrowing authority Bill is but another nail in the casket of this Liberal regime. Not only does that Government do the wrong thing, it insists on going

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
about it the wrong way, and forcing its way through by the arbitrary use of its majority in the House of Commons, notwithstanding the fact that it has lost the confidence of the Canadian people.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the supplementary borrowing authority that we are discussing in the House of Commons today has the Liberal Government asking the Parliament of Canada to approve borrowing of some $19 billion. The Government has not explained exactly how this money is going to be spent. We understand that there is a shortfall of some $5 billion in terms of the current year's budget, but we have little knowledge as to what the Government is going to do with the other $14 billion.
I suppose that the Government is asking us, on behalf of all Canadians, to trust it. I personally find it hard to trust this Government when it says in effect, "This is what we want. We cannot tell you what it is for, but trust us."
The New Democratic Party does not trust this Government, nor do many Canadians across this country. For example, last year the budget projected approximately a $10 billion deficit for the 1982-83 fiscal year, but the end result was a deficit of $26 billion. The accumulation of our national debt over the years amounts to what could be, by the end of this fiscal year, approximately $160 billion. It would be impossible to find a business, an individual or a law practice in this country that could operate under the same financial management as this Government is operating under and asking Parliament to approve.
Another more pressing issue of mismanagement by this Government lies in the plan of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to change the statutory rates for movement of grain. Possibly part of the money which the Government is requesting to borrow will be used in this plan, but let me use the example of the Crow rate to point out the mistrust that has built up in Canadians for this Government.
In the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency which I represent, by the year 1990 it will cost the grain-producers some $42 million to $46 million per year to move their grain to the ports. In fact, the cost is becoming so astronomical that it could possibly be cheaper to move grain through the United States, if the Americans would allow us to do so, and through the river system there to New Orleans, as opposed to moving it to our ports in Canada. I think it is a very sad situation in which we find ourselves.
1 pointed out earlier that the change in the Crow rates will cost, in my constituency alone, somewhere between $42 million and $46 million per year. That is based on approximately 7,000 Wheat Board permit-holders who reside within the Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency. In areas like this, agricultural economists say that the dollar produced by the farmer has a multiplier effect of somewhere between four to seven times. By simple mathematics, if the multiplier effect amounted to a minimum of $4, looking at the cost of $42 million per year, that would take out of the economy of the Battlefords-Meadow Lake area $168 million a year by the year 1990. The worst scenario that is predicted is that if it
costs the producers of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency $46 million a year and it has a multiplier effect of seven times, it could cost the economy of our local area $322 million a year.
Agriculture is a very important part of the economy in northwestern Saskatchewan, and this will have very serious effects not only on farmers themselves but on the business community and, in fact, all of the people who live within that area.
I see that the Minister of Transport, the Member for Ottawa-Carleton, has left the Chamber. The Ottawa-Carleton riding cannot stand to hear too much about the Pepin plan, as it has been called, the change in the Crow rate, because that is a damaging thing which this Government is doing to the grain producers of this country.
The Government says the grain producers have to pay more in order to upgrade the rail lines and get their products to the ports and on to the international markets which are so important. We had a trade advantage, it might be called, of some $6 billion last year because of agricultural products which we were able to move under the statutory Crow rate. Once this is gone, it may not be financially viable for Canadian farmers to produce, especially those grains which fall under the statutory Crow rate. They will pay more for transportation than the price they actually receive for the product. We could end up with a very serious situation economically and in terms of the food production on which we are so dependent in our over-all economy. If I am not mistaken, 20 per cent of our economy is based on agriculture.
As I mentioned earlier, the Government says it is necessary to increase the cost of grain transportation to farmers so that the money can be used to upgrade the rail transportation system, even though by the end of this decade grain will only account for between 14 and 20 per cent of all products moved over the rail line. The products making up the larger amount will be coal, some of it owned by Canadian Pacific, petrochemical products and potash. These products are not now moved with any great efficiency unless the railways tend to benefit.
The Crow rate is an historic rate. Taken in isolation, one might come to the conclusion that it should be changed, but not so. We cannot look at the Crow rate in isolation. We must look at it in a global context.
The railway companies of Canada, especially Canadian Pacific Railway, were paid handsomely with millions of acres of land and millions of dollars in subsidies and grants for putting in place a rail transportation system in Canada. In fact, they had resources to draw funds from if in future years the statutory Crow rate did not fully compensate them for the movement of grain. The railway companies have forgotten about that. The profits which they have received from their ventures, ventures made possible by the Government of Canada through land grants, money and rolling stock, were
March 4, 1983

not re-invested in the rail system of Canada. Obviously they were invested in the many other diverse operations of Canadian Pacific. They now come back to Parliament to say they need more money. Maybe they do in terms of movement of grain. Elowever, they should be able to draw from the vast resources they have been given. They were originally given to them to subsidize grain transportation in this country. The companies have forgotten that, and the Liberal Government has forgotten it as well. They say the farmers should pay more to move their products to the ports and on to the markets.
We in the New Democratic Party say that the Crow rate should be maintained. On the other hand, the railways should not lose money in transporting grain to the ports. If the railways suffer a valid loss, they should be compensated, but not by the farmers alone. It should be by the people of Canada through their Government because of the vast importance of agriculture to the Canadian economy. This should be shared equally among all sectors of the Canadian economy.
Before closing, I would like to return to the item before us. The borrowing authority for $19 billion is not looked upon favourably by myself as an individual Member of Parliament. It is shameful that this Government can come and ask us for this sum of money without laying out a plan, that it can simply ask us to trust it when it has betrayed so many trusts in the past.


Walter David Baker: They are absolutely shameless.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak briefly on this Bill which the Government is insisting that we pass with undue haste. The Government is asking for a record amount under this borrowing authority of some $19 billion. What is so unusual is that it is asking for part of the money for the present fiscal year, the majority of it, however, to be spent in the next fiscal year, even though we have not had a budget.
When the Government dealt with the financial mess this country is in last October, it gave us the up-to-date statistics and their projections. Four months later they need a further $4 billion more than what they projected. In order to get through the end of fiscal 1982-83, they must increase the deficit from $22.1 billion to the new figure of $26.2 billion. The Government wants an additional $4 billion. They are not sure why they want $4 billion. They agree they need $3 billion now. They want to borrow an additional $2 billion for a possible $5 billion for this fiscal year. If this money is not needed, it wants to transfer the $2 billion into the next fiscal year. Therefore, it will have $3 billion or $5 billion for this year, depending on what it wants to do. It is rather unique for the Government to be in the situation of not knowing whether it will need that $2 billion this year or keep it for next year when we are only 27 days away from the end of the fiscal year.
The part of the Bill which upsets most people who have been dealing with it in this debate and a great number of Canadians is that the Government, which promised to bring in a budget early in 1983, is now almost a quarter of the way into the new year and there is no intention of bringing in the budget until April or May, which will be one-third into the year.
Borrowing Authority
The Government is not telling us why or on what it intends to spend the money, but it wants $14 billion to spend. I do not know whether this will go to financing more projects for Mr. Gillespie or toward hire more people in the situation of Donald Macdonald. Canadians are becoming a little jaded, tired and cynical about this Government and the way it spends money.
The House of Commons, its committees and individual Members, the whole system of Government, only works with a certain amount of goodwill, faith and trust by one side in the other. We have to work together. The Government has destroyed much of the trust, goodwill and faith that it might have had in its reservoir. The Hon. Members in the House do not trust the Government, they do not trust what the Government is doing and, I believe, by and large, that feeling reflects what the people in the country feel. The whittling away of the power of Parliament, the whittling away of the ability of Parliament or its committees to scrutinize the devious methods which the Government uses to get its will done, has made people very cynical about the entire political process. I do not believe that the Canadian people today have nearly as much trust in their politicians as they had just a decade or two ago. I do not believe that the Canadian people are willing to write a carte blanche cheque to the present Liberal Government for $14 billion without receiving some indication of what it is in fact going to be spending it on, without getting some detail by way of a budget.
It was not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, that the former Minister of Finance set down what he thought was a practical, intelligent statement. I quote from the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of May 31, 1982 where he said:
I do not think it would be appropriate to ask the House for additional borrowing authority until I have laid out in some detail an update of both the economic situation and the fiscal situation.
That rule was good on May 31, 1982, but less than a year later it does not seem to apply to the Minister of Finance any longer. Of course, we heard that rules were set down dealing with the conduct of Cabinet Ministers within a two-year period, but they did not apply, either. Just last October 27 Hansard records the present Minister of Finance making a promise. That promise was that he would introduce a new budget before he sought any more authority to borrow money. On page 20081 of Hansard he says, and I quote:
In the budget I intend to present early in 1983, I will review again the fiscal situation for the current fiscal year, set out estimates for 1983-84 and future fiscal years, and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
So it is a precondition to seeking any more borrowing authority that we were going to have a budget with some detail as to what the Government's plans and projections were for the 1983-84 fiscal year, as well as the following fiscal years. The promise made by the present Minister of Finance on October 27, 1982, is now also out the window. We have had two Ministers of Finance in a row who have made promises and

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
commitments, set down guidelines, and now the Government does not want to follow them. What we have been asked for by the introduction of Bill C-143 is a carte blanche cheque for $19 billion, "some of which we are going to use this year, some next year, and the part we are not sure we are going to use this year, we are going to carry over to next year." I do not believe anyone would lend anyone such a large sum of money, or give anyone a line of credit, without knowing what their projections were and why they wanted it.
The interesting part is that this Liberal Government has become so used to spending money, it is not really sure why it needs it. Let us take a look at some historical facts. In 1968-69 when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first came to office as the head of the Liberal Government, the Government only needed $12.4 billion. That has increased now to $90.6 billion for the upcoming year, which is an increase of 630 per cent.
I see that my time has now run out and perhaps I will have an opportunity to continue with this point when we get back to the main motion.


Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Horticultural Council met in session in Ottawa earlier this week at its annual convention, providing an opportunity for farmers of horticultural crops from across Canada to get together to discuss various aspects of their business in which they have shared interest. The concern of the Horticultural Council this year reflects the damage which the recession is doing to the farm communities. To this extent, farmers have much in common with other segments of our Canadian economy.
Nearly every domestic Canadian producer is troubled by the share of the Canadian market which is taken by cheaper offshore products. Our problem in farming in Canada, as in manufacturing, is that our cost of production in many instances exceeds the costs of competitive foreign products delivered to our Canadian markets. One of our main Canadian distinctions, which presently work against our competitive effectiveness in all segments of our economy, is to be found in the expanding share of our Gross National Product which is being seized by Government. The demands of Government are presently dramatized by Bill C-143, a request for authority to borrow an additional $19 billion simply to keep the Government operating for the next several months, and operating in its "normal" fashion, I might say. Borrowing of this magnitude must tell Canadians that one reason we are losing our competitive edge is that the money which the Government spends eventually costs us in tax dollars, eventually reflects in the cost of every commodity we produce, and eventually makes Canada less competitive than other areas of the world.
There is no pleasure in responding to the challenge thrown out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when, on February 17, he asked the House to approve the request of the Government for authority to borrow $19 billion. This House, if it is foolish enough to approve this latest borrowing authority Bill, will be simply shifting a permanent burden of debt to the backs of the youth of Canada who, like my grandchildren,
Tara, Lucas, Tasha and Trione, will be the future wage earners and taxpayers of our nation. How can there be any suggestion of a docile acceptance by this House of the request of the Minister for yet another $19 billion? When and where is it going to end? I believe it will only end when the Government itself is prepared to discipline its own fiscal demands. The six and five restraint is for others, not for this Government. That is very apparent.
Saturday Night magazine, in its February issue, deals with this issue in an article entitled, "Is Government spending out of control?" It quotes Dian Cohen as observing:
The $76-billion budget,. .. "means that three and a half million Canadians are working all year so that the government can spend their money."
The article goes on to state:
The government's "six and five" restraint programme offers little in the way of economic substance,. . . pinning the blame for a faltering economy, or even the blame for high government spending, on the pay package of public servants is a gross distortion of reality.
I would like to read what the article says about the six and five restraint program. It says:
Savings generated by "six and five" will reduce total government expenditures by less than one per cent.
The patent phoniness of Government Members representing their six and five policy as being responsible for the lowering inflation rate is in character with past distortions. The Government they support so obediently has killed the economy, wrecked the ambition and hope of the people, offended investment, and reduced the spirit of adventure and risk-taking by removing opportunities for success. Having broken the confidence that Canadians have had in themselves historically, as well as in their Government and their country, having killed the expectations of Canadians by placing more than 1.5 million people on the unemployment rolls, Members opposite engage themselves in chest thumping in unison, claiming for themselves the success for six and five which they could not possibly under any circumstances have achieved.
Crediting the six and five program with bringing inflation under 10 per cent is about as rational as the farmer who goes into the chicken house, kills all the chickens, and a week later takes pride that the weasels are no longer getting the eggs. Or perhaps like the arsonist standing in the cold ashes of his house, taking pleasure in the fact that he no longer spends anything on house repairs. This Government's achievement is that it has killed the economy, not that it has succeeded in reducing inflation.
The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who I am sorry to say is absent, challenged us to be honest; be moral, he said. What advice from a source which recently demonstrated that this Government considers anything which benefits Liberals to be moral! The failure of the Government to provide a rationale for its borrowing authority demands is an indication of its contempt for Parliament and the nation. Or is it that this Government is simply so utterly ashamed of its role in bringing the economy to a state of collapse that it cannot
March 4, 1983

bear to expose itself to the truth? Not only is Bill C-143 unprecedented in size, but is unprecedented in the circumstances surrounding the request. It is the norm to ask the House for leave to borrow money for purposes of the Government which are known, understood and debatable in the House. It is far from usual to suggest to the House, which has the responsibility to understand, debate, approve and, if possible, control Government spending regimes, that it dissociate itself from that responsibility and become, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) put it, simply a rubber stamp in the hands of the Government.
It is not the intention of Members on this side to become the putty in the hands of the Government which the Members opposite have become, molding themselves instantly and easily and completely to the political priorities of the Cabinet. It seems no more important to follow the traditions of this House in the matter of the latest borrowing authority Bill than it is for Cabinet Ministers and ex-Cabinet Ministers to observe the Prime Minister's own guidelines for conduct. These guidelines were clearly breached by Ministers of the Crown and by an exMinister in the Coalgate affair. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) states that it is up to each person's conscience to define how these guidelines should be observed. Well, Scripture speaks of the time when there was no king in Israel, every man was doing what was right in his own eyes, and that was not a good time in the history of Israel.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King). I have enjoyed his remarks on this Bill.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-143 because I am concerned about the far reaching effect it will have on so many Canadians. On the surface this Bill is asking for authority to borrow an unprecedented amount of $19 billion. The Government wants further authority to borrow $5 billion just to cover its spending to the end of this fiscal year, and then another $14 billion to start off the next fiscal year. Authority to borrow such a large sum of money before the year has ended is no way to start out, particularly in view of the disastrous year just ending.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, that this Government gave us some indication as to when all this borrowing will end. To date the Government has asked for and received the authority to borrow $21.1 billion for this year alone, and the additional $5 billion it is requesting will bring it up to almost $27 billion. Will it be enough? If we look at the Government's past record we can see that it will not be enough. It is never enough. The Government is like a slot machine, it eats money, spits out a little in return and then asks for more. But there comes a time when we have to say: stop. We have to make the Government accountable. We have to make the Government reassess its fiscal policies and make an honest attempt at balancing the budget instead of creating larger and larger deficits. It is this present attitude of "we can always borrow the money" that is driving this country into the ground and toward bankruptcy. Expenditure of public funds must be accountable to Parliament.
Three years ago, Mr. Speaker, interest on the national debt was half of what it is today, some $16.7 billion. To the average Canadian, that means one out of three dollars the Government
Borrowing Authority
takes in through taxes is going toward paying the interest on a debt which is over $134 billion. It is time the Government faced the reality that it has to find other means to pay its debts. It is time it faced the reality that Canada cannot continue forever to operate on a deficit basis, otherwise we will continue to fall further and further behind every year as this Government continues to muddle its way through budget after budget and borrowing authority Bill after borrowing authority Bill.
We have now reached the stage, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) will not even provide us with the necessary information and financial forecasts so that Parliament can scrutinize the need for this increased spending. We have reached a point when the Government asks Parliament for more and more money and hopes we will not even ask why and for what. There is no bank in this country, Mr. Speaker, which would approve a loan to any citizen without the reasons being specified. Is this any way to run a country? We have to know why the Government needs $14 billion of borrowing authority for the next year. We have to know why we should be giving our approval to borrow this kind of money. What we in the Opposition cannot accept is that this Government has not yet learned its lesson, that deficit financing cannot last forever. We cannot accept that this Government cannot do a better job of trying to balance its budget.
The cost of borrowing money to finance programs the Government could otherwise fund through better fiscal management is a cost much too high for Canadians to bear. We have a Government which is operating on annual budgets in the billions, operating on annual budgets from a bottomless trough, yet the difference is that my constituents-indeed, all Canadians-do not constantly borrow money needed to pay their bills. They use other means, they adjust their lifestyles in keeping with reduced incomes and rising prices. The time is long past when this Government should operate within its own projected estimates and not have come to Parliament time and time again asking for more and more.
What we are seeing is a Government so far in debt, it has lost the room to manoeuvre. Just a few short years ago, if the Government was not doing as well as it should, it had the flexibility to inject funds into programs to put the country back on the right road again. Now the Government has incurred such a disastrously large deficit through constant mismanagement that it cannot afford to adopt fiscal measures that will stimulate the economy, get people back to work and get businesses moving again.
With such a large deficit, the Government cannot afford to produce the tax incentives that are so desperately needed to get people to spend money instead of saving it.
What we are seeing is a Government that is chasing its own tail, going around and around in circles. The more it borrows the less flexibility it has, and the less flexibility it has the more it has to borrow.
The Liberal Government is the biggest borrower we have in Canada. It borrows for everything. The Government needs a Royal commission on the economy-we borrow. The Government needs money to pay exorbitant stipends to its old

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
friends-we borrow. The Government needs to pay for the use of JetStars by Cabinet Ministers-we borrow.
Let us take a look at how much it costs each and every taxpayer of this country to finance this deficit. Fifteen years ago, the deficit used only 4 per cent of the Government's spending money-this year, 34 per cent of the total expenditures are taken up by the deficit-a deficit the Minister of Finance is asking us to increase with the passage of this Bill. That is an increase of 30 per cent in 15 years.
On the other hand, if the Liberal Government had managed to balance its budget for the last 15 years, the cost of servicing the debt would be only $3.3 billion. That is a far cry from the $16.7 billion we are facing today.
But the worse effect of this continued borrowing and continued mismanagement of the affairs of Canada is the loss of confidence other nations have in Canada and the continued loss of confidence Canadians have in their country. We used to be an industrial power, but now we cannot even begin to compete. We stand twenty-fourth out of 24 countries in productive capacity. Economists predict that we will be the last country out of the recession, and that is not something the Hon. Members opposite can blame on the world recession.
The Government has been operating in the red since 1970. That is 13 years of operating at a loss-a deplorable record of a Liberal Government that knows no restrictions. Any businessman knows that you cannot recover from 13 years of operating in the red unless you take some drastic action such as cutting costs and stimulating sales through effective marketing strategies. What strategies has the Government produced? It has only produced a defence of its policies at great expense to the taxpayer.
It cost the Canadian taxpayer $70 million to learn that the six and five program is working-that is advocacy advertising. It cost the Canadian taxpayer $10 million for Government hospitality-food, drink and entertainment. That money could have been better spent on employment programs and could have provided employment for 10,000 people. This in turn would have meant more taxes and netted revenue for the Government and more money being spent in the economy as well as savings to the Government on UIC benefits.
The metric program has cost the Canadian taxpayer a total of $65 million to date. It has also cost the business sector additional costs in conversion measures and has created a furor among Canadians that still rages.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours but I realize that my time is limited. There is much to say about government waste but my major concern about this borrowing authority and all the previous borrowing authorities we have seen go through here in recent years, is the effect it will have on our citizens in the future. The effects on the younger generation of today of a stagnant economy and an escalating deficit is evident in the many letters I am receiving from students who are frustrated and wondering why they have to pay for the extravagant and ostentatious spending habits of an irresponsible Government. Students are faced with high unemployment and little prospect
of job when they graduate. They are starting off their adult life with no hope for a secure financial future.
No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot condone the request by the Government to borrow a further $19 billion unless it is prepared to take a responsible and realistic view of its spending habits and be accountable to Parliament for its spending needs.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, like others in the House I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-143. I consider this to be an historic event because this is the largest, one-shot request for supplementary borrowing authority in the history of this Parliament. I would be happy if I could be assured that this is a unique event, that this is the only time the request would be as low, but I am very much afraid that I cannot hope for that.
Bill C-143 requests authority to borrow $19 billion. Someone once asked how you could get your arms around $19 billion. Never mind your arms, Mr. Speaker, how do you get your mind to grasp the extent of the $19 billion requested by a Government that congratulates itself on its restraint program?
The only thing about Bill C-143 that smacks of restraint is the amount of paper used to ask for the authority-it is one sheet of paper, printed on both sides. The first side requests authority for $5 billion. I suppose the natural thing for Members to ask is why the Government wants the $5 billion. In this little sheet of paper it is stated that it may be required for public works and general purposes. The second page contains a request for a further $14 billion. All day long Members in the House have been asking why the Government wants to borrow $14 billion. The stated purpose, according to this paper, is that it is required for public works and general purposes.
How can we possibly get a handle on what the Government is trying to do? Perhaps I can tackle it this way, Mr. Speaker. You are a family man, a father and a grandfather, and I am sure other Liberal Members have children and grandchildren. If one of their children or grandchildren asked them for 50 cents or a dollar, they would probably ask what it was for. If the child answered that it was just for spending, presumably the parent would hand over the money.
If the Government asked us for authority to borrow $1 billion, we would probably reply in the same way and not insist on a detailed account of what it was for. But suppose the child or grandchild asked for $100 or $150. Surely the parent would want to know what it was going to be spent on. If the child still answered it was just for spending, how many parents or grandparents would hand the money over without some explanation of what it was for?
It is somewhat the same with this little piece of paper which requests $14 billion. It is an unreasonable request. The Canadian people are the parents of the Government and are responsible for its existence. The situation is the same-the Government, through Members of this House, is asking the Canadian people for money, and the Canadian people are entitled to ask what it is for. They are entitled to know why the Government wants $14 billion.
March 4, 1983

It is almost inconceivable what we are being asked to do. How can any Member of the House, certainly any Opposition Member, return to his or her constituency and answer as to why the Government was just given authority to borrow $14 billion? How could we reply to such a question? How will Liberal backbenchers reply to their constituents when asked why they gave the Government the authority to borrow and spend $14 billion? When they are asked what it was for, what will they say? They are not interested and they do not care. Their excuse will be, "I am sorry, but I was not in the House; I was back home in my constituency". We are entitled to know before we pass this Bill what the funds will be used for.
On February 17, 1983, the Minister of Finance informed the House that as of February 11 a total of $20.6 billion of borrowing authority had been used of the $21 billion authorized. Now the Minister is asking us to authorize a further $5 billion immediately and another $14 billion to be spent by next summer. The House will not be in recess for that long, the Government does not need that $ 14 billion now. If it does, we would like to know why. It may well be that the net deficit is far larger than the Minister of Finance is prepared to tell us.
This is the third time the Liberal Government has come before the House in the past year for supplementary borrowing authority. First, there was Bill C-111 for $6.6 billion; then there was Bill C-125 for $7 billion; then Bill C-128 for $4 billion. They have all been passed. The Opposition has kept hammering at the Government to stop increasing the Government debt. Speaker after speaker has pointed out today that we have not obtained any kind of answer or explanation from the Government.
I remember in 1980 when I was first elected to the House of Commons. At that time the Liberal Government had left a deficit running of $10 billion. I could not comprehend that figure at that time, and I remember discussing it with my constituents. They could not understand it either. I said that surely this was the height of irresponsibility which the Government would show. It is not even three years, and the deficit has almost tripled; it is now $27.6 billion or $26.9 billion. In any event, it will be $30 billion the next time the Minister opens his mouth.
That has to be an irresponsibility which no Government in the western world has exercised before. The Government has attempted to disguise the increases in the borrowing authority in a variety of ways. Every time it asks for a larger amount, it expects the House to pass without question various borrowing Bills. Canadians are very much aware of the delinquent fiscal policies and economic mismanagement of successive Liberal Governments since 1968 which have thrust the country into a recession, I would say almost a depression. Certainly it is a recession of which we have not seen the likes since the 1930s. As many speakers have indicated, Canada's economic decline is the worst of the 24 OECD countries. By the third quarter of 1982, Canadian manufacturers were operating at the lowest level of capacity and utilization since records were first kept in 1961.
Borrowing Authority
I see Mr. Speaker is motioning that my time is up. I might say that my time is not up. It is the Liberal Government's and the Liberal Party's time that is up. As soon as Canadians get an opportunity, they will show them that their time is up.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to follow an act like the one of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Try.


Bruce Halliday: Indeed I will. I have in my hand Bill C-143. As the Hon. Member for Okanagan North said, it is a Bill of less than two pages. It is interesting because it is somewhat different from the usual supplementary borrowing authority Bills which come before us, in as much as it is divided into two parts. We would not be surprised if it contained only one part, because we are in the habit of receiving such Bills in the past where we were expected to provide some borrowing authority. Having only a few weeks to go to the end of the current fiscal year, we would expect, as in the past, that the Government would need some more money. Indeed it does. It needs another $5 billion to finish out this fiscal year which ends on March 31. It would not surprise us to have that particular part of the Bill to deal with, but the Government has surprised us this time. As the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said earlier this afternoon, the Government has given us a two-part Bill. The vicious and offensive part about it is that the Government has also probably gone into six months of the next fiscal year and is seeking borrowing authority for another $14 billion. The worst part of it all is that the Government has completely refused to give any explanation of why it needs that extra money. It would be very repetitive to go through some of the analogies. The Hon. Member for Okanagan North did an excellent job of bringing to your attention, Mr. Speaker, how you would handle your grandchildren if they were to come to you and ask for a significantly large sum of money. Knowing you as I do, I am sure you would not handle them in the way the Government is expecting us to handle its request for $14 billion for the next fiscal year.
As I said, it is a two-page Bill. It is very simple, but it has to be contrasted with the 295-page Bill which we were debating yesterday and have been for some time. It was a Bill to amend the Income Tax Act; it was not the Income Tax Act itself. The Government has found ways and means of digging into the purses of every Canadian to extract a little more money here and there from Canadians who have justly and rightly earned the money. It takes some 295 pages for it to get all the money it can, but when it comes to explaining how it will spend the money, it is so arrogant that it does it in a page and three-quarters. The Government expects the Opposition to sit back and accept it.
There was a time in parliamentary history when this could not have happened. Some of my colleagues go back further than I and can probably remember days when it would have been very difficult for a Government to put through such a Bill because it would have been stymied in the House until Members were told something about it. The Bill would not have

March 4, 1983
Borrowing Authority
passed because of unending debate. It would not have passed until the Government had committed itself to some explanation of what it was all about.
This brings me to what I feel is of great concern to me and of increasing concern to the people of Canada. I am referring to the attitudes and characteristics of the present Government and their adverse effect on our total parliamentary system, as well as the respect of Canadians not only for Members of Parliament and governments but for the parliamentary system, which should be something very dear to all of us.
In my last few minutes I would like to make some comments about some very serious and deplorable characteristics of the present Government which need to be brought to the attention of the people of Canada. Actually, they know about them. Their feelings about the Government and all of us in the House are aroused as a result of attempts by the Government to do what it is doing in Bill C-143.
We are seeing signs of a lack of trustworthiness. If not that, it is incompetence or both. It is very manifest in this Bill. One has to go back only three or four months to the time when the Minister of Finance gave his financial statement in the House. You have heard it before in these debates. This is so important as evidence of what I am trying to say that I will repeat it, not for your benefit, Mr. Speaker, but for the benefit of about 140 Liberal backbenchers, only one of whom is here today. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) on October 27, 1982, in this House, as reported in Hansard at page 20081, said:
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Government is presently seeking a $4 billion increase in its borrowing authority under the provisions of Standing Order 72A. I have outlined the factors leading to this request. I have also made it clear by the estimates I have presented that further borrowing authority will be required before the end of this fiscal year. In the budget I intend to present early in 1983,
I will review again the fiscal situation for the curent fiscal year, set out estimates for 1983-1984 and future fiscal years, and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
That was a commitment on the part of the Minister of Finance to give us a budget and set out estimates and future predictions, and he concluded his sentence with:
-and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
Let me give one more example of this lack of trustworthiness. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) when he was Minister of Finance appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on May 31, 1982, less than a year ago, had this to say:
I do not think it would be appropriate to ask the House for additional borrowing authority until I have laid out in some detail an update of both the economic situation and the fiscal situation.
Here we have two very senior Ministers telling the House and the Canadian people that they will give us some information before seeking further borrowing authority. But what do we have? We have Bill C-143 before us and we do not have that information. It is that kind of attitude that causes cynicism with regard to Parliament and to governments. I can say that honestly about this Government in particular. I hope that when we get rid of this Government we will not see that
cynicism existing and pervading in the country as it does today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: A second characteristic of this Government alarms me. That of the arrogance, the secrecy and the contempt this Government has for Parliament. I could give a full hour's speech on the contempt this Government has had for Parliament over the years, but I do not think it could be expressed any more effectively than it was in an editorial that appeared in a leading Canadian newspaper, the Toronto Star. That newspaper is not known to be a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party, but is often a supporter of the Liberal Party. On February 20, 1983, the editorial was headed "Sidestepping Parliament". This editorial was describing the attempt of the Minister of Finance to get money without saying what he wants it for. In part, this editorial reads:
-it would be tempting to look on his corner-cutting as a necessary evil. But to do so would undermine the supremacy of Parliament.
That is precisely right. The present Government has no respect for the supremacy of Parliament. The editorial continues:
One of the lynchpins of our democracy is the belief that directly elected representatives of the people-not mandarins in the finance department-should make the final decisions on how and where and in what quantities our budget is to be disbursed.
That is very true. There is another characteristic of the present Government which is downgrading the feeling of Canadians about Parliament. This Government is prepared to sidestep Parliament and it is prepared to denigrate the role of Parliamentarians in order to satisfy the Government's own needs. We have to admit that over the last 12 years it has done that. This Government has succeeded in being re-elected by this kind of action.
Finally, there is the matter of deceit. I trust deceit is a parliamentary word. What we are witnessing here through Bill C-143 is nothing less than deceit. We are seeing deferred taxes being levied against Canadian people and future generations, as my colleague pointed out.
I see you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude by saying that this Government has three types of personality defects. I think they are leading to the downgrading of Parliament and to the cynicism that we now see right aross the country.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, over the years we have seen the present Government ignore the House. It passes regulations by Order in Council. We hear so much about this. I want to put a typical example on the record. I had a telephone call earlier this week from a gun collector. He asked me about the gun Bill that had been passed in Parliament. I told him that I did not know anything about a gun Bill that had been passed in Parliament. But we found out that it was another Order in Council. This is another example of sneaking something in through the back door. This should not be part of our democracy that we are hoping to enjoy in Canada today.
March 4, 1983


Walter David Baker: Right on.


William C. Scott: This Government is asking to borrow an additional $14 billion, but the Government has not yet explained the reasons for the borrowing. This mismanagement has brought us to a situation where we can anticipate a deficit this year which will probably be around $30 billion over the year.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may feel confortable talking about owing billions of dollars. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not nor do most Canadians. It is inconceivable to most of us what a billion dollars really means. At big-buck Mac's rate of $800 a day for chairing the Commission on the Economy, he could work for approximately 1,250,000 days or 3,425 years on $1 billion. That is 102,750 years on $30 billion. Calculated at 14 per cent interest, the annual interest on that $30 billion amounts to $4.2 billion. Mr. Macdonald could survive on that for 14,385 years. This gives us some concept of what a billion dollars really is.
A figure more understandable to most Canadians is $6,100. That figure represents something just below the poverty level for a single-income family as established by the Senate report in 1981. It is also the cost to Canadian taxpayers of the salaries of the commissioners for each day the Macdonald Commission sits. Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) sleep comfortably at night knowing that this amount is slightly more than a single senior citizen would see on full pension and full supplement for one full year? Or does this Government simply write off this discrepancy to the cost of patronage? At $6,100 a day a big-buck Mac commission is no bargain.
In 1980 this Government was elected to run this country. It made all sorts of promises. It was not elected to hire Royal commissions to run the country after it made a mess of it for the last three years. The Canadian people must look at this. We all remember the promises in the 1980 election campaign. On January 12, 1980, the Prime Minister stated that he would hold the line on Government growth under the rate of the Gross National Product; the deficit would be reduced in a phased and orderly fashion; any new expenditure programs to meet the evolving needs and requirements of Canadians would be financed by re-allocating existing expenditures or by increases in revenues; that his Government would not add to the deficit by adding new programs. Of course, this is now a joke. The Gross National Product of 13.5 per cent in 1982 spending grew by 16.7 per cent. If Bill C-131 is approved, Old Age Security payments will increase in the second quarter of 1983 by only 1.2 per cent, which is the equivalent of only a 4.8 per cent yearly increase.
How can the Government explain to senior citizens why they are being held to an increase well below 6 per cent when the
Borrowing Authority
Government is creating what amounts to a new program costing more per day than seniors receive per year, especially in light of the statement of the Prime Minister? How can the Government justify an increase in the deficit, as Bill C-143 will permit, caused by events such as the creation of this Commission, after reading that statement?
My constituency has a population of approximately 90,000 people, of whom approximately 60,000 are eligible voters. Labour Canada statistics show that in January of this year, the employment to population ratio in my area was approximately 49 per cent. I think it is therefore legitimate to say that the maximum number of taxpayers would be approximately 29,400.
These taxpayers share the burden of the near $30 billion deficit, with their share being approximately $110,160,000. This works out to an amount of $3,746.96 per taxpayer. In other words, the Government of Canada has run up a debt on behalf of each taxpayer in my constituency of almost $4,000. They are the ones who will ultimately have to pay the interest on the debt. At 14 per cent, a competitive rate for a personal loan these days, they will be paying around $525 this year in taxes just for this purpose. That is what the deficit means to Canadians. They are paying extra taxes because the Government has mismanaged the economy of Canada.
In Bill C-143, the Government is asking Parliament to give consent to keep on misusing public funds. Tacitly, the Government is requesting us to approve a deficit, the scope of which most of us cannot even imagine. As if that were not bad enough, it is also requesting permission to run up a similar deficit in the next fiscal year, whether we need it or not. This House, my friends, is not a rubberstamp designed to approve the Government's every whim. This is the executive boardroom of the nation. We are expected to analyze proposed legislation in a representative and fair manner. How can we do so when this legislation lacks detail and purpose? It also proposes to bankrupt our country. I urge the Minister of Finance to withdraw the Bill in its present form.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if I might call it five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement to calling it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 7, 1983