1983-03-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 4, 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. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East);: Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in what seems to be the usual Monday morning situation for this chamber, that of having closure imposed later on today. In this instance, closure is on a measure authorizing the Government to borrow some additional $19 billion. Our concern throughout the debate up to this point has been, in essence, the question of what the Government will do with the funds, specifically how and where they will employ them. From our point of view, where will the Government employ these funds to create jobs? Jobs are the single most important item facing the economy and our nation.
What will the Government do with this borrowing authority it is seeking? We know with some degree of certainty that with closure being imposed later on today we will probably never know where these funds will be used until we see the programs later on this year or next year. It is clear to many of us, not only on this side of the chamber but throughout this country, that whatever the Government does with this money, if in fact it does intend to use substantial portions to provide or to stimulate employment, it had better be used at least for midterm employment, if not, for long-term employment.
Many people in Canada are very concerned with the amount of money this Government has poured into winter make-work projects. These projects are of short-term duration and do little, if anything, to enhance permanent jobs for Canadians. That is our basic concern.
For Members such as myself I might be a little more willing to grant with an open mind the funds being sought by this Government if the funds were to be used in a way that left a legacy, be that legacy permanent job creation or the protection of our shipyards. Thousands are laid off in that industry. Many thousands are still working in our shipyards but their
future is bleak. If the Government were to direct some of that funding into that hard pressed industry, not only would it save the remaining jobs, but it would put many thousands now unemployed back to work.
The Government can restore these jobs by accelerating the Department of National Defence naval fleet replacement program, providing funds for the Canadian Coast Guard which requires fleet replacement as well as for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which also requires fleet replacement. Government accounts alone could restore 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the jobs that have been lost in the last two to three years in our Canadian shipyards. If the Government were to opt for that course, many of us on this side would perhaps be more willing to listen.
If it would use some of the funds to rid the transportation industry of the iniquitous fuel compensation charge, such as now applied to the marine and air industry, we might look upon this Bill more favourably. We read again in the press over the weekend about the dissatisfaction of the national air carriers with the Government's intention in the income tax Bill to press on through the back door with the collection of that tax. Hon. Members are aware of the marine industry's opinion of that tax. While this tax does not apply to road transportation, it is applied to shipping.
The Hon. C. D. Howe said in this Chamber: "What's a million?". We are talking about $1.5 million, but it may be just enough money to keep 2,000 to 3,000 Canadian seamen, marine engineers, mates and captains on the shore this shipping season. If some of the funds were directed toward the elimination of those two fuel taxes, then we might be more willing to grant the borrowing authority that the Government is seeking.
Another worth-while project for which these funds could be used is to provide the much-needed bridge pier fendering protection system for the seven bridges in this country that span navigable waters and are listed by the Government itself as posing a hazard to shipping and to the lives of those who use those bridges. I wonder if any of the funds will go into that project.
I doubt that anything will go into the expansion of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have heard much about bringing some of our young people into the Canadian Armed Forces for basic trade training purposes. That may go a long way, on a voluntary basis, and be very useful, but I doubt we will hear

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
anything about that here today. It is, however, another project of which we might approve.
What about search and rescue in Canada? Over the last ten years, very few topics have been as consistently brought before the House as that of search and rescue capacity and capability in Canada. The provision of some funds for the upgrading of this area would provide extra permanent jobs and expenditure in that area might encourage us to look somewhat more favourably on the Government's request for this money.
There are many other areas to be dealt with. We have only to cast our minds back to the disparaging and somewhat infuriating debate that has been perpetrated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) with respect to offshore oil drilling rigs. For those men to be left out there for three weeks when there was, in fact, a danger to them is unacceptable to Canadians. There is no search and rescue capability present to take those men off those rigs in the event of danger. It is only in the last two or three days that we have seen the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, reluctantly or otherwise, order Mobil and others to bring their rigs ashore. That was an unacceptable situation. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to make that type of decision, not the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, theoretically, knows absolutely nothing about wheather conditions, ship safety or ice movement. Where does he obtain his information? If we had better search and rescue facilities and better reporting capability, and if some of the $19 billion was to be used to provide that, thousands of Canadians would feel much better. However, we do not have that indication.
In looking to the future, unemployed Canadians do not yet have a hope of returning to permanment jobs in their trades. All they can look forward to is make-work programs, such as cutting out a hiking trail or painting the wicket fence around the ballpark or building another softball diamond. There is no money in the community, mind you, to sustain those facilities once they are built. If that is all they have to look forward to, and I am certain that to a large measure that is all they have to look forward to, then where can their hope be? Where is the hope for them? We hear grand talk about these people coming back into the labour force. They will come back into the labour force when the Government starts to spend the money available to it in the sustainment of the very few jobs which continue to exist in the traditional areas of commerce, industry and natural resources. They will not come back into industry for minimum wage, part-time work.
These are our concerns. Will some of the money go into industrial Cape Breton, where perhaps $1 billion is needed, or will there be just little piddling amounts for Mr. Gillespie and others of his ilk? We in Atlantic Canada need an ice-breaking capability for shallow draught harbours. We need it for safety and for the convenience of our fishermen. Is there any indication that it will be provided? Not a bit.
We regret that the Government has not taken the time to tell us, with some specific idea in mind, just how it will spend the money. As a result, it is our intention to vote against this measure later on this afternoon.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that at this stage we have only ten minutes in which to speak on the amendment to Bill C-143. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) should be congratulated. He has established a new record. Never before in the history of this country has anyone ever requested interim borrowing authority of $14 billion. It takes a lot of cheek to do that, especially when we do not even know what the money is for. That is what everyone on this side has been complaining about. We know we are in trouble, we know that revenues are down, and we know that the big tax grab on the petroleum industry has not paid off because people cannot afford gasoline to run their cars since they are not working. Due to the combination of the oil glut and the price drop, the Government is not deriving the revenue which it needs, and no one will deny that.
The point is that the Government is asking Parliament to agree to signing some kind of a blank cheque, and we on this side do not accept that. We do not know what the money is to be used for. I think there are very worthy purposes to which money could be allocated. However, the problem is that we have seen money being squandered for years. When I first came to this place, the budget was about $12 billion in total ,J''and was considered large then. Look at it now. The budget has increased tremendously over the years. So the Minister of Finance has established a record. It seems to me that we should not quickly accept that sort of thing. When it comes time to vote later today, I will be voting against this Bill.
There are all kinds of examples of squandering of money. The Government has squandered money on the PIP grants, with 93-cent dollars. We hear about the ocean oil rigs, icebreakers and all the rest; they are owned by private companies but financed with public dollars. We think that is a bad way to spend money. At the same time the Government is cutting back on the CHIP Program, the insulation program which would help people; it is squandering more and more money in furtherance of the mythical concept of petroleum self-sufficiency. It seems to me that self-sufficiency could be gained a lot more rapidly through a substitution program rather than poking more holes in the Beaufort Sea. We on this side are not happy with situations in which we have squandered piles of money.
For the next fiscal year we are going to spend $364 million on the nuclear program. Since 1974 we have been spending between $300 million and $600 million a year on the nuclear program. We do not feel that that was sensible in light of the fact that we have not sold one of those monsters since 1978. We did try to give them away to Mexico, to Korea and to Romania, for example. I think the Koreans were the only ones who got one. The grand total of what we have pumped into the nuclear program is $6 billion since its inception. In the riding
March 14, 1983

of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), just keeping open two heavy water plants costs about $125 million a year. There is no doubt that we need employment programs in Cape Breton. If some of this money was for reasonable kinds of employment programs in Cape Breton, or any other riding, including my own, I think we could support it, but that is not what is happening.
We do not know what is going to happen with $14 billion we have no idea. We know that we would not need massive borrowing if we had an equitable tax system. Along with this monstrous borrowing authority Bill we are debating an income tax Bill that is as fat as a phone book, and we are being threatened that unless we pass that income tax Bill immediately, people will not get their refunds and will have to turn to the tax discounters.
We have a tax system that unfairly loads the bulk of the payments on the poor. This new tax Bill is going to put taxes up 27 per cent for a family of four, $125 a month. Taxes on MPs' salaries are going to be increased by 13 per cent. But for people like Ian Sinclair or Samuel Bronfman earning over $500,000 a year, taxes will drop by 17 per cent. Is that fair? If we were collecting taxes as we should in an equitable way, I do not think it would be necessary to borrow as much.
We are following the example of the United States. People with incomes under $10,000 a year in the United States pay 36 per cent of the total taxes. That is terrible. People under the poverty line pay the bulk of the taxes in the United States. I thought taxation should have been based on the ability to pay. Obviously it is not in the United States, nor is it in Canada. This new tax Bill makes the situation in Canada more inequitable, and this is not acceptable.
If we had a stimulative kind of budget, if this Bill had come forward in a package with a budget, then we could have examined it, we would know what we were getting and what we are going to spend our money on. I think it is very important to look at how we are spending our money. I would like to quote from the lead editorial of the Toronto Star of March 4, 1983. The Toronto Star is hardly a socialist rag. It might have some political leaning but I do not think it is to the NDP, or to the Conservatives either. The Conservatives have The Globe and Mail. I do not know what paper supports our Party unless it is the Toronto Sun.


Mr. Fisher:: That is it, and Peter Pocklington; they are yours.


Mark Willson Rose: They can have Peter. I have a whole list of Tories. We have red Tories and blue Tories and retaliatories, territories like Brian Peckford, and dormitories, some of those who sleep in the House. I have a whole list of them.
In this lead editorial the Toronto Star is quoting a study of a Winnipeg economics professor, Ruben Bellan. I do not know Mr. Bellan's political coloration; maybe he does not have any. Academics are seldom biased or prejudiced in any way. For the fifteenth time it has just been announced that there is going to be a new CBC building in Toronto. I wonder if there is going to be an election, because before every election the
Borrowing Authority
Minister announces a new CBC building for Toronto. When I heard the announcement last week, I thought my gosh, we are going to have an election soon. I do not think it is a very good time for the Liberals to have an election. It would be very dangerous.


Mr. Cosgrove:: It would be bad for the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: It would be difficult for all of us. However, they thought Mitterrand was dead too, but he was revived.


An Hon. Member:: What about Australia?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, don't forget Hawkes-not Jim, but Prime Minister Hawkes of Australia.
Getting back to the point I was attempting to make before I was heckled and rudely interrupted by catcalls, mainly from my friends, I would like to make this point. The study of Professor Bellan indicates that if the City of Winnipeg, or any other city which has all the facilities to put people to work, was given $1 million for public works, immediately the Government would get back $140,000 in revenue from taxes on materials used, etc., and save $380,000 on Unemployment Insurance and welfare. Therefore, of the $1 million, the net spending would be half a million. At $25,000 a job, $1 million would create 40 jobs. A billion dollars would create 40,000 jobs. If you take this borrowing authority of $19 billion, in fact take it up to $20 billion across Canada, 20 times 40,000 would be 800,000 at $25,000 per job. The borrowing authority of $14 billion and $5 billion could be used to create almost a million jobs in Canada.
If we knew that we were borrowing the money for those 20 communities across Canada, I would be happy because the choice is between spending money on welfare and Unemployment Insurance and public works. It is eminently sensible to do this when municipalities are all set up to do that kind of work. The unemployed are all ready to go. Parks, sewers, sidewalks and roads could be built immediately. If you pump that kind of dough into that rather than pumping it into losers like Candu reactors, we would have a much better chance of coming out of this recession.
People are scared. They are not buying. That is what is wrong. There is all kinds of money in the banks, but there is no confidence. If there were this opportunity of that kind of spinoff for jobs, my Party would support this Bill; but we will not support a blank cheque.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow my friend from Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) on this Bill. I especially appreciate the flattery he showed the Tory Party by spending so much time discussing us and the various kinds of Tories there are. I know the people in British Columbia are aware that he also is a Tory, but he is a "transitory" and will not be around after the next election!

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
It is with some difficulty that I speak on this Bill because it is easy for us to be against borrowing. I think everybody in Canada is opposed to borrowing of any kind, even though at times it is necessary to do so. We recognize that we are in extreme economic difficulties, so there is a call to do some borrowing.
One of the things that is in the Government's favour at this point is that the numbers we are talking about are so astronomical that the public has lost all sense of context of the situation we are in. To speak of borrowing $19 billion is a context which is foreign to any of us, so what we are really dealing wth escapes us.
There are some very indigenous problems with this Bill. The first is that the Government wants to borrow more than it really needs at the present time. That, I believe, is wrong in principle. I believe it is wrong for us to do it at home. It is wrong for business to do it. Most businesses understand that when times are tough, you have to hunker down, and you cut back on all of the overhead you can. One of the greatest places for overhead to exist is in interest payments, so to borrow more than you really need in a business seems to me to be counterproductive. Yet the Government is setting this example to business &rf655;-l across Canada, saying: "We need $5 billion but we want permission to borrow $19 billion, $14 billion more than we need". That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong in principle.
I believe it is also wrong politically. Convention and the law of the land require the Government to come back to Parliament for authorization every time it wants to borrow money. The Government really wants to play fast and loose with the whole process. Since the Government would need to borrow money again a few months down the road, it would like to avoid that kind of exposure in the public forum, the confrontation and the publicity of that extra borrowing. It wants to skirt around the parliamentary process by borrowing a lump sum now far in excess of what it really needs, and that, I believe, is wrong politically and wrong in term of the whole parliamentary process.
Second, this borrowing authority flies in the face of any kind of known or demonstrated ability on the part of the Government to forecast its own expenditures. My colleague, the Member for Mission-Port Moody has already indicated that the Government wants to be able to borrow this money without telling us exactly how it is going to spend it, and that is wrong. But it has not been able to forecast its own expenditures either, or its own indebtedness.
I believe all Hon. Members here realize-and the public has caught on to the fact-that in the last four presentations of either economic statements or disclosures, the size of the public debt has already doubled. The expected public debt has doubled and is now around $27.2 billion, whereas earlier it was supposed to be no more than $10 billion or 12 billion. If the Government has no more administrative ability than that, it seems to me we are compounding the problem by giving the Government authority to borrow $ 14 billion more than it needs
at the present time. If it is going to borrow money, that money has to be accounted for.
The third reason that this Bill is wrong, Mr. Speaker, is the reason I have already alluded to, and that is that the Government is introducing this Bill without disclosing how it wishes to spend the money. In the Blue Book Estimates we have seen some indications of what the Government's plans are, and it is startling to see what the Government is beginning to do.
I would like to dovetail this with my next point, which is that the Government is introducing a double standard regarding what it requires of the country and what it wants to demonstrate for itself. The Government says the country ought to be guided by the six-and-five principle, but when it comes to itself, that principle should not apply.
I would like to put on record exactly what the Government is doing in terms of its own Departments. When it comes to managerial expansion, the management boom, take note of the percentage increase over the previous year for management levels, that is the number of management personnel and the increase in salaries. In the Depatment of National Revenue the percentage increase in management costs is 209 per cent for 1983-84, whereas in 1982-83 it was only 5 per cent. In the Department of Communications the percentage increase is 157 per cent, whereas in the previous year there was a drop of 6 per cent. In Supply and Services the percentage increase is 134 per cent and in the previous year it was 20 per cent. In Transport the percentage increase is 127 per cent, whereas last year it was 1 per cent. In CEIC the percentage was 124 per cent, whereas last year it was 1 per cent. In Public Works the percentage increase is 102 per cent and last year it was 5 per cent.
Just to illustrate more specifically, Mr. Speaker, in the Solicitor General's Department the Regional Directors for the Correctional Services have historically been called just that, "Regional Directors", and they were in charge of the regional offices. Just before the six and five program was introduced, all of a sudden they were no longer "Regional Directors". Now they are Deputy Commissioners. That change of title, Mr. Speaker, means a new salary scale. So whereas the country is asked to stay with six and five, the upper levels of the bureaucracy find all kinds of ways of getting around it so they can get the kind of increases they want.
As the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody indicated, at the lower levels they have to hunker down, but at the upper levels the spending carries on. These are conditions, Mr. Speaker, which the Government would condemn in private industry. When a client who is strapped for money and needs some operating cash, comes to the Government's own bank, the Federal Business Development Bank, that bank has the client come back and back and back again to give it further documentation on how the money is planned to be spent, for further justification for the need to borrow that money. The poor client who is strapped for cash and wondering how he is going to exist has to set another appointment to justify to the bank why he needs the money. The adage holds true: if you can prove you do not need the money, you can get it.
March 14, 1983

The Government has not proven that it is going to spend the money wisely, yet it is coming to us, Mr. Speaker, for authority to borrow $19 billion. It seems to me, if we have a situation where 25 per cent to 28 per cent of all Government revenues are being spent to pay the interest on its indebtedness, we have bad Government and we have had management. Therefore, I cannot see how the Government can justify borrowing $14 billion more, which is over $1 billion a month more than it really has need for at this present time. I come back to the point I raised several times in the House, and that is when the Government floated a bond to the Canadian public just over a year ago, it paid excessive interest rates. Six months later it was proved that it was paying far too much. The Government itself paid over $2 billion more in interest charges than it needed to. In the process, it deprived private enterprise of doing the job it wanted to do in order to get the kind of cash it needed to do its job.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on with the point which was raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I believe he gave a very good example to point out why we are opposed to this kind of legislation. The Government is essentially asking to borrow $19 billion with two very simple pieces of paper. It is not giving us any idea how it intends to spend that money, and we are concerned. We are concerned for precisely the reason stated by my colleague in his concluding remarks.
The Government set interest rates for the Canadian Savings Bond issue at over 19 per cent in the fall of 1981. Subsequently, it was shown that that interest rate was way, way too high. It has been estimated it cost the Government somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, and that is only part of it. The other part of it is that it forced the whole interest rate structure to go higher than it should have. We in the Opposition are not irresponsible. We realize that the Government has to borrow money because it has to meet its commitments. But we believe that in a parliamentary system, if there is to be any proper accountability, the Government should come before us with a budget so we can have both sides of the story. We realize that the Government has to borrow money, there is no question about that, but at the same time we believe there should be a budget so we can see how it intends to spend that money.
When Governments become as large as they are, and if we essentially combine the spending of different levels of Government, whether it be federal, provincial, municipal or civic, and take it as a percentage of the total disposable income of Canadians, we find that very close to 50 per cent of all money earned by average Canadians is taken away in the form of taxation and is spent by one level of Government or another. That is a tremendous amount of money. When we agree to essentially a form of taxation-and this Bill is a taxation Bill as much as it is a borrowing Bill because the Government will have to tax to come up with the money to repay this loan-at
Borrowing Authority
least we should have some say in, or some indication of, what the Government intends to do with the money.
To put the matter in perspective, every time the Government talks about $1 billion, it is talking about roughly $40 per capita. If we take $19 billion, do the arithmetic and relate it to a family of four in the country, it means that this Bill will account for something like $3,000 in borrowing for each family of four. This is a tremendous amount of money.
As I said, we are not opposed to this Bill because we are irresponsible; we are opposed because we are responsible. It would be a much happier day if we could stand in the House and pass a Bill authorizing the Government to borrow $1 billion or $2 billion, which would indicate that it is running its financial affairs properly. It would be no problem. It would be a much happier day for all of us in Opposition if we could say something kind about how the Government is managing its affairs.
As I said, $19 billion amounts to over $3,000 for the average family of four, and we are given no indication of what the Government intends to do with it. We have seen the Estimates but they do not really mean a lot in terms of the direction in which the Government intends to take the country as far as fiscal and monetary management is concerned. We are expected to rise and blanketly approve that amount of expenditure on behalf of our constituents. I submit it would be totally irresponsible of us to give the Government that kind of blank cheque. This is why we are opposed to this kind of spending.
Also we are opposed to it because when we have Government spending of this magnitude it becomes very, very inflationary. I could give all kinds of statistics on that, but generally it is agreed that beyond a certain level Government deficits-and the reason the figure is so high is because the Government is running a large deficit-get to be very inflationary. Those are some of the problems we have with this kind of Bill.
There is another problem about which I would like to talk. I noticed that in the speech of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) two or three weeks ago he spent some time talking about the definition of inflation. The classical definition of inflation is simply too much money chasing too few goods. The Government has chosen to attack inflation from the money side, from the spending side, by trying to cut down on the number of dollars which are supposedly chasing the too few goods. It has chosen to go with the accepted or classical definition of inflation.
I submit that we need to attack the other side and do something about increasing production. When we get to the level of the very high interest rates which the Government has used to control the amount of spending, it simply hurts people who are trying to be productive. In my mind it hurts one of the most important sectors of the country, and that is the farming community. We are seeing the results of this today. I understand there are people here from the Farm Survival Association and that there will be a demonstration on the Hill this

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
afternoon. This is a result of some of the foolish policies the Government has pursued for the last two or three years.


An Hon. Member:: Stupid policies.


Charles James Mayer: Yes, stupid. I could call them worse, but certainly the policies of the Government are misguided. This is why we are again into a situation where the Government has to borrow a ridiculous amount of money and tells us nothing about how it will be spent. We should have a budget and be able to see that the Government is pursuing some productive policies.
Some people are concerned about a Private Member's Bill, Bill C-653 in the name of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), concerning the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. This House will not approve something which will cause more problems for the banks and force the banks to cut back on lending. We are responsible people, we will not do anything like that. In lieu of the Government doing anything, we should be sitting down and talking about the situation. Let us get the Bill before us, remove the obviously objectionable parts of it and get it to Committee so that we can have a discussion on it. In many ways it is almost irresponsible of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex to put forward a Bill for political purposes which contains some measures that in the banks' mind will cause additional problems for farmers.
I have met with some of the people from the Farm Survival Association. I have talked with people in my own constituency. In fact, that is the major thing I do when I go home. I have not talked to one of them who has asked for a hand-out. There may be some who are doing that, but the majority are asking for some time to put their financial houses and farms in order. Over a period of two or three years, if they can have some time and add the additional interest which they are forgoing now on to the length of their mortgage, they may be able to survive and be productive. We are talking about 10 per cent of the farmers in Canada. Perhaps that does not sound like a lot, but if you were one of the 10 per cent, Mr. Speaker, it would be very, very important to you. Even with the 10 per cent figure we are looking at approximately 25,000 farmers. This is a lot of people facing financial problems.
For us to do nothing in the House, to say simply that there is no problem and that it will go away if we ignore it, is totally irresponsible. We require a budget so that we could see, for instance, that the Government was addressing some of the excess taxation-at least I feel it is excess taxation-on farm fuels, or that it was addressing some of the problems of farmers who will be attempting to obtain a line of credit this spring. If we could see some relief, say a minimum $20,000 line of credit, it would give farmers some hope that the Government cared about them or was at least willing to listen to their problems. For us to do nothing is totally irresponsible.
I want to put to rest any of the fears of the banking institutions if we agree to put Bill C-653 into committee and, by implication, will pass something which will cause more problems. We will not do that. We will try to do something to help farmers in conjunction with all the financial institutions to get
ourselves out of the mess which the stupid Government has helped get us into. If we are to do something in the House, that is the kind of attitude that we on this side will bring to that kind of legislation.
I have a few suggestions for the Government concerning what it could include in a budget if it were really serious about helping farmers. As I said, it could include a relief from the approximately 60 cents of gasoline tax which the federal Government takes from every gallon of fuel used to produce food. Presently there is a 7-cent per gallon tax refund. I think it is stupid to collect it and then refund it. The first step would be simply not to collect it. That would help immediately as far as cash flow is concerned, and it would presumably cut down on some of the Government bureaucracy needed to administer it. That is a very straightforward, common-sense idea. Unfortunately, the more common sense one shows the Government, the less inclined it is to listen.
Second, the Government could simply lower the level of taxation it collects. I do not think there would be anything wrong with that. What sense does it make to try to set the level of taxation so high that everyone is driven out of business? If we do that, there is no tax to collect in the First instance. If the Government lowered the level of taxation and helped people in business, it seems to me that would be good business practice.
I see Mr. Speaker sitting on the edge of his chair, ready to shut me down. I suggest, in conclusion, that the Government take a serious look at the Western Grain Stabilization Fund and adjust the formula so that there could be a payout this year as quickly as possible. There is about $600 million in that Fund. I see nothing wrong with adjusting the formula so that at least a portion of that money is paid out to farmers to give them some money to help them get their crops in the ground, to continue to be productive citizens and to pay taxes.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few minutes talking about how the Government goes about planning its financial affairs. Individuals and businesses usually plan their economic affairs on an annual basis according to a rational and proper procedure. This may involve estimating the anticipated income, then calculating the fixed expenditures. The difference between the two figures, if a surplus, is available for discretionary spending. If there is not a surplus, however, then the business or family must borrow the additional funds that are necessary to meet their needs, bearing in mind that the debt will have to be paid off in the future. That kind of procedure is used by individuals, families and businesses because it makes sense. It is logical to anyone who thinks about it.
What does the Liberal Government of Canada do? It asks us for authority to borrow $19 billion. That is more that was spent by Government at the time the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first came into office. It does not think that we need to know why the funds are required or what the estimate of spending and revenues is. We are not permitted to know these
March 14, 1983

things but are just asked to give authority to the Government to borrow the money. And we know that the sheep behind the Treasury benches will say "Aye, sir, aye" and give that authority.
Then we are told it is an estimate of now much the Government is going to spend. But we are not told the truth, Mr. Speaker. What a ridiculous situation that is. At the end of February we are given an estimate of spending for the year in the Main Estimates. That spending will commence about the end of March and by the end of June the House will have the opportunity to pronounce on whether the Government is authorized to spend that money. But by that time, Mr. Speaker, it will have spent one third of the amount-before the House has given permission. That kind of absurdity arises because it can count on the sheep behind the Treasury benches to say. "I will not think about it-aye, sir, aye".
Finally, we might get a so-called budget, which is the revenue side of the whole budgetary picture. It was promised for early this year, then before April 1 and now we are told it will be some time in April-who knows, it may come in May or it may come in June. Indeed, we may never get one because we are still dealing with the taxation Bill of a budget presented a year and a half ago.
Let me contrast this with the situation in the United States. On February 1 the legislators in the United States are presented with the Government's estimate of spending and taxes- both sides of the equation. They have an opportunity to study it, to recommend changes and to make changes. They have until the end of October to deal with the legislation and pass it for the commencement of the fiscal year. They would not dream of allowing the Government to spend money before the legislators authorize it.
We have a different system in Canada. We have responsible Ministries. Is it true that our Ministers and our Government have more discretionary authority than the United States Cabinet Ministers. Our Ministers are always responsible to this House and therefore that extra discretion is justified.
How does this House hold Ministers responsible for what they do? What mechanism do we have to give truth to what I consider to be a lie-the suggestion that there is ministerial responsibility in this House? No such thing exists, Mr. Speaker. The "Coalgate" affair really demonstrates that the responsibilities of the Ministers will extend only as far as they allow them. When the sheep on the backbenches are ready to say "Aye, sir, aye", no matter how atrocious the behaviour of a Minister, how can the House hold a Minister responsible?
Apologists, such as the Michael Pitfields of the world, will say that there is at least disclosure, and ultimately at the ballot box the people can decide. Perhaps there is not ongoing ministerial responsibility but at least every four or Five years we have a chance to re-elect or defeat the dictatorship.
But how much disclosure is there really? How much do we know about Government spending and taxing plans? I humbly suggest we know very little. I should like to deal with two
Borrowing Authority
examples of how the Government is flim-flamming this House on the spending Estimates this year.
First of all, there is the usual lock-up where the media is secluded with high-priced officials from Treasury Board who brief them. Members of Parliament are not allowed in that lock-up lest we get to them and give the lie to many of the statements made by the high-priced Treasury Board people.
We are told that this year's spending is 9.6 per cent higher than last year's. That is flim-flam, Mr. Speaker, because it compared the Main Estimates to the total Estimates of last year. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) claimed that there is a reserve for any Supplementary Estimates that come in this year. They also claimed there was a reserve last year but that turned out to be false. So why should we believe the Government now, when it compares apples and oranges? Anyone in the media who published that 9.6 per cent Figure should be chastened by their superiors for publishing falsehoods.
The other thing the Government has done this year is to reduce the PIP grants by $642 million. The Government is using practices that are contrary to accepted accounting principles and it should be chastened for this. Indeed, it should be taken to court and punished for this flim-flamming and for publishing false accounts. A private company most certainly would be punished for the same sort of thing.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has put before us a Bill asking for authority to borrow another $19 billion without giving us any reason other than to say that the Government is faced with higher than expected expenditures and lower than anticipated revenues.
A more detailed explanation of the "why" behind these expenditures and revenue figures has had to come from this side of the House, since the Government, for obvious reasons, is loth to draw attention to its legacy of wasteful and inefficient programs, profligate spending, wildly miscalculated estimates and projections, blatant mismanagement and staggering federal debt-the interest alone on which now eats up 20 per cent of our total revenues.
Attention hardly need be drawn to the unemployment crisis which accounts for an ever greater proportion both of expenditures and lost revenues-because there is scarcely a family in the country in which one or more members have not faced the spectre of prolonged unemployment. But we are dealing with a Government that is evidently bankrupt not only of resources but of ideas and, it seems, of the very will to govern, which is a very different thing from the will to retain power. It will print and borrow money in prodigious quantities, but it seems unable to make that money work for Canadians by creating jobs, enhancing productivity and generating prosperity.
As a result, the discouragement of the unemployed, the underemployed, the disadvantaged, the aged, the poor, and

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
yes, even those who are more fortunate, is turning into cynicism and despair. And this, surely, is the most devastating consequence of all in the present malaise-the erosion of a sense of hope and the loss of belief in the future of this great nation.
It is partly for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would like my remarks today to be particularly positive and constructive. I would like, briefly, to make suggestions and pose imaginative possibilities. I would like to go beyond the "why" of our present economic woes to consider some "what ifs" with respect to our economic future.
I would like to suggest at the outset that what we need most in this country is not merely more money but a new imagination. We need to concern ourselves primarily not with the astronomical abstraction of $5 billion, $19 billion or $26 billion, but with the 23 million Canadians whom we represent and who are not abstractions at all but individuals with faces, names, families, talents, needs and aspirations.
I wonder what would happen in this country if the potential of every individual was being challenged, not by sermons about restraint but by genuine incentives to productive and creative contributions to our economy?
What if internship and on-the-job training programs were extended and fortified, job retraining projects were enhanced and adult education enriched? What if our most promising graduates and research professionals were assured of finding employment in their own fields? What if the innovation and initiative of the entrepreneur were being rewarded rather than stifled by regulations and restrictions? What if it were profitable for individuals to develop new products and new companies, to establish new businesses and initiate new projects?
At the corporate level, what if businesses starting up in slow growth areas were provided with a 150 per cent tax credit to cover capital and labour costs for the first three years of operation? I am not talking here about an outright grant; I am speaking rather of allowing a newly-established or expanding firm to apply these expenses against future income tax payable. This would provide the investor with an opportunity to recover his investment plus 50 per cent and his labour costs for the first three years plus 50 per cent. At the same time it would create a new corporate taxpayer and ensure the creation of badly needed jobs, all without taking a cent from the federal treasury.
With respect to our most venerable and well established firms, what could we be doing to enhance productivity and prevent obsolescence in an age of rapidly changing technology? If we allow ourselves to be passed by in the rapid march of technology, our competitive edge in even our most traditionally successful fields will be lost. If, on the other hand, Canadian firms are enabled, with Government incentives, to improve technology and undertake appropriate research and development, they can begin to make the necessary long-term adjustments that will ensure us of both success in tomorrow's world marketplace and a more stable and productive domestic economy.
At the regional level, research and development is a particularly critical factor. Problems of regional disparity can never
be dealt with effectively if we fail to maximize the particular strengths and potential of each region. Atlantic Canada, for example, has one of the largest fisheries in the world and an extraordinary potential for development in fishing related industries. Yet participation is modest in the manufacture of deck hardware, propulsion machinery, fishing gear, processing equipment and navigational devices. Our own shipbuilding industry cannot at present compete effectively with subsidized foreign suppliers. What if this unrealized potential began to be tapped? Could "One of the largest fisheries" become also "one of the most productive fisheries" in the world?
As we have been reminded in recent weeks, regional initiatives can be particularly vulnerable to political patronage and otherwise inappropriate interventions. If our regional potential is continually subverted by such interference, by oversights, delays or failures of imagination, the effects will be enormously consequential for all Canadians. If, on the other hand, regional disparities can be largely overcome and regional economies rejuvenated, the need for transfer payments will diminish and ultimately vanish altogether, alleviating a great federal financial burden.
At the national level in terms of both domestic and foreign trade, we desperately need new policies and new strategies. What if, for example, Canada established a series of free trade zones in port cities? Such zones have been created and operate successfully in selected American ports under the U.S. DISC program. Imported components are assembled in American assembly plants using American technology, according to American specifications, providing good American jobs, and then exported world-wide. I would like to suggest that we consider pilot projects of this kind in Saint John, Halifax and Vancouver.
On other fronts, are our strengths in high technology and communications being used to their greatest advantage? Are our innovations in computer assisted-design and computer assisted-manufacturing being sufficiently utilized? Are the possible civilian uses of the Canadair pilotless reconnaissance aircraft for ice patrols, forest protection and research, etc., being explored?
More efficient trading nations have reached the apex of their success not by accident but by planning. We need, as Canadians, so by planning effectively, assessing the priority import needs of emerging nations and bending every effort to making Canadian projects available at competitive prices both at home and abroad. We need a Government that will be hospitable to business, industry and investment, that will provide incentives for efficient management and operations, that will, above all, restore a climate of confidence, trust and optimism in this country.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit that the "what ifs" I have posed here today represent not mere wishful thinking but common-sense alternatives and possible roads out of the never-never-land into which the present Government has led us.
March 14, 1983

It has been estimated that if only half the unused capacity of Canada and the United States were put to work-15 per cent of the available plants and equipment, 6 per cent of the officially unemployed and 5 per cent of the unofficially unemployed-an additional $900 billion worth of output would be forthcoming. That would not only wipe out budgetary debts in Canada and the U.S., but eliminate also the cumulative international debts of the developing nations.
Having considered some of the "what ifs" the obvious next question is why not? I believe the Government owes the Canadian people an answer to that question before it receives authority to add another penny, let alone $19 billion, to the gaping maw of the federal Treasury.
I notice, Mr. Speaker, that you have been tilting for a minute. Thank you for just tilting and allowing me to finish my speech.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate, if only to bring a little balance to some of the comments made by Members opposite.
It is very difficult to understand just where the New Democratic Party stands. We were castigated for the deficit. First we were told that it was all right, that we needed a bigger deficit which would give us more stimulus in the country. Overnight there was a reversal of that position and the Leader of the NDP said that the deficit was big enough, to leave it and to work within these particular guidelines. Then Mr. McDermott got to the Leader of the NDP. He had to rechew the cabbage, reinstituting the original position of the NDP that it does not care about the precise size of the deficit as long as everyone is back to work. It is a very easy position for them to sell but it does make one wonder just where the New Democratic Party stands on this particular issue.
When the Official Opposition talk about our asking for a blank cheque, I must question whether they have done their homework. The Estimates were tabled only recently. We saw page after page of Ways and Means detailing how the Government proposes to spend its money in the upcoming year. All of the figures are there in considerable detail. As well, specific descriptions are given of how the various Departments will use their increases, why they are taking a particular action or where particular cutbacks are taking place. If the Opposition were really doing their homework, they would be more specific about where cuts should take place and give us some indication what they are talking about. They simply nit-pick about the budget, which anyone can do on a budget in the billions of dollars. Individuals can do that with their own budget. Even when an individual has a budget in the thousands of dollars, it is still easy to nit-pick and indicate areas where too much is being spent.
The Official Opposition have not narrowed their criticism to say, for example, that the expenditure for National Defence should be cut by $2 billion or $4 billion, or even that it should be enhanced. They have not said that we should cut down on
Borrowing Authority
the amount being paid to Provinces with respect to health and welfare, for instance. Instead, they take the popular position and say that the federal Government is arbitrarily telling the Provinces that, while they will receive transfer payments, they will be made according to a regimen. However, this is done so that we may plan our particular budget.
We hear the Opposition tell us to cut down on expenses but not to cut down on transfers to the Provinces. The fact that the federal Government spends significantly more than the Province of Ontario for post-secondary education in that Province does not seem to worry the Official Opposition. They are quite content to have that procedure continue, but I think there should be more accountability for the money the federal Government gives to the Provinces in the area of education which is under provincial jurisdiction. The federal Government is paying significantly more than the Province on the postsecondary level.
No one is asking for a blank cheque. One does not have to be an economist to realize that we are going through a recession. There are 12,000 unemployed workers in Sudbury. Those people were paying taxes when they were employed. Thanks to Unemployment Insurance, they are collecting benefits. They are collecting those benefits because far-sighted Liberals in earlier Governments saw fit to put an Unemployment Insurance Program in place that would be beneficial to those people who are unemployed. However, they are not paying income tax at the present time and, of course, that significant revenue is lost to the federal Government. This same situation is true for several industries in the country.
It may be simple to blame the federal Government for the fact that these people are unemployed, but it is not the Government that sets the price for nickel in the international market. We do not set the price for many of the items that our basic industries must sell, obviously at a profit. If the prices set in the international market are such that the industries cannot operate at a profit, significant changes must be made. This cannot be blamed on the federal Government. It is the responsibility of the federal Government, however, to devise forms of assistance that will be in place so that those people facing that dilemma can be helped while riding the wave of recession.
Unemployment Insurance is not a welfare program. It is a program for which our people have paid a significant premium. Many pay that premium in the hope that they will never have to collect it. But now that they do have to collect Unemployment Insurance, they are grateful that that program is in place. The money for that program is not simply placed into a bank account. It is used immediately for the people who need it.
A community such as Sudbury very heavily depends on the pay cheques of the Sudbury miner. Therefore, it is very dependent on the Unemployment Insurance money that is going into that city on a weekly basis. It is helping the small businessman in that community through a very difficult time. While many Sudbury miners will be called back to work on

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
April 1, it is the Government's responsibility to help those workers through the difficult times they are experiencing.
I was interested to hear the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) singing the praises of the American system of government. He seemed to be very much in accord with the idea that a budget had to be passed by a certain date. There is a time allocation procedure in the U.S. Congress for the passing of fiscal legislation.
If the Hon. Member has visited Britain, he will know that in the Mother of Parliaments at Westminster there is an understanding with the Official Opposition that once a party is elected and becomes the government, it has the right to have its legislation passed through the House. The Opposition has the right to give legislation some ventilation-the word I heard most often-to bills and spend as much time dealing with particular bills as it deems necessary. The Opposition sets its own priorities as to which bills they will attack and those for which they will allow speedy passage.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Their government has integrity.


Paul James Cosgrove: And intelligent opposition.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I see that my hon. friend for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is speaking from his best position-sitting down. I am sorry I cannot hear his interjections. We are close friends but quite far apart in the House, certainly a fair distance apart over policies.
I mentioned that example simply because I believe in the idea of time allocation. We should have a legislative framework under which we operate. The Opposition should know what the Government wishes to have passed in a particular session or timeframe. I believe it behooves the Opposition to allow quick passage of legislation with which it does not find much fault and then it can focus on those bills of greater concern. This would allow for legitimate debate in the House on subjects of some presence. It would give the House of Commons more relevance in the view of the Canadian public, a relevance which sadly seems to be lacking because we spend so much time arguing, for example, for four days on second reading of a bill about whether there should be three or five members on a commission. The fact that we spend so many days trying to make a simple decision has caused us to lose the respect of the people who watch and listen to our debates.
The money we plan to spend is being channelled very carefully. If Hon. Members opposite were intellectually honest instead of politically motivated, they would recognize that there is a whole series of funds in place to help provide training, for example. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) stated that there is approximately $1 billion going into training programs for young people who are primarily in need in Canada. One only needs to read the headline in yesterday's paper which says "Ottawa Aims to Boost Jobs in High-Tech Industries". We have the message. We know that the high-tech industry is where the jobs of the future lie and it is where the training should take place.
Notwithstanding the fact that education is a provincial responsibility under the Constitution, I believe the federal Government has an obligation to induce the Provinces to provide training in areas such as high technology so that our young people will have some hope for the future.
I have noted that Hon. Members opposite do not single out small expenditures such as the $40 million which is allocated to aid native broadcasting. There is a whole myriad of programs in place to help Canadians during this time of recession. If Hon. Members opposite would only take the time to study the issue, they would see how this money would be spent.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise with my colleagues on this side of the House and speak in opposition to Bill C-143. While it may sound repetitious to mention $19 billion, let Canadians know that this Bill breaks a record. This Bill will result in a debt that will be the largest in our history. It is the largest borrowing Bill in Canadian history.
Bill C-143 has been introduced with little justification in relation to its expenditures. It will mortgage the future of our children and their children's future as well. More importantly, the headlines of today's paper say that the graduates of this year are asking "What future?" Who can blame them?
I heard the comments of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) dealing with the Estimates. We all know that very shortly those Estimates will be deemed to have been passed. As we consider the big spenders on the other side of the House, we must remember that just four months or so ago, in October, the Government stated that the deficit of $22.2 billion would be sufficient to see it through this fiscal year. Now, just over four months later, it wants an additional $5 billion to continue through the fiscal year which is in front of us. An additional $14 billion is requested for the fiscal year 1983-84.
The Minister, with the endorsement of the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton, says "Trust us". When have we heard this phrase before? The people of Canada simply turn their backs. Where is the credibility? Where is the honesty? Where is the confidence?
I would like to quote the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). Just a few months ago, he emphatically said:
I would not expect the House to act upon an additional request for borrowing authority without providing it with detailed information on the economic situation and the implications of that situation on the Government's fiscal situation. 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 on both the economic situation and the fiscal situation, and I certainly will be doing that before I would come back to the House for additional borrowing authority.
Those words of the Deputy Prime Minister could not be clearer, yet we hear the Minister's successor asking for an additional $19 billion for borrowing purposes. Where are the explanations? How can the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) so freely ignore the words of the Deputy Prime Minister? Is it because the Deputy Prime Minister no longer has credibility?
March 14, 1983

Can he defy those words because he, too, has lost the confidence and trust of the people of Canada?
Not only do we in the Opposition want to know why the Bill is being introduced, but we also feel that Parliament has a right and a duty to question how and where the money will be spent. It is our parliamentary responsibility to the people of Canada to prevent a majority Government, the backbench Members of which simply sit on their hands, from continuing to borrow and borrow and spend as no other Government has spent before. This Parliament must be more than a rubber stamp.
I ask on behalf of my constituents of St. Catharines, will the Bill provide jobs for our automobile industry workers or our shipbuilders when those in the manufacturing industry of the Province of Ontario look for job incentives and opportunities?
What is at issue here does not particularly concern the request for $5 billion for the current fiscal year; we at least have some idea why that request is being made. It involves two totally disastrous budgets and a catastrophic energy program. The $5 billion is part and parcel of the Government's inept management of the economy of the country.
However, what is the forecast for the future? The $14 billion for the fiscal year 1983-84 is another matter altogether. Canadians do not want to see a repeat of last year's performance. They want some direction, leadership, and common sense, and to start the year off by borrowing $14 billion to spend on who knows what is simply an indication of following the forecasts of years gone by, the era of the big spenders.
According to the most up-to-date information available from Revenue Canada, the average taxpayer in the City of St. Catharines earns $20,000 a year. That same taxpayer pays over $3,000 in federal taxes. The Government has already borrowed $2,100 against the name of every taxpayer of that city. Now, through this borrowing measure, it proposes to add another debt of $500 to each and every one of them. Having borrowed $2,100 per taxpayer, it will follow that up with increased carrying charges. Assuming interest of 10 per cent, it would amount to a further $210 per taxpayer in the riding of St. Catharines. The passage of this legislation will add a still further $50, increasing the tax payable by each one of those by $2,100 plus $260. My constituents cannot afford that amount, nor can the people of Canada.
As I pointed out, the average taxpayer in St. Catharines now pays $3,000 a year in federal taxes. An increase of $260 would represent a hike of almost 9 per cent in extra carrying charges only. It does not take into account the Estimates to which reference was made earlier. It does not take into account additional federal spending which might be indicated in this fiscal year, nor a budget, the contents of which we know not. I point out that we in St. Catharines pay, as a whole, $165 million a year in federal taxes. A 9 per cent hike on that sum would almost amount to an additional $15 million.
Last month St. Catharines and Niagara had the highest urban unemployment rate in the land. How can we stimulate
Borrowing Authority
the local economy and set people to work again by increasing tax measures, by increasing the burden on the present populace and future generations who will live therein? I suggest to Your Honour that it is not necessary to bankrupt the Treasury and mortgage those future generations of taxpayers. It is not necessary to build Windsor on the back of St. Catharines. Difficult times require decisions and the Government must make decisions.
The only sector of our economy which is not practising restraint and setting priorities of spending is the federal Government. Day in and day out, we are treated to new examples of Government spending by Governments which are oblivious to the strains being placed on the shoulders and backs of the taxpayers. Over $1 million has been spent on newspaper ads to tell us just how close we are to energy self-sufficiency.
In the last 15 years, Government spending has risen at an unprecedented rate and much of it has been since the present Government was elected in February of 1980. Relating those years to fiscal 1979-80, spending has increased by 59 per cent, a sad commentary on those who say that the Government is practising restaint. For every $4 it spends, it must borrow $1, and borrowed money must still be paid for. The cost of interest on the debt of the last fiscal year was forecast at $16.7 billion, the equivalent of one revenue dollar in three. It is no wonder that our young Canadians look with concern to their future. It is no wonder that we Canadians, the people of this country, are concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are signalling that my allotted time has almost expired. I will conclude in just a moment.
The taxpayers of St. Catharines cannot afford to pay more. An examination, as the amendment before us proposes, is the only reasonable approach to fiscal control and expenditure. Alternatively, it leads those of us on this side of the House with no alternative but to oppose this astronomical borrowing Bill, Bill C-143, and that is what we intend to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to follow the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). In completing his remarks, he said that his Party has no alternative but to oppose the present measure before us, the measure to increase the borrowing authority. Of course, that is the role of the Opposition in the House of Commons. However, I think what we are increasingly seeing in this Parliament is that the Opposition is going beyond its role of opposing and criticizing and is trying to impede the orderly flow of legislation through Parliament.
My colleague from Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) touched on this a moment ago when he mentioned that in other jurisdictions, in the United States Congress and in the Westminster Parliament, there is an inherent recognition of the right of the Opposition to criticize, to vote against particular measures and

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
draw public attention to the weaknesses in proposed legislation; but that in the final analysis the majority of members in a legislative body, in this case the Canadian House of Commons, must carry the day.
We have seen in this Parliament, for example on the Constitution resolution and the energy legislation of last year, a continual thrust on the part of the Official Opposition to try to frustrate the will of the majority of Members in this House after legitimate and full debate has taken place. That is perhaps one of the greatest weaknesses of this Parliament, and I would hope when the Conservative Party resolves its leadership question that the first item of business for its new leader, or the present one if he is confirmed, is to take a more responsible approach to Parliament. If the Official Opposition ever hopes to form a Government in this country, I think that Canadians will expect them to behave in a responsible manner. Certainly their conduct throughout this Parliament has given very little reason for Canadians to believe that the Conservative Party truly does respect the workings of Parliament.
I want to talk about the substance of the matter for a few minutes because I believe that the Government is fully justified, after nearly 80 Hon. Members have spoken on this measure, in bringing in time allocation to get this Bill through. The borrowing requirement of the Government of Canada covers an urgent need. A lot of rhetoric has flown from the other side about why the Government requires this money. There is no doubt that the present Government deficit is fully defensible.
I sometimes wonder, when I hear Hon. Members, especially from the Official Opposition, criticize the deficit, if they really have been talking to some of their constituents when they make these criticisms. 1 represent what could be described as an inner-city constituency in Metropolitan Toronto and I know as much of the full effects of the recession as any Member in this House. I am sure that the Hon. Member for St. Catharines must go home every weekend and talk to his constituents because he represents an area where there is a lot of heavy manufacturing industry which has been hard hit by unemployment. I am sure his constituents are not telling him to come to Ottawa and oppose to ridiculous lengths the requirement for borrowing these funds, because the deficit has performed a great service to Canadians in the past year.
When we look at the projected deficit for this year, the high twenties of billions of dollars, we have to recognize the central factor that most of it is cyclical in nature. In other words, the deficit has increased due to the demand placed upon the Government Treasury by the recession. People have not been working; therefore Unemployment Insurance payments have been higher. People have not been paying taxes because they are not working; therefore Government revenues have declined. It is a matter of pure and simple economics.
The Government is faced with two choices. One is to continue to provide for those generous social welfare programs that the Opposition embraced in the good times-and here I think is the real crux of a commitment of a Member of Parliament in this House to social reform-ten or fifteen years ago when
many of the measures that are now in place were passed. I am thinking in particular of the Unemployment Insurance Act revisions in 1971. I am not sure where the Official Opposition stood on the actual amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, but I am sure that although many Hon. Members on that side spoke of their concerns, they voted for the changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, given the fact that no one really could argue about the Government providing a generous flow of benefits to people who had been thrown out of work. It is fine to say that one is for social reform and social expenditures in the best of times, but when we get to the worst of times, for instance in the last year and a half, the true commitment of an individual Member of Parliament and politician is really exposed.
What we are seeing on the part of the Conservative Party in this and other debates on the economy is a blatant show of cynicism because Hon. Members on the Official Opposition side really cannot be caring about those people who are unemployed in my constituency or in the constituency of St. Catharines. The people in my constituency who are unemployed are not coming to me and saying that they want me to get the deficit down, that they do not want the generous unemployment benefits, that they do not want their Family Allowances to be continued to be paid in this difficult time, that they do not want veterans' benefits to be paid-


Charles James Mayer: We are not saying that.


David Michael Collenette: -or that they do not want the generous national medicare scheme to continue because our deficit is too high.
Hon. Members on the other side say that they are not saying that, but surely the true logic is that if they are objecting to the high amount of the deficit they must be objecting to the very programs that are being paid for which have created that high deficit. Therefore, they really are coming down foursquare against, in these very difficult times, the very generous social programs that we have -


Charles James Mayer: You are being very deceitful.


David Michael Collenette: -of national medicare, Unemployment Insurance, family benefits-


Charles James Mayer: Why did you not listen to what we said? We gave you some sensible suggestions.


David Michael Collenette: -veterans' benefits and old age pensions. I think it is truly disgraceful for any politician to come to this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Kaplan:: The truth hurts.


David Michael Collenette: -and bring forward those arguments. I can understand why the Members across the way are quite exercised at the moment because I think in my short speech so far I have exposed the hypocrisy that they have been espousing in this House.


Mr. Lewis:: Your hypocrisy, not ours.
March 14, 1983

Mir. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about one of those social programs. A large amount of our expenditures today goes to the national medicare scheme. The other night I was watching "The Journal" on the CBC.


Charles James Mayer: We are saying do something besides borrow money.


David Michael Collenette: It was a comparative study of the effects of the recession on industrial centres in the United States and Canada. One of the number of communities looked at in the United States was Lackawanna, New York, a heavily industrialized area, and Hamilton, Ontario, with its heavy industry, steel-making and other manufacturing industries. In all of the major industrial centres, especially in the northeastern United States where the level of unemployment insurance benefits is not nearly as high as in Canada and where there is no national medicare scheme, there is a high increase in the level of malnutrition among children. Mothers cannot afford to feed their children. They are cutting back. They are cutting back on their own food but they are also cutting back on food for their children. The same is true for pregnant women.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are nodding for me to sit down, but I just want to say that in Hamilton, Ontario that is not the case. That goes to show that the social programs that we have in place today are fully justified, and that is what this deficit is covering. When people start going back to work as the recession ends, the deficit will decline.


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it comes as no surprise to my colleagues on both sides of the House when I say that in rising to speak on this Bill I make no pretence of being either a political historian or a political scientist. However, without any trepidation I am going to attempt to put into perspective what I believe to be the attitudes of Canadians generally, because those attitudes, in my view, have a very direct bearing on Bill C-143 wherein the Government seeks authority to borrow another $19 billion.
Historically in my view, Canadians have had an attitude which, if expressed, would be something like this: "We may disagree with what you, our Government, are doing but at least we believe that you know what you are doing". There was a residual confidence built up over 100 years in the federal Government, particularly in its economic program. It was built up despite from time to time anger, even outrage, strong opposition to some measures, particularly budgetary measures, and despite from time to time the adverse effect that these measures would have on certain groups or sectors of Canadian society. Despite all of this, Canadians continued to say: "We may be very mad or angry at you, we oppose this particular Bill or budget, but you should know what you are doing".
In my view, this contributed to our stability. Stability, progress and expansion flowed from this residual confidence. Given this history, attitude and confidence, where do we find ourselves as we wait for the Government's 1983 budget? Firstly and obviously, we are in a severe recession. This is
Borrowing Authority
partly because of international, world-wide conditions and partly because of domestic conditions in which our record compared to those of other industrialized countries is dismal, to say the least.
Canadians cannot blame outsiders, foreign governments and international conditions for our problems, because that simply is not true. Because of both the international scene and Government incompetence, we are suffering from tragic unemployment and its resultant loss of productivity and human misery. We continue to suffer interest rates that are much higher than any economist believes they should be. We continue to suffer the erosion of our lifestyle because of inflation, particularly those least able to protect themselves. We continue to suffer the results of Government spending, as emphasized in this Bill. All of these, except the human misery factor, are measureable.
Second, and in addition to these hard economic facts, we have a situation that is not measureable in absolute terms but which may be equally as serious. For lack of a better term, I call it the psychological factor because, unhappily, Canadians have lost confidence in their Government. Despite our tradition and history, Canadians are now saying that for the first time they not only disagree with what people in Ottawa are doing, but are convinced these people do not know what they are doing.
Evidence of this is everywhere, in my riding as in all ridings across the country, particularly in small business and farming where those able to expand and progress, those not at the mercy of high interest rates, turn to Government bonds at 19'/2 per cent instead of expanding their small business or increasing their productivity as farmers. That was the test of lack of confidence. If I were to agree, as I do, with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who says that the private sector is the engine of recovery, I say to the Government that if you believe that, why are you trying to spend your way into prosperity? It will not work. Increased Government spending has not reduced unemployment.
What happened to the traditional residual confidence of Canadians in their Government and, following that, in themselves and their communities? I do not think there was any one incident; it was gradual. Government spending and borrowing increases in 1968 caused a deficit of $497 million. That has increased to likely $30 billion in 1983, an increase of 5,936 per cent in the Government deficit. That has contributed to the erosion of confidence.
Government spending out of control, the Turner budgets of the early seventies, when I first came to this House, contributed to the erosion of confidence. The lack of Government accountability, as indicated in Auditor General report after report, the National Energy Program, conceived in stubbornness, born in ignorance and implemented with disastrous results, contributed to the erosion of confidence. Certainly the MacEachen budgets were the straws that broke the camel's back.
All of these combined to achieve a destruction of the traditional confidence of Canadians. In this situation, incidents

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
which Hon. Members opposite think are relatively minor become major irritants. The $800 to Donald Macdonald does not have a substantial effect on the budget, but imagine the salt it poured into the open wounds of Canadians from coast to coast. Not so minor in nature was the Coalgate or Gillespie affair, a million dollar payment for a very dubious project.
We wonder why Canadians are outraged, why they have no confidence and why they are saying those in Canada do not know what they are doing. In our current atmosphere, Canadians will seize on these issues. They will do things that are completely out of character, such as a penny auction in my riding and a person arrested on a hunger strike-completely out of character in the Canadian context.
Do not be surprised because desperate measures will be taken in desperate circumstances. None of these, however, destroys confidence as much as Bill C-143, a request to borrow $19 billion without any indication as to Government financial forecasts. No control, no accountability, no disclosure and the Government leaps into the money market to compete with small-businessmen and farmers for loans. The Government presents the largest borrowing bill in Canadian history without telling the country where we are headed.
We are to wait for a budget before we find out the Government's economic forecast and strategy. The Government says: "Trust us, have confidence in us". That flies in the face of every economic and psychological factor that exists in this country in March, 1983.
It is natural that I should oppose. That is not my sole function as a Member of the Opposition, but it is part of my function. It is natural that I should oppose Government measures, particularly one that I take so seriously. That is not important. The fact that Opposition Members rise in opposition to a $19 billion borrowing Bill not the significant factor. Rather, it is what my constituents and Canadians everywhere think. Those constituents are saying that rather than expanding their small business, rather than becoming more productive on their farms, rather than hiring additional help or building up inventories in order to produce more, should they leave their money invested in Canada Bonds? Not one job is created thereby. That is what Canadians are thinking in the face of the $19 billion borrowing Bill. Until those Canadians have a change in attitude and the only factor in that change is an increase, not a decrease and erosion, of confidence, all the Government spending in the world will not turn that situation around.
In summary, and I see my time is almost up, in addition to trying to survive the hard economic facts, Canadians are being smothered by a psychological barrier which has resulted from a lack of confidence in their Government, a lack of confidence in themselves, their future and that of their families, and even a lack of confidence in the community in which historically they have thrived and prospered. The Government's response to that psychological situation is to come to this House and say: "Trust us, have confidence in us and give us the authority to borrow $19 billion". On behalf of my constituents and on behalf of Canadians, to that request I say no.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, naturally I join with my colleagues on this side in speaking in opposition to this Bill, which requests authority to borrow $19 billion and places an unprecedented burden on Canadian taxpayers in terms of repayment.
As my colleagues have pointed out, this Bill is unique in character. It is based completely on our trust and confidence in the Government to manage our economy. It is unprecedented in the sense that the Government has not come before us with a budget or spending program to indicate how this money will be spent. As I said when I spoke on this Bill last week, the crime of taxation is not so much in the taking as it is in the way the money is being spent. This Government will take most of this money to continue its insidious drive toward total control of our economy.
I do not think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was kidding last week when he said that for a Minister to leave his Cabinet and not be working with Government in some way would pretty well deprive him of his livelihood. He would have to stand on Sparks Street with a tin can and beg for money. I do not think he was kidding because it would be very difficult today for anyone to go into business without being a partner of Government.
That really is the root of the problem which this Government has gotten itself into. It would not matter very much what kind of forecasts the Government would lay before us because its forecasting has been totally out of whack, completely wrong. Government does not have a very good track record. We are still dealing with three prior budgets during which spending has gone from $11 billion to $24 billion. Therefore, it really does not matter much what kind of a forecast the Government would lay before the House. But the question arises, and it is a simple one: If you go to your bank to borrow a large amount of money, surely the banker would first want to know what you need the money for, and second, what you have got to offer as collateral.
Incidentally, to put $1 billion into proper perspective, it has been said it is a stack of brand-new $1 bills 85 miles high. The average person cannot comprehend $19 billion. I know it would take $2 billion to put in place an income security system which would be totally financed and sound actuarially. To take away any anxiety of our senior citizens in terms of retirement income would take $2 billion, and this Government wants $19 billion.
I do not know whether there are some retired Liberals out there who need another $1 million each. I do not know if it is the Government's intention to buy more service stations. I do not know what the Government wants to do with this money. I know there is nothing in any of the programs or legislation before the House right now which would even give me the least bit of confidence that this Government knows what it should do in terms of turning around the economy and creating jobs. It has a new commission now, the Macdonald Commission. A retired Minister, who receives $800 a day, is now out around
March 14, 1983

the country trying to figure out what the Government should do with the economy. We in the Opposition are being criticized for being critical. That is our role as the Official Opposition, but we have nothing to criticize. All we know is the Government's insatiable appetite for power. Karl Marx always said that the cultural and economic theories of a society are merely the reflection of the vested interests of the ruling class. In his time, of course, taxes were low, profits were high and the capitalists were the ruling class. Today profits are low and taxes are high, and since taxes are the income of bureaucrats in Government, it can only be reasoned that the Government and its bureaucrats are the new ruling class. They are the new oppressors, the bureaucrats and the Government. They are the new capitalists, and it is not so much capitalism in the material sense but capitalism in the sense of the raw exercise of power, the uncontrolled exercise of power. They are the new capitalists.
How is the economy reacting to this unrestrained appetite, this kind of unrestrained Government spending? The corporations are reacting in strange ways. The corporations over the last 10 years have not done what corporations normally do in terms of expanding their business. They have indulged themselves in this exercise which is now known as "paper entrepreneurship". Instead of building a new plant, developing a new product and making a contribution to the economy in terms of creating new jobs, they find companies on the stock market whose assets are undervalued and they gobble them up. That is what I call corporate cannibalism. They do that because they are nervous about Government. They have to compete with Government. The banks are competing with Government. All of this does not create one new job or do anything to ease unemployment or inflation. All it does is put a demand on the money market, putting all the capital pools into one big bowl, splashing them around and handing them out to those in the privileged position of raw power as it is exercised by this Government.
The tragedy of this unbridled borrowing as well, Mr. Speaker, is that there is not enough capital in our own country. Federal, provincial and municipal Governments are borrowing much of that money abroad. In other words, the 25 cents of every dollar which every Canadian taxpayer gives to the Government is spent on interest, which is in turn spent abroad somewhere else.
One can turn on the television set every night and hear this criticism of the American economy: "Reaganomics has failed. Massive deficits will create new pressures on the money supply and interest rates." Well, if we look at the American deficit we see it is $80 billion, but that is two and a half times less than what the Canadian deficit is in real terms, and the Americans, of course, borrow from their own people, from their own institutions. We go abroad, however, to America and borrow the money there. Twenty-five cents of every dollar is paid to some institution in the United States, in Switzerland or in the
Arab States. That is the tragedy; the money does not even stay in our own economy. Our own banks cannot even build up any capital pools to lend money to small business. And what have the banks done in reaction to this kind of raw power? Have they made an effort to build pools in order to lend to small business, to medium-sized business, and in doing so create new jobs? Of course not. They have lent money to Dome Petroleum, to Chrysler, to Mexico and to Guatemala, because it is just as easy for them, Mr. Speaker, to service a billion dollar loan to a foreign country, which is guaranteed by the Government, as it is to service a $30,000 loan to a small business. That is the tragedy. The trend is set right there and, sir, we must stop it if we want to save our economic freedom in this country and, in so doing, our personal freedom.


Mr. Thacker:: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might call it one o'clock and I will carry on when we reconvene after three o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to call it one o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed.

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. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, on March 8, 1983, the newspaper Le Devoir reported that according to a reliable source, Canadian National was considering a transfer of all personnel from its express division in Montreal to Toronto, a move that would affect over eighty people. We enquired at CNX, and it seems it is true a decision will be forthcoming in a matter of days or weeks.
Of course, the present political stance and fiscal policies of the Government of Quebec tend to discourage private companies from moving to or staying in Quebec. However, the Canadian Government and this includes Crown corporations, should not be put off by the climate of uncertainty in this Province. On the contrary, it should set an example and show

March 14, 1983
its partners in the business world that the situation may well become more normal and more attractive after the next provincial elections, when the so-called nationalists will have breathed their last. 1 therefore urge CN, considering its obligation to report on its activities, not to transfer those activities, and also to make public the consequence such a decision might have.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, when asked to identify the major problem in the country today, Canadians placed the jobless rate far ahead of inflation, or any other issue, as their major concern. Sixty-five per cent of those surveyed by Gallup said the Government should be giving much greater attention to trying to reduce unemployment.
Compare that clearly stated concern of the Canadian people with the response of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when questioned about the latest unemployment figures last Friday. With 1.6 million Canadians unemployed, he dismissed their concern with an attitude of "All is well, a recovery is under way, " or "All will be well, just pass the Income Tax Act," or "No need to worry, just wait for my budget."
This is not the first time the Liberal Government has shown its contempt for the views of Canadians, nor the first time that it has been out of step with what Canadians consider to be the number one priority. But in the face of such massive evidence that Canadians believe unemployment must be dealt with immediately, that joblessness is hitting hard, not only at the unemployed but at their dependants as well, surely the Government has an obligation to bring in job creation measures now, and not wait until some will-of-the-wisp budget to do so.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, when I was watching the American PBS channel from Vermont this weekend, I could not help comparing their system to ours. The American Government is spending $85 million for a population of 230 million. We pay ten times that amount, namely, $850 million for ten times fewer people. This comparison is particularly apt when we read the comments of a popular Quebec columnist who this week was discussing a crucial development. He said that 52 per cent of Quebecers watch television in English, mostly on American channels, and that among young people the proportion is 75 per cent. Since we
are now considering the Applebaum-Hebert Report in committee, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we should go on investing nearly $1 billion of the taxpayers' money when even Quebecers prefer U.S. channels and many make voluntary contributions towards financing the American Public Broadcasting System.



THE MONARCHY


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, Hansard should carry a record of the visit to British Columbia last week of Canada's Queen, Her Majesty Elizabeth II. It should also note the enthusiastic welcome extended to Her Majesty by the thousands of British Columbians who stood for hours to greet their Queen, as well as the deep impression made upon her by the children who lined the road sides, many of them offering flowers.
That visit should remind us that today, March 14, is Commonwealth Day, and it should bring to mind the role Her Majesty and the Crown play as the symbols about which the countries of that Commonwealth cluster to exercise their influence for peace, stability, and harmony, and on the development of democratic institutions throughout the world.



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, last week in Saskatoon I attended the annual meeting of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, which is made up of all the councillors of rural municipalities in Saskatchewan. The people who attend that annual meeting are the cream of the crop, Madam Speaker. They are the men and women of the soil of Saskatchewan.
They had two very outstanding resolutions. First, they went on record as being strictly opposed to any change in the Crow rate statutes. This was a unanimous opinion. Second, they went on record as saying that the Crow rate is still nonnegotiable. That was also unanimous.
When I speak about the farmers of Saskatchewan who were at that particular meeting, I am referring to the land owners, the people who produce the food for this country, and they should be listened to by us all. Unfortunately, the Government is not listening to them and so it is going to make a grave mistake.
I suggest that the Government should reconsider what it has done. The farmers of Canada are literally in dire straits today and are losing their farms. The Canadian Farm Survival
March 14, 1983

Association is in Ottawa today, protesting the fact that a Canadian farmer is in jail. I would say that it takes a lot more than wearing a green hat to become someone who is really in touch with what is going on with the farmers.



COMMONWEALTH DAY


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Madam Speaker, since 1976, the second Monday in March has been designated Commonwealth Day following a proposal by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a meeting of heads of State in Kingston, Jamaica. While many of its members, including Canada, have evolved in the constitutional sense, the Commonwealth has remained a privileged forum for forty-seven countries, nearly one quarter of the world's population. Colonialism has gradually given way to political consultation and cooperation among peoples.

Commonwealth Day should be used primarily for educational purposes, so that developed and developing member nations could learn about the Commonwealth and life in other countries.
On this day Commonwealth countries around the world are marking the occasion with enthusiasm in a wide range of activities. We in Canada should value the many forms of association with the Governments and people of the 47 countries of this world-wide association representing one-quarter of the world's population.

Canadians have made a tremendous contribution towards improving living conditions in many developing countries that are fellow members of the Commonwealth, through common institutions or bilateral aid programs.

On this day, then, it behooves us to commemorate our longest continuous multilateral association with other countries, to remind ourselves of the value of that association and the contribution Canada can make politically and economically to its further evolution and well-being.



DANGERS TO OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING RIGS

Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, on February 16 the Government of Newfoundland observed a severe storm in the East Coast offshore area of the Hibernia well. It raged for two and a half days. Helicopters could not go to the oil rig West Venture which could not pull her anchors to
5.0.	21
be towed in such weather. This rig is not self-propelled. There were ten icebergs and bergy bits around endangering the oil rig and her crew of 84.
On February 24 the Newfoundland Government ordered that Mobil Oil should bring its rigs ashore because of danger. No drilling was done after that time. On February 25 the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) countermanded the order and so put at risk the lives of the 84 people on the West Venture and the other rigs in the area. Mobil Oil said that it was responsible only to the federal Government as a result of the court decision on jurisdiction over the offshore.
On March 11 the Minister discovered his mistake when Mobil Oil had to order both its oil rigs in due to the perilous ice conditions. The company will not say where the rigs are going. I understand they are anchored some distance from Hibernia.
The Minister should resign his seat. He has shown his unfitness by his swaggering and bullying lack of sensitivity, his lack of concern for the people whose lives are at risk. He is unfit to be given such responsibilities. He has the jackboots of a petty dictator, exercising his constitutional muscles over the Province of Newfoundland because of that Supreme Court decision. He is unfit for the great responsibilities he has-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



STUDY OF HOSPITAL WORKERS USING VIDEO DISPLAY TERMINALS

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, recently a study was completed by H. D. Sharma, a professor from the University of Waterloo, based on 75 video display terminal operators working in British Columbia hospitals. Sharma found an abnormally low rate of pregnancies among the women of child-bearing age and, of the 14 VDT operators who became pregnant over the past year, ten had miscarriages or gave birth to babies with defects. This is only one of many studies with similar results.
A Government task force report on microelectronics made recommendations which could reduce the number of birth complications and other physical problems that are associated with VDTs. At first the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) endorsed these recommendations, and said that they conveyed a sense of urgency. Now he is backing away from the need to legislate health and safety protection for VDT operators, in response to the lobbying of employer groups. The Minister of Labour must find the courage to act immediately on behalf of the workers and their children who need the protection of Canadian law.

March 14, 1983



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I want to use this opportunity to put on the record some comments about the Government's six and five efforts to reduce inflation and, particularly, the impact these efforts have had on senior citizens. These comments are based upon a statement given last Friday afternoon in Ottawa by Bert Hamner of the Ottawa and District Council on Aging to a conference sponsored by Ottawa and Ontario labour groups.
I put these comments on the record here, first because they bear out what we on this side have been saying about six and five and, second, because the CBC, which was filming last Friday's conference, turned off its mikes and cameras during most of Mr. Hamner's presentation. In Mr. Hamner's own words, the application of the six and five program to Old Age Security was "not worth getting excited about".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: Listen and learn. According to Mr. Hamner, senior citizens are quite prepared to do their bit to fight inflation and, indeed, will turn out to be the chief beneficiaries if efforts succeed in bringing down the Consumer Price Index. This, Mr. Hamner says, is exactly what has happened, and the "sacrifice" on the part of Canadian pensioners has been exactly $1 each so far-50 cents off their February cheque and 50 cents off their March cheque.
This is exactly what we have been saying on this side of the House during the debate on the Government's restraint measures, that if we all work together and succeed in reversing the inflationary spiral, we will all be better off in the long run.


Madam Speaker:: Order.



TOURISM


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House and of the Minister responsible the fact that there is a very simple, practical and inexpensive way in which the Government can move to assist the revival of the economy, by directing its support to the industry which ranks, at least in Ontario, as the second largest generator of jobs. Furthermore, it is geographically so dispersed that, more than any other employer, it can generate a widespread positive leverage throughout the economy. Of course I am speaking of the tourist industry.
In Ontario alone last year it generated $7.4 billion in revenues and created a ripple effect generating $12.6 billion. That represents big money in a country which is trying to encourage an economic recovery. Yet, on a bilateral basis with
the United States alone, in 1981 Canada ran a deficit on tourist account of $1 billion. Surely that is due in large measure to the fact that gasoline, which ultimately fuels all tourism, is 10 cents a litre or, in terms that our would-be tourists can understand, 45 cents a gallon more expensive here than across the border where the world price is in effect. Eighty cents a gallon, or 17 cents a litre of that, is due to federal taxes. A simple cut in this federal grab would cause a beneficial effect to ripple all the way through the domestic Canadian economy, and I recommend this course to the Minister.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. James M. Lee, Premier of Prince Edward Island.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Following the release last Friday by Statistics Canada of the unemployment figures, showing an increase in the seasonally-adjusted rate and virtually no change in the real rate, Gallup this morning released a poll showing that 65 per cent of Canadians in a national poll feel that unemployment is the main problem facing the country today as opposed to 28 per cent who see inflation as the main problem.
Given the policy of the Government, and given these findings by Statistics Canada and by Gallup, does the Government intend to bring in measures immediately, especially since we have been told not to expect a budget for at least a month? Will the Government change its priorities and bring in budgetary measures now which will address themselves to this critical problem?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member must know that the Government attaches very high priority to the question of unemployment. The Minister of Finance, in his statement last fall and in the earlier budget, indicated that the Government had allocated very large sums of money in order to create jobs and to support activities which
March 14, 1983

would result in the creation of jobs. At the present time the Minister of Finance and the Government are considering what further steps might be taken to bring about economic recovery, including the creation of more jobs. That will be made known when the Minister brings down his budget.


James Aloysius McGrath: An examination of the statistics released on last Friday indicate a very alarming increase in the rate of long-term unemployed-up 98 per cent over a year. Of the 1.6 million Canadians officially listed as unemployed, over half of them are long-term unemployed. These are people who have been unemployed for longer than three months. In many instances they have seen unemployment insurance benefits exhausted.


REQUEST FOR TAX CREDIT SYSTEM TO ASSIST LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Given the concern expressed by a majority of Canadians, is the Government prepared to bring in at least a measure to address the problem of the long-term unemployed? I would suggest as a start that the Government accept the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada to bring in an employment tax credit system which could be targeted to the long-term unemployed or the unemployment insurance exhaustees. That would get people to work right away. It would provide long-term employment in the private sector as opposed to the band aids we keep getting from the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the programs which have been introduced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration have been absolutely indispensable in assisting the unemployed. They have made a very real contribution to that objective. I am surprised that the Hon. Member does not know that. He must be aware of the very large programs which exist in his own Province of Newfoundland that have been sponsored by the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is the kind of band-aid treatment about which I am concerned. According to the Minister's own figures, $500 million has been spent to create 60,000 jobs under the NEED Program. According to the Economic Council of Canada the Government could, for an expenditure of $100 million by way of tax credits, provide 50,000 jobs in the private sector right away. That is the kind of response we expect from the Government, instead of it sitting by, applying band-aids while the patient bleeds to death.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister, if he has any compassion left in him at all, whether he will recommend to his colleagues in Cabinet, at least to the Minister of Finance, that we have
Oral Questions
action now and not one or two months down the road when the Minister is ready to bring down a budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to the number of jobs which would be created by a particular tax credit. I would think that any of these estimates are related to the prospects for growth in the economy and the prospects for recovery. The Hon. Member must know that there is no specific program which can really solve the problem of unemployment, in Canada or in any other country, until general recovery takes place throughout the industrialized world. There are some signs that at the present time recovery is beginning, but it would be very misleading to suggest that the adoption of this particular suggestion of the Economic Council of Canada would make any deep impression on the unemployment situation.


REQUEST FOR CREATION OF LONG-TERM EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to draw to his attention that last year Canada lost an average of 1,400 jobs per day. The Deputy Prime Minister addressed the situation in an answer to a previous question. In Newfoundland unemployment is raging at 18.8 per cent, in New Brunswick unemployment is at 15.3 per cent, and in his own home area of Cape Breton unemployment is out of control. Farm bankruptcies are up. The forest industry is in a shambles. The Government has addressed itself to the fishing problems through the Kirby Report, yet no action is being taken. The shipbuilding policy has been announced, but where is it?
What concrete steps is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to take now? What recommendations is he prepared to make to this colleagues, specifically to create meaningful jobs that will be long lasting and will provide a future for Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have already answered that question, as the Hon. Member will know if he had been listening to the question put by his colleague from St. John's.


FUTURE OF CANADIAN FORCES BASE CHATHAM, N.B.
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, perhaps I might do a little better if I put another question to another Minister, although I doubt it. Nevertheless, I will try, and I direct my question to the Minister responsible for public works from Bonavista to Vancouver Island and all points in between, including the Province of New Brunswick. It has been stated by his colleague from Northumberland-Miramichi that his biggest priority is dealing with the closure of CFB Chatham. As the Minister of Public Works, what does he intend to do to demonstrate that priority to the people of New Brunswick in the Chatham region, and will he now react in a positive way to

March 14, 1983
Oral Questions
the request of the people in that region to go there, put on his dancing slippers and be prepared to meet the piper?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have said in this House before that the base is not closed, that it will be open until the end of 1984. In spite of this fact, unemployment in the Miramichi area is very high. Officials of the provincial Government, which the Hon. Member supported in the last election, went around last fall talking about the problems of the future, not the problems of today or yesterday. The provincial Government has done very little to solve the problems of Miramichi. If the Hon. Member wants to help the situation he will stop making speeches and try to do something in co-operation with his provincial colleagues.


Robert Alfred Corbett: What are you doing besides hiding in Ottawa?


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice in the absence of the Prime Minister. On the eve of the historic First Minister's Conference on Aboriginal Rights, the Government of Canada has left its position unclear on a basic question. I refer to the need to entrench within the Constitution itself a requirement that a certain number of First Ministers' meetings take place over a prescribed and limited period of time to deal with the important question of defining aboriginal rights. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit the Government to fighting for such an entrenchment, a desire that is requested by virtually every native group in the country?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the commitment of the kind my hon. friend seeks should probably come at the conference itself. I can tell him in the House that indeed it is the wish of the Government of Canada that an ongoing constitutional process should be provided for in a constitutional amendment so that the native peoples will have a guarantee that this first meeting, which is the only meeting now provided for by the Constitution, will be the beginning of a process and not the end.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it sounds risky, but I am tempted to say that the Minister made what one might call an unequivocal commitment on behalf of the Government to pursue that proposal at the First Ministers' Conference. He is nodding his head, so I assume that is the case.


CONSENT OF NATIVE PEOPLES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my second question concerns the rights of the native peoples themselves in their own communities to pass judgment on whatever negotiated changes might take place in the future concerning aboriginal rights.
The Minister will recall that two years ago the Government turned down a New Democratic Party proposed amendment for a so-called consent clause. Has the Government reconsidered this? Will the Government guarantee to the native people of Canada that any negotiated changes in aboriginal rights will go back to the native people themselves in some form for consent, before such changes are entrenched?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, the whole process of setting up an entrenched constitution process of an ongoing nature is to provide for continuing discussions with the native peoples and, of course, with the Provinces as well. As to the further development of aboriginal rights, we firmly believe that no such changes should be made without full consultation with the aboriginal people.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice, as a lawyer, will know that consultation is not the same as consent. I would like the Minister to deal with the question again and to be explicit. Is the Government willing or not willing to commit itself to a process of constitutional change so that when changes are made by the federal Government and the Provinces, which alone have the right now in terms of votes at constitutional meetings, such changes in aboriginal rights will not have the force of constitutional law unless they go back to the native people themselves for a final vote of some kind to obtain their agreement?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I think that to answer my hon. friend's question fully it is necessary to make a distinction. If what he has in mind is a constitutional amendment formula which would replace the one existing in the Charter now, it is not indeed our purpose to change that provision at the present time.
I would say, and I think the important point is, that it is the purpose of the ongoing process precisely to reach agreement with the native groups in this country as to a fuller expansion of their rights. The Government of Canada is not coming to this conference to insist on its legal right, but to try to reach agreement with the Provinces and with the aboriginal groups on an expanded version of these rights for the future.


Mr. Nielsen:: And the Territories.
March 14, 1983


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA
Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House will want to acknowledge the presence in our gallery of Her Honour Pearl McGoni-gal, Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister will know that today marks the sixth day of a fast by a young Canadian farmer who is in jail and who will not eat until the Government brings forward appropriate legislation to deal with the critical financial situation that is being faced by many Canadian farmers. The Minister will know that the Opposition Parties support in principle the suggested legislation. When will the Government bring in legislation to deal with this situation? Will it be today, or will there be more promises? What commitment will the Deputy Prime Minister make now to the farmers who are being affected by this situation?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will acknowledge that Parliament, at the insistance of the farmers themselves and as a result of this Government's action, has adopted many measures that have proved to be very useful to farmers and agriculture in Canada. Last Friday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture mentioned a number of these very beneficial measures. In addition, one of the Hon. Member's own colleagues, the Hon. Member for Elgin, made a suggestion last Thursday and at the time I said the Government was prepared to give it serious consideration. This morning, however, I was very disappointed to hear one of the Hon. Member's colleagues, the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette, declare that he was not prepared to allow passage of Bill C-653, a Bill presented by a Liberal Member, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex, and that he preferred to refer the Bill to a committee.
In the circumstances, I do not think the suggestion by the Hon. Member for Portage-Marquette is very constructive. On the other hand, the proposal of the Hon. Member for Elgin has considerable merits, and we are prepared to give it further consideration.
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON FARM FORECLOSURES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Government House Leader. I think that the farmers who are in the galleries now will take little solace from the answer given by the House Leader. I think he will know that this is a critical situation. This critical financial situation faced by the farmer is paralleled by the situation and the risk to the life of the farmer who is in jail. We are not playing politics with this issue. We have a commitment to the principle of the Bill from this side of the House. We are prepared to see it go forward, and it is important that today or in the near future some measure is adopted.
If the House Leader is not able to bring forward this legislation, will he at least bring forward legislation that would impose a moratorium on further farm foreclosures until the House can consider appropriate legislation? This is supported by all Members on this side of the House and would receive quick and unanimous passage, I am sure, if the House Leader would bring forward legislation to solve the problem, instead of playing politics.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is warning against playing politics at the expense of the farmers. Perhaps he will recall that a few weeks ago his own progressive conservative colleagues were hiding behind the curtains to prevent Parliament from functioning, when the Government wanted to have a very important measure passed that would promote exports of Canadian agricultural products. The Progressive Conservative Party has systematically prevented Parliament from functioning and from adopting certain measures, especially those aimed directly at providing relief for the farmers he just mentioned and who are here today in the gallery. The Hon. Member may be sincere, and I do not really doubt his sincerity, but I think he is misinformed because he certainly does not have the support of his colleagues with respect to the measure he mentioned. I will make him a definite offer and we shall see whether his colleagues are prepared to support him. His own colleague, the Member for Elgin, suggested an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would provide the means for helping the farmers concerned. I suggest that this Bill, which has reached the second reading stage, should be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Furthermore, we shall ensure-I discussed this with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-that the amendment in question will be debated and considered very seriously in committee, not on Wednesday, which is normally the day for considering Private Members' Business, since it would then be much too late to help my colleague's friend, but tomorrow, when the agriculture committee could consider a serious

March 14, 1983
Oral Questions
amendment relating to this subject, that would be attached to the Bankruptcy Act which itself has been awaited so long by all Canadians. Therefore, if the Hon. Member is acting in good faith, he will accept my-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT ON LEGISLATION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to that just asked. I would also ask the Government House Leader that we not engage in tradeoffs or saw-offs on a matter of such importance.
Given the nature of the problem that confronts so many farmers all across the country, and the fact that more of them are going into bankruptcy and losing both their property and farm machinery every single day, will the Government House Leader make a commitment to bring forward a bill dealing with the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to ease the terrible difficulties that confront so many and continue to grow daily?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have just indicated to the Member who asked me the previous question all the good measures that were brought in by this Government in support of agriculture since the beginning of this Parliament. He cannot deny that. The farmers themselves recognize those good policies.
Second, he will recognize that we have a Bill on the table which is proposed to facilitate the exportation of farm products from this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: This Bill cannot be passed because of the systematical obstruction coming from the Official Opposition. I had indicated to the Hon. Conservative Member that we were willing to consider a proposal made by one of his colleagues last Thursday, the Hon. Member for Elgin, when he suggested that we might consider making an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that could achieve the goal which all Members in the House are seeking. I have suggested that this afternoon we all agree to send that Bill immediately without further debate, since debate has begun on second reading of that Bill, to the Agriculture Committee. Tomorrow, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is willing to consider very seriously the appropriate amendments to deal with this problem.


Ian Deans: Table the amendment and we will deal with it now.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF BILL BASED ON FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton-West):: Madam Speaker, since the Bills proposed by the Government are all lame ducks-Bill C-12 has not been debated in the House since 1981 and the Canagrex Bill is in a morass of problems-would it not be feasible to suggest that a Bill based on the former Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act be referred to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for consideration, which could then consider the problems and receive representations from both creditors and debtors, and determine what the best solution would be for the industry today?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my learned colleague must admit that a Bill does not become a lame duck just because a political party decides to indulge in systematic obstruction. Bill C-12 is very important. It is favoured by all the Provinces and by all those who are in financial difficulty in Canada, including farmers, and I wonder on what grounds the Hon. Member decided that Bill C-12 was a lame duck? Once again, the offer I made just now still stands. If the Official Opposition is serious about this, it will allow the Bill to be referred to committee right away, where all appropriate amendments will be considered in order to find a solution to the problem.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT OFFER
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I repeat that Bill C-12 is a lame duck because the Government has not bothered to bring this Bill up for debate since 1981. So it is a lame duck. What I want to say is this: Make us a good offer through the House Leaders, and then perhaps we could settle the consultation issue.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking for a good offer. Since October 27, we have had a list of urgent Bills on the Table which in itself constitutes an excellent offer to end a session that has been going on for nearly three years. The legislation on that list concerns not only agriculture but the entire economy of this country, and it is because of systematic and irresponsible obstruction by the Hon. Member's party that we have not yet been able to finish debate on these measures, including the solution favoured by the Hon. Member for farmers. I would therefore ask the Hon. Member to have the courtesy to speak to his own Parliamentary House Leader. We on this side are prepared to enter into reasonable agreements that will provide for proroguing this session and starting a new one with the throne speech as soon as possible.
March 14, 1983


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary for the Government House Leader. Does he have an amendment that he can table in the House today for us to consider?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead asks that question.


Erik Nielsen: Do you have it or not?


Yvon Pinard: He pretends to try to help the farmers. We should have at hand the kinds of amendments he is talking about, and the solutions for farmers he is talking about. We are saying on this side that we are willing to consider any serious proposals based on the bill from the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex, the Liberal Member who has come forward with a suggestion that looks very interesting to us. We are saying that an amendment based on that bill could go to the appropriate committee to deal with Bill C-12.


Erik Nielsen: Where is it?


Yvon Pinard: Then we might achieve the result that we all want in place. For the Hon. Member for Yellowknife to pretend that I should go to him-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: I apologize, as I do not mean to offend the Hon. Member. But I was looking at his back, not at his head.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: 1 just want to confirm, for the Hon. Member, that the Government has done much for agriculture in this country, that we intend to do much more, and that all good proposals will be very seriously considered. May I once again reiterate the offer I just made, which is a very practical one. Let us agree to send one Bill, which is Bill C-12, to the Committee on Agriculture today.


Mr. Huntington:: It's already been sent to another committee.


Yvon Pinard: Tomorrow we will be dealing with the appropriate amendment, which we hope will satisfy the farmers, if not the Opposition.


REQUEST THAT HOUSE LEADERS MEET
Charles Joseph Clark: I point out, for the Minister, that I always look ahead-
[ Translation]
-and I may point out that his party has no Members from the Province where Yellowhead happens to be or from the Territory where Yellowknife is located. However, that is not what we are discussing here today.
Oral Questions
I would like to get things straight, because Canadian farmers are pressing for action and cannot afford the time being wasted by the Liberal Party which does not want to give Canadian farmers the help they need. The Minister mentioned a specific amendment. Does he have an amendment? Is that amendment available now for consideration by the House, and I also have another question for the president of the Privy Council-

Since he has spoken of good will-

-he mentioned goodwill. Is he willing to have a meeting right away this afternoon with the House Leaders of our party and the New Democratic Party, in order to determine effective ways of resolving this problem so as to help Canadian farmers?

Will he do that now? Will he immediately call a meeting of House Leaders and show us an amendment at that time, if he has one? And if he does not have an amendment, will he at least sit down with the House Leaders to find a way by which Parliament can come to the aid of the farmers of Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Certainly, Madam Speaker, I welcome that constructive suggestion very much, provided-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: -the House Leader of the Conservative Party comes with the text of the amendment which was given-


Erik Nielsen: Your suggestion.


Yvon Pinard: -to his colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, dealing with the Bankruptcy Act.


Harvie Andre: We are talking about farmers, not that piece of trash.


Yvon Pinard: I have just learned that the amendment, which the former Leader of the Tory Party has been discussing, was given to one of his own colleagues about one week ago. Therefore, if he speaks to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, then he might know about the amendment. If the Opposition does not agree with it or wants to improve it, we are open-minded, and I will then speak with his House Leader. However, I would suggest that the Hon. Member-


Erik Nielsen: Right Hon.


Yvon Pinard: -first speak with his own colleague rather than campaigning.
23746

March 14, 1983
Oral Questions
The Elon. Member for Elgin made a proposal to amend Bill C-12, and the Elon. Member for Mississauga South has had the amendment we are discussing in his hands for a week.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Charles Joseph Clark: Just so that we are absolutely clear, the only action the Government is prepared to contemplate with regard to the Private Member's Bill introduced by its own Member is an amendment which is now in the hands of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. Is that the proposal, or is the Minister prepared to consider other ways by which this Parliament can immediately act to help farmers who are on the verge of losing their operations, or who may not be able to seed this spring? That is what we are interested in: we are not here to play politics.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Boo!


Mr. Ouellet:: Even Nielsen's smiling.


Charles Joseph Clark: It may be that my Party plays politics elsewhere-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: -but we do not play politics with the lives-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I guess the question has been posed, so we might have an answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: All right.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asked me whether we were willing to consider other options besides the single amendment we handed to his colleague from Mississauga-South. In fact, the Liberal Party has a reputation for being open-minded and flexible, and the former Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party will admit that it would be very short-sighted to refuse out of hand any consideration of constructive proposals.
In fact, if he had talked to his agriculture critic, the Hon. Member for Elgin, he would have realized that what the Member for Elgin proposed last Thursday was not only an amendment to Bill C-12 but also a formula for considering the Bill tabled by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex. When I informed the Member for Elgin that I was willing to consider his proposals, I was referring not only to an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act but also to a formula for considering a Liberal Bill presented by a Member of Parliament who is concerned about his constituents and Canadian farmers. In the circumstances, the answer to his question is quite simple. Of course, we have an open mind, we want to find solutions, we have already done so in the past for the benefit of farmers, and we intend to maintain our reputation as the party that has
shown the greatest concern for developing agriculture in this country and defending the interests of our farmers.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Considering that the latest Statistics Canada figures reveal that 209,000 of the 450,000 unemployed Quebecers are in the Greater Montreal region, and that in all likelihood many of those idle workers are about to exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits, will the Minister try to convince his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that half of the projects within the federal scope of the NEED Program will go to the Greater Montreal region?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in response to the question I want to point out that one of the particular attractions of the NEED Program is its ability to target in on those areas where the demand and concern with regard to unemployment are at their highest level. Contrary to the somewhat callous approach taken by the Hon. Member for St. John's East, who would totally deny any assistance to the people in his own Province, as evidenced by the kind of proposal he was making, our ability through the NEED Program is to allocate the money where benefits have been exhausted and where the unemployment rate is highest. On that basis, we are working to ensure that the Montreal region in the Province of Quebec is particularly served by our programs.
I think it would be important for the House to know that we do not wish to follow the precedent set by the previous Government, which cancelled all job creation programs. Nothing would be done for any Canadians, at any time, anywhere, if the Conservatives were in power.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader, who will know that there have been extensive negotiations between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and myself with respect to Bill C-12. That Bill could be passed in this House with less than one Hon. Member speaking for each Party, or directed immediately to the Committee. However, the Government House Leader will also know that the farmers


March 14, 1983

and, in particular, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex, are not happy with the proposals concerning farmers-


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -in that Bill.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We have heard enough speeches on this particular question. It is simply getting out of hand. The Hon. Member could ask a question without making a speech.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, it is about time the Government House Leader knew where we were going here. Therefore, let me ask the Government House Leader a question.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let me ask him a question, then.


Madam Speaker:: An admonition is an admonition. The Hon. Member is the one who caught it, but he must ask his question immediately.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I would be delighted to ask my question. Will the Government House Leader, then, allow Bill C-653 and Bill C-12 to go immediately to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for study, if they pass the House at this point, or allow them to go straight to the Committee for study with respect to details concerning farm problems which are here today and becoming worse and worse, and bankruptcy problems which are here today and becoming worse and worse?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member is making an offer to refer without debate the two Bills he has mentioned, and if he has the unanimous support of all his colleagues in the Official Opposition and of the other Members, we are quite prepared to consider that suggestion very seriously.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Is the Government House Leader saying, so we can get it clear-[DOT]


David P. Smith: It takes a while for you to get it clear.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -that he will allow Bill C-653 and Bill C-12 to go immediately to the Standing Committee? Is that his position? Because we will.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I just do not like to repeat my answers. My answer was very simple. I said that if that is the offer made by the Hon. Member and he has the unanimous support of all the
Oral Questions
Members in this place, certainly we are willing to consider that suggestion very seriously.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Will you come clean? Yes or no?


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In July of last year the Minister of Transport learned that the U.S. Treasury mandated the U.S. Customs to prepare implementation of a user fee on persons and vehicles crossing the border into the United States. Today the Minister's officials are in Washington, paving the way for him to have a meeting with his counterparts in Washington next month. Since the user fee is designed to benefit the U.S. Treasury and not to alleviate any specific costs, would the Minister tell this House what steps he has taken in the last eight months to deal with the U.S. administration, Congress and Senate, on this matter.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand the question. I can confirm that I am talking with the Americans to have a discussion with the Secretary of Transportion on all kinds of subjects related to Canada/U.S. relations in transportation. I will add the subject, when I get a better definition of it, to my list that has already been prepared.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, the tariffs being discussed by the U.S. Customs will run into hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of commercial vessels, rail traffic, car traffic, air traffic, passengers on trains, and people on foot. It will be $1.80 per passenger car; 40 cents a head for passengers; $1.40 on all railway cars; $296 on commercial freighter traffic, and so on. Those are just some examples.
Would the Minister tell this House what he, his officials or anyone in his Government have done since they learned of this secret decision by the U.S. eight months ago, and what steps he plans to take in the coming days or weeks to make sure that the United States does not impose these kinds of taxes on Canadian travellers and businesses?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if it was a secret decision that is a good reason why I would not have known about it.


James Ross Fulton: Your officials would know about it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The subject of cost recovery, of user pay is not one that is new either in Canada or in the United States.
I understand that the Americans are looking for recovery of expenditures, for example, on transportation on the Mississippi

March 14, 1983
Oral Questions
River, which would put a bit of a question mark on the suggestion made on Friday by the NDP relative to the possibility of transportation of Canadian western grain through the United States. So, user pay is not a new principle, either in the United States or in Canada, and one must expect that Governments both in the United States and Canada, will try to recover as much as possible of the amount that they spend on transportation.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I would like to know whether the Minister of Transport is aware that the report of the 1965 Industrial Inquiry into CNR Run-throughs, which is known as the Freedman Report, made this observation, and I quote:
-there is a Government obligation towards communities whose existence or stability is threatened by a run-through or its consequences.
The CNR is proposing once again to run through the community of Nakina, that is, not have any crew changes there. It says that $1.2 million will be saved per year. The community, at the same time, is going to lose $1.5 million in a reduced tax base. I ask the Minister of Transport what will this big federal Government do to help a small northern Ontario community whose stability is threatened at the very moment in its history when it is starting to get on its feet and enjoy some of the services that most other Canadian communities have?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Canadian National has followed the practice in these matters, in this instance and in the past, and the run-through has been negotiated by the railway and agreed to by the workers, or their union. In other words, the workers are entitled to the benefits of relocation, early retirement, retraining, and so on.
There is another aspect that I recognize which has to do with the town itself. In this instance I will associate myself with the Member in representations that he will want to make to other Departments in order to find out if there are ways and means to help the community.


TRANSPORT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a related question for the Deputy Prime Minister. It was published in the Financial Post's Corporation Service that the net losses listed in the nine months ending September 30, 1982, for Maislin Industries Limited, was almost $14 million, with revenue declines of some 36 per cent. Is the Government contemplating the possibility of additional
financial aid to Maislin on top of the original $34 million guarantee of last July?
While the Deputy Prime Minister is answering that question, would he also inform the House whether there has been a committee of cabinet set up to watchdog the performance of Maislin, and, if so, perhaps he could inform the House of the membership of that cabinet committee and when it intends to meet next?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not aware that any contemplation, to use the Hon. Member's words, is being undertaken with respect to further assistance for Maislin Industries. Further to that, there is no special cabinet committee that has been set up to deal with Maislin, to my knowledge. Matters of that kind would normally be considered by a regular committee of cabinet.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE APPLICATION FOR ASSISTANCE
Erik Nielsen: Can the
Deputy Prime Minister perhaps be a little more specific and inform the House whether the Government has received any application whatsoever from Maislin for additional financial assistance, and whether that has been made by way of Maislin itself or by way of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if an application has been made, the cabinet has certainly not been made aware of it. Some applications might have been made to a Department. I will check on that point. Certainly I am not aware of any applications.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam
Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister responsible for the status of women, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The mother of Tania Murrell, a nine-year-old girl who has been missing from Edmonton since January, has received a letter from the Department of National Health and Welfare indicating that the family will no longer receive Family Allowances for Tania. Will the Minister confirm that this is a departmental decision, and will she also confirm that this would appear to indicate that her Government feels that Tania will not be found alive?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, surely the Hon. Member will be able to address that question more directly to the Minister responsible. In the meantime I shall take the question under notice and bring it to her attention.
March 14, 1983


REQUEST THAT AWARD BE POSTED FOR INFORMATION ON MISSING CHILD
David Kilgour: Madam
Speaker, you will appreciate the absolute insensitivity that has been displayed by the Department of National Health and Welfare in doing this. Will the Minister agree to have the decision reversed? Will she also agree to post a reward for anyone who will provide information leading to the safe return of this nine-year-old Edmonton girl?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, obviously I am in no position to make those decisions, but I will assure the Hon. Member that I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, on March 4 I directed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I asked, would he consider adding two weeks to the deadline then set for applications to the various elements of the Canada Works Program for the summer, this year.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the answer to the question is "of course" and I made that clear. When we added the additional $50 million to the program to make it a $170 million program I indicated that we would be very flexible on the timing of the applications. The original date was March 4 and we have been accepting applications up until today's date, March 14, ten days later. At that point in time we had to make a cut-off so we could start processing the applications. I can assure the Hon. Member that anything received with a post date of up to March 14 will be accepted.


REQUEST THAT DEADLINE BE EXTENDED
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada allocated $239 million, known dollars, in last year's budget to advertising. Will the Minister explain why, out of $239 million, the Department of Employment and Immigration could not find enough money to advertise the closing date for those applications in the weekly papers of Canada? I am still receiving objections that people did not know of the extension and they did not know of the closing date. Will the Minister consider adding one additional week, making it March 21 for the closing date for applications, so that students and young people can in fact apply and take advantage of the program?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in the past many of the Hon.
Business of the House
Member's colleagues spent a great deal of time during Question Period belabouring various Ministers for their expenditures on advertising. Now he turns around and says we should be spending more. What we try to do is rely upon the good offices and hard effort of Members of Parliament to contact people in their own riding. I can assure him that, at least, Members on this side of the House have done their job.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on Friday, March 11, 1983 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the Government House Leader if he will immediately convene a meeting to deal with what this House might do with Bill C-653.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I have received that kind of request from the NDP as well. I think this is a good idea, provided we also consider the way to deal with Bill C-12 following the proposition made by the Tory Member for Elgin. Later today, probably around five o'clock, we could have a meeting; I will let my colleague know exactly when. If it is not this afternoon, then tomorrow morning early.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate receiving the answer to the question I asked on Thursday last, I believe. However, since the position of, I think, everyone in the House of Commons is now well known with regard to Bill C-653, or at least the content of it is, would it not expedite matters by simply calling that piece of legislation? We can guarantee passage of it by six o'clock this afternoon and have the vote.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, all Members know that we are dealing with legislation that is under time limitation because of its great urgency. It has to be dealt with. Providing we get the Income Tax Act and the borrowing authority Bill by six o'clock tonight, we would certainly be willing to consider this Bill on the floor of the House. The Hon. Member will recognize that under former Standing Order 18, it is up to the Government to decide House business. The business for this week was announced last week. It is difficult to change it at the last minute.

March 14, 1983
Time Allocation
In any event, the legislation the Hon. Member is referring to is Private Members' Business, which comes up on Wednesday. I have just indicated to the Tory House Leader that we will probably meet this afternoon or tomorrow morning. It may be that we can have our meeting earlier than five o'clock. It could be tomorrow afternoon, but definitely it will be before Wednesday when we deal with Private Members' Business.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to the Honourable House of Commons and Parliament assembled. The petition is basically this: Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the alternate plan, the proposal of the NDP, instead of the Pepin-Gilson proposal, and that the statutory Crowsnest Pass freight rate may be maintained and that the railroads of all of Canada may be upgraded and developed into a modern, efficient transport system.
This particular petition has been sent to me by senior citizens living at the Cosmo Court in Saskatoon. Many of them are or were farmers. They are people who understand agriculture in the West. They understand that the prosperity of Saskatchewan depends upon the agricultural proceeds of that Province. I hope that the House of Commons will seriously consider this petition.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that there have been consultations between representatives of the Parties but it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or 81 with regard to the allocation of time for the Committee of the Whole stage of Bill C-l39, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 2). Therefore, at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day for the said stage of the said Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,471 and 4,477.


Mr. Gamble: 1.	How many contracts from Cl DA or loans through the Export Development Corporation has the SNC Enterprises Ltd. Group of Montreal received in the past five years?
2.	Has Camille A. Dagenais of SNC Enterprises Ltd. done contract or consultant work for CIDA?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In so far as the
Canadian International Development Agency is concerned:
1.	CIDA has awarded nine contracts to companies of the SNC Group, headed by SNC Enterprises Ltd., within the past five years.
2.	No.
In so far as the Export Development Corporation is concerned:
1. EDC has not made loans directly to the SNC Enterprises Ltd. Group in the sense of the question but it has provided financing to foreign customers in respect of export transactions where a company of the SNC Enterprises Ltd. Group was the exporter of record. In the past five years, EDC has financed four such export transactions.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What amount did the CBC pay in libel suits in (a) 1982 (b) 1981 (c) 1980 (d) 1979?
2.	What amount did the CBC pay on total legal costs in defending these actions?
3.	What amount did the CBC pay in their defence of the Vogel case in British Columbia?
4.	Was action taken against those who were responsible in the CBC for approving the showing of programs which were found to be libelous and, if so, what was such action?
5.	Was action taken against Mr. Len Lauk, who was responsible for approving the libelous attack on Mr. Richard Vogel, the Deputy Attorney General of British Columbia, and, if so, what was such action?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a)	1982	$ 249,748.95(b)	1981	36,000.00(c)	1980	71,577.96(d)	1979	11,500.00(a)	1982	$ 185,072.30(b)	1981	395,993.98(c)	1980	190,610.65(d)	1979	148,212.10
March 14, 1983

3.	With regard to the amount paid by the CBC in its defence of the Vogel case in British Columbia, it has not been customary for Parliament to require the Corporation to provide such details of its internal management and administration as its business arrangements with outside individuals and companies. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
4 and 5. Disciplinary action was taken against those involved, including Len Lauk. However, the nature and severity of disciplinary measures are a matter of CBC internal administration, and it has not been customary for Parliament to require the Corporation to provide such details of its internal management and administration. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.


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


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 4,641 (revised)?

WATER QUALITY OF INDIAN BAY AND SHOAL LAKE Question No. 4,641 (revised answer)-Mr. McKenzie:
1.	Will the Government be launching a comprehensive environmental study to determine the effects on the water quality of Indian Bay and Shoal Lake in the event that the proposed 350 cottage lots on the northwest corner of Shoal Lake in Manitoba are developed and, if so (a) what will be the starting date (b) on what date will it be completed (c) will it determine the degree of risk of increased algae production, oil spills or other major forms of pollution (d) will it include an examination of the effects of using the sewage lagoon located across from Winnipeg's drinking water intake on the shore of Indian Bay?
2.	Will the Government permit the use of motorboats for recreational purposes on Indian Bay?


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, this being a revised answer to question No. 4,641, I shall deal only with the second part of the question.
The federal Government has responsibility for navigation and shipping on all navigable waters in Canada. This would include the use of recreational vessels on Indian Bay and in Shoal Lake. The control of small vessels may be exercised through the use of the Boating Restriction Regulations, made pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act. Although these are federal regulations, specified bodies of water are only included in, or deleted from, any of the restricted schedules upon receipt
Borrowing Authority
of a formal request from a designated provincial agency. This procedure was established, with provincial concurrence, to ensure that all local and provincial interests are taken into account before regulatory action is taken.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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).
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, we are entering the final hours of another closure motion, this one on a $19 billion borrowing Bill. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) has just risen in his place to advise us of time allocation on the income tax Bill, a Bill two and one half inches thick, containing hundreds of Clauses which will adversely affect the lives of every man, woman and child in this country. He has announced closure on that Bill. That is an insult to this House, an insult to the very purpose of Parliament, which is for the people of this nation to be able to control executive authority. It is an insult to all ordinary Canadians.
Every Canadian should be as outraged as I am that this Government can run this nation into such huge debt and then, in a device to get out of it, say we need more Government, more Liberal Government. We are not going to put up with that. Anyone who voted Liberal in the last election has had a knife driven into his back, and it is being twisted more every day. Canadians will not make that mistake again, I can assure you of that.
This is the seventeenth or eighteenth time the Government has announced closure. Where are we as a nation? We are in deep trouble. Unemployment is high. Farmers have been put in jail. A young farmer is now starving himself to death. There are tens of thousands of farmers on the verge of tipping under. As history has taught us so many times before, when you let agriculture go down you destroy the family farm. We have not

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
yet seen the tip of the iceberg as to the problem that the people in the cities and the 1.6 million unemployed are going to have as a result of destroying our farmers. Just as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow morning, people in the cities will rue the day they voted Liberal and put in a gang which for 15 years has been causing this country to hemorrhage and bleed as if we were some Third World country.
Let us not forget where we were in 1968. We had balanced budgets. We had a national debt which was just a drop in the bucket. Yet we had a post-secondary education system which was superb. We had five or six jobs being generated for every graduate who came out of university. We had a medicare system which was the best in the world. We had Old Age Security, hospital insurance and Family Allowances. This country was strong and we were racing up the mountain as a real power to be in the future. Then we put in a Liberal Government under a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is still running this country, and, Mr. Speaker, things have gone downhill ever since.
Where do we find ourselves today? We have a budget deficit which is $30 billion a year. We find a national debt which is $200 billion-plus when you add in all the Crown corporations, and that is just simply a way of doing indirectly what the Government knows it cannot do directly. The post-secondary education system is in a shambles. Hospital insurance is breaking down. The medicare system is in a shambles, and people are feeling insecure. The Old Age Security system for our senior citizens has been destroyed so that our senior citizens know that if they are forced to retire today, within five years their money will be worth only half what it was, as compared to 1968 when a person could retire and with a rate of inflation of 1 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent it would be 25 years before their money would be half the value, and by that time they would probably be gone. In short, Mr. Speaker, we could cope with a couple of per cent inflation but we cannot cope with 20 per cent and we cannot cope with 20 per cent interest rates.
That is what is destroying our country. We not only have our hospital insurance in difficulty but we have our postsecondary education system in difficulty as well, so that our university graduates do not have any jobs. How can that possibly be, Mr. Speaker? We have 24 million people, one half of 1 per cent of the world's population, a drop in the bucket. We are sitting on the resources of half a continent yet our university graduates cannot get jobs. Our high school graduates cannot get jobs. How can that be, Mr. Speaker?
I can tell the House how it can be. When you put too much power into the hands of too few people, you are heading for trouble. The Liberal Cabinet, 36 men and women, with a small bureaucracy around them at the senior levels, believe they can run this country better than the millions of ordinary Canadians and, Mr. Speaker, they are driving us into the ground.
We are not going to tolerate this because the lesson we learned in our western democracy is that when the king made decisions affecting the capital of the nation, the nation never
got ahead. When that capital was broken up into millions and millions of individual pieces, and an individual would give their whole life, effort and energy making decisions about that capital, it created wealth in the western world and raised the poor of our world to a much higher level than even the kings and queens in the old days. That is what economic capitalism will do, Mr. Speaker. But this Liberal Government does not believe it because it wants to make the decisions.
It goes beyond economics, Mr. Speaker. They will soon want to control our political life. They will then want to control our social life. In Western Canada we have millions and millions of square miles and acres of land all divided off into one-mile squares which fit together perfectly. Every mile you go west you hit a road. Every two miles North you hit a road. Millions of acres were surveyed that way. This Government is now going to convert this land into metric measurement so that 160 acres has now become 64.75 hectares. Every mile becomes 1.6 kilometres. That is the illogical outflow of a socialist Government which wants to control everything. It wants to remake mankind in its own image, its great socialist image.
I believe we are in this jam today simply because the Government wants us to be here. It believes if it can bring everyone to their knees then people are going to call for more Government, and it is going to be there to say: "We'll save you. Forget the fact that we caused the problem, ladies and gentlemen, but we will save you." That is not going to work, Mr. Speaker, because Canadians en masse are going to see that it is a circular argument; that if you call upon that same Government to create more Government, we are going to be in even deeper trouble. I believe that is what the polls are showing today. Canadians recognize that there are a group of men and women over there who really believe they can run this whole country, while practical experience shows they cannot. In the next election they will be wiped off the map and no one will be happier than myself, and perhaps even you, Mr. Speaker, because I know you are a wise man.
How is it that the youth of this country does not have a future? As I said earlier, we have all the resources. Surely it is because of the so-called "Canadianization program", which you and I know, Mr. Speaker, having looked at the fine print, is not Canadianization at all. It is nationalization. Again, we have under nationalization this concentration of decisionmaking by this group of men and women who are not practical businessmen and women, who are not practical farmers or people out on the steet who really know what it is like. These men and women have had great education and often ended up at the London School of Economics as their finishing school, but it does not mean a tinker's damn because they do not know what it is like to meet a payroll. That is the difference between someone who is a good Government politician as compared to those guys today.
Look at the great leaders we have had before. Even C. D. Howe understood how to make wealth, Mr. Speaker, and that was by taking the strength of our resources and putting them into the hands of people who would devote their full time and
March 14, 1983

effort to it. You then get good decision-making, and if you have enough competitive systems going, then there is a constant thinning out at the bottom, but it is only of smaller corporations so that the released workers can be reabsorbed.
This gang opposite want to concentrate things into massive dimensions, and if they then fail, the result is tens and tens of thousands of people unemployed. That is not the way we should do things in this country. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that every day I am receiving more and more letters from ordinary Canadians who see the ruse, and it is a pleasure now to go out and talk to these people because they are beginning to take their sovereignty back. What Canadians must do is call each of us out as politicians and find out where we stand as individuals and what we believe their rights are economically, politically and socially. We will then have them electing the best person from each riding, Mr. Speaker, and it will not be Liberals.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, before us in the House today is yet another borrowing authority Bill. It is the fourth of its kind in eight months. The others were Bill C-111 in June of 1982 which asked for $6.6 billion, Bill C-125 in July of 1982 which asked for $7 billion, and Bill C-128 in November of 1982 which asked for $4 billion. Now we are being asked for $19 billion, $5 billion of which is to be used to get through this fiscal year, the remaining $14 billion to be used as interim money for the period ending October, 1983.
Asking for this money, Mr. Speaker, without a financial statement is tantamount to writing a blank cheque for Government policy. It is hardly an approach which we could possibly endorse. While this amount of money is high relative to other requests for borrowing authority, it is not unprecedented. However, the manner in which the Government is doing it is noteworthy. Thomas Walkom of The Globe and Mail said, and I quote:
While it is not unheard of for a Government to ask for some interim borrowing authority, a $14 billion request without a budget is unprecedented.
As all members know, the borrowing authority offers Hon. Members a chance to complain about Government policies and generally the way in which the Government chooses to spend its revenues. I am sure that most members have enough information at hand to criticize how this Government spends money in the fields in which they are interested without any additional information from the Government.
I want to talk about some of the things the Government has done. We have seen it put the clamps on important social programs. We have seen it bring in the six and five program. It started by applying it to the salaries of federal public servants and those working for Crown corporations, but then it applied it to Family Allowances and old age pensions. The pensioners, the women and children of this country are being asked to bear the brunt of the present economic difficulties. These are being brought on to a large extent by the mistake in economic policies of the Government.
Borrowing Authority
Now we hear that funding to universities will be cut by the application of the six and five guidelines to the Government's contribution to university education. For the first time in a number of years enrolment in the universities has increased. That is because many young people cannot find jobs and are going back to the universities and community colleges. This is happening at a time when those institutions need more financial assistance in order to give people the kind of training that Government spokesmen say they will need in the job market in the next 10 or 20 years. There will be an increase in the emphasis on technical knowledge, computerization and microtechnology. Yet the Government has put a 6 per cent and 5 per cent limit on the increase of funding for universities.
Let me give another illustration of the stupidity of the Government, Mr. Speaker. It has abandoned the Crow rate which for years has protected Canadian farmers. It is doing this at a time when bankruptcies are at an all-time high. In February they increased 32 per cent over the same time last year. Yet the Government abandons the Crow rate and tells Canadians farmers that there will be an increase of up 500 per cent in the cost of shipping grain in the next few years. This tremendous increase will have to be absorbed by the farmers as they cannot add it to the price of the grain on the international market and expect to compete. While this is going on the Government is subsidizing the CPR, one of the largest and most profitable Canadian corporations, so that it can improve its track. As well, VIA Rail, which is supposed to move passengers, is permitted to continue in its weak state.
This Party is not opposed to a Government deficit, Mr. Speaker. We recognize that it is inevitable, particularly in a time of recession when the private sector is not expanding and investing in new facilities and techniques because it is operating at less than 70 per cent capacity. This is the time when the Government should be increasing expenditures to improve the transportation system, the environment and housing stock. We are not opposed to the Government running a deficit or borrowing, but we see no evidence of a plan or a strategy to meet the country's needs.
We are opposed to the Bill because it is obvious that the Government has abdicated its responsibility for putting an economic policy before the people. It has given responsibility for dealing with the problems of the country to the Bank of Canada to a degree that we find unacceptable. It is supposed to settle our economic policies by bringing down the rate of inflation. It has managed to do that but at the expense of everything else, particularly unemployment. There are now 1,600,000 people unemployed, the largest number ever, and the rate of unemployment is higher than at any time since the great Depression of the 1930s.
The recent Gallup poll indicates that the people of Canada believe that unemployment is the major problem facing the country today, yet the Government continues to concentrate on the supposed threat of inflation. The Government's singleminded attack on inflation has only been marginally successful but it has been a disaster for the economy. It has resulted in the largest number of people unemployed ever, 11,000 business

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
bankruptcies in the last year and a record number of farm bankruptcies. The economy is running at less than 70 per cent capacity.
While the Government is putting the clamp on social and economic programs, there are many examples of waste around. We see $100 million poured down the drain with Consolidated Computer, poorly thought out DREE programs, the Mirabel white elephant, incredibly lucrative grants to the supposedly suffering oil companies, and then there is the spectacle of deserving Liberals appointed to position after position.
The Government is continuing to clobber Canadians by raising taxes for low-income earners through deindexation and raising Unemployment Insurance premiums. Taxes are decreased for investors and upper-income earners. This is supposed to provide the engines of growth but these tactics have failed to produce any results whatsoever. The "trickle down effect" is simply not working.
While we see higher taxes for those who can least afford them, the Royal Bank, which made several hundred million dollars of profit last year, pays an effective tax rate of less than 1 per cent. It sounds strange but in fact the Royal Bank had a negative tax figure last year because it received a tax credit for over $125 million this year.
We cannot support this borrowing Bill brought forward by a Government which has no economic policy, no strategy and which is going from one disaster to another.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speeches this morning and this afternoon given by the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis), the Hon. Member the Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) and now the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
There is a recurring theme in the speeches and a recurring question asked by all Hon. Members. They seem to say; "We do not know what the money is for. We do not know how the Government will spend it. How can you ask us for more money when you have not shown us how you are going to spend it?" I suggest that one requirement for becoming a Member of Parliament in this Chamber should be the ability to read. Had all speakers who preceded me learned how to read and read through the Estimates, they would have learned exactly how every penny will be spent. I refer Hon. Members who spoke before me and who will speak after me to the Estimates wherein it is spelled out very clearly and exactly how every dollar or every penny will be spent.
The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) at least admitted that there is a call to do some borrowing. He complimented the Government on that, but he said that the figures were so astronomical that the public could not comprehend them. I think the public can comprehend
them; I think it is the Hon. Member who cannot. The figures seem to be too large for his comprehension. He went on to say that this move was wrong politically. I do not know why that should worry the Official Opposition. If it is politically wrong for the Government side, then it should be politically good for the Official Oppositon. Opposition Members should be urging us to go further on this route which they claim is politically wrong. I think they are worried that it is politically sound, good and on the right track. The Hon. Member went on to say that the Government wanted to borrow this large amount without telling the public what it needed the money for. We heard this over and over again. Again I refer that gentleman to the Estimates.
The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) said that some of the money the Government wanted should be spent on search and rescue, that if it were used toward putting youth to work for the Canadian Armed Forces, perhaps he would vote for the Bill. He went on to say that he wanted money spent on bridge pier fendering around his constituency, which are clearly a provincial jurisdiction. He wanted the federal Government to pay for them, and he wanted more money for icebreaking facilities and vessels. Also he wanted more money for fleet replacement of the Canadian Coast Guard. This is great, but he did not say where that money would come from. It is fine to say, "Give me this, give me that", but tell the public, Canadian taxpayers and the House, where the money will come from. The very things he mentioned that he wanted are listed in the Estimates. That is where the majority of the money will be going.
I invite Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party and of the Official Opposition to come to the Standing Committee on Transport tomorrow morning at 9.30 a.m. when the Minister will appear before it. Then they could question him on how these funds will be spent in the Department for which the Minister and I are responsible, the Department of Transport. I think this is a great democratic process, where every Department is held accountable to the public or the country at large through elected representatives.
Opposition speakers this morning and this afternoon were almost unanimous in asking what the Government would do with these additional funds. They suggested that perhaps some of them could be used for job creation, and then they would support the Bill. Let me remind Hon. Members opposite that we have had a great debate over the last year on the western transportation initiative. Professor Gilson was out West listening to the grassroots people, listening to all sectors of the economy so as to come up with recommendations on how we could improve the entire western transportation system. If the House were to implement his recommendations soon, they would create 375,000 person-years of work over the next decade. If Hon. Members opposite are serious about job creation, why are they not supporting the changes to the Crow rate and the western transportation initiative? If both Parties opposite are really serious about job creation, why are they not
March 14, 1983

speaking out publicly and supporting the western transportation initiative, which will create 375,000 person-years in the next decade?
Also I make very clear the long-term objectives of the Government as far as job creation is concerned, as well as its short-term goals in job creation. In my home riding, last year over 50 students obtained jobs through the Summer Canada Program. Again this year organizations are submitting applications to provide jobs for high school and university students this summer. The intention of the Program is to provide jobs only for the summer months, so that these students can earn some money to help pay their tuition fees come the fall. It is not meant to provide these students with permanent jobs; that is not the purpose of the Program. We should make clear and distinguish the difference between long-term initiatives such as the western transportation initiative and something like the Summer Canada Program or the NEED Program which will get exhaustees, people who exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits, back to work. They do not want welfare; they want to work. Mr. Speaker, they tell you and me that.
Again using my own riding as an example, I point out that on the books there is a project to provide jobs for 15 workers to work in Ontario Place, a provincially-owned complex. Another 15 workers have been provided jobs in a community centre in my riding. There are other pending projects to provide jobs on the Canadian National Exhibition grounds, getting them ready for the summer. Again, these jobs are short-term ones. We agree with that. I think everyone would agree that these people would rather work and be paid than go on welfare. I could talk about the Canadian Community Development Program, but I do not think time would allow it.
The Government has demonstrated good management and how to spend taxpayers' dollars prudently. The Opposition mentioned that we should spend more money putting young people to work through DND. We have to look at that very carefully. I was one of the Members on this side who signed a petition containing 108 signatures and making this recommendation, but I did not sign it with the intention of putting all our eggs in one basket. If it costs $25,000 to train one young Canadian in certain skills over the next two years, but through some other program we could train two or three young Canadians to learn the same skills in the same amount of time, as good managers we should ensure that we steer more money to more efficient training for young Canadians.
Another example close to my riding is the Toronto International Airport. Projections showed that in the 1980s we would need a new Terminal 3. Because of the downturn in the economy and a drop in air traffic, the projections now indicate that we will not need a new terminal until the 1990s, and we have postponed it until then. Again I think this is good management and that this is prudent spending of taxpayers' dollars.
We heard charges that we were just throwing away taxpayers' dollars foolishly. I do not think we are doing that. We have demonstrated wise spending and good management. Speaker after speaker this morning and again this afternoon said,
Borrowing Authority
"How can the Government ask for more money and not tell the public how it will be spent?" This kept coming up over and over again. If Hon. Members opposite would look-and I know I am not supposed to display things while I am speaking, but some of them may not even know the colour of the Estimates; that is why I am holding up the Blue Book at page 29-2 of the Estimates, they would find a breakdown of how the Government will spend how much and in what mode. They should just look at the capital projects on that page. There is over $64 million which will be spent in ridings represented by Hon. Members opposite. If they are serious-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his allotted time has expired.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, when any Member on the Government side of the House can stand in support of what is in the Blue Book and what is in the borrowing Bill, he or she has not taken a look at the real world. For instance, we heard discussed today the unemployment rate in the Province of New Brunswick, which exceeds 15 per cent. We have a cabinet Minister representing the Province of New Brunswick who has stood idly by while a transfer of the DND operations is to take place from his Province. He has at no time indicated in any way that he stood behind the appeals of the Province of New Brunswick to keep that DND installation active and employing people in the Province of New Brunswick. Instead of that he has apparently acquiesced and recognizes that in 1984 the DND operation will be transferred out of perhaps one of the most highly unemployed areas of Canada. That is our Minister from New Brunswick in this Government's Cabinet.
The same Minister has taken a look at agriculture and decided that he will dilute the agricultural research by establishing a second branch in the Province of New Brunswick at the expense of personnel in other research stations in Atlantic Canada. Any knowledgeable individual not so politically biased as our present Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) would recognize that extension of the knowledge accumulated in research is very necessary in New Brunswick but that division of the research structure into a second unit would certainly give us diminution of real results of a concentrated effort taking place as it is in that Province. He has done precisely the same thing in research with respect to fisheries. We have one of the most renowned research stations in the world at St. Andrews, New Brunswick. Again, we are going to dilute that and put people in an establishment which is probably a two-hour drive from any meaningful salt water, the object of research. That is our Minister. He did not even locate that establishment in Chatham, New Brunswick. He cuddled it into his own constituency in his usual political way, not caring two hoots about what is good for New Brunswick but perhaps only considering what is good for him as a Cabinet Minister. That is the way we are represented. That, Sir, is why we oppose more borrowing for more stupid political behaviour by this Government.

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Why did the Government not pick up the idea once promoted by the Province with respect to the development of the oil shale potential, either as a source of oil or as a source of fuel for electrical generation? Instead of that, the Member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley) pooh-poohed everything that might be practical, and he in turn was supported by our Minister of Public Works. The reason New Brunswick does not approve of the borrowing of $29 billion is that it has been ignored purely for political reasons.
In the field of agriculture we watched the impact of the change in the capital cost allowance and in the investment in capital goods allowance. In the constituency of Victoria-Madawaska it cost a farmer $12,000 more for the purchase of capital equipment in Victoria County than it cost a farmer in Madawaska County. That is within a constituency. The uneven handouts of allocation of privileges under this Government can be epitomized no better than by the division of a farming community within a particular constituency for the benefit of a particular group of people. This sort of thing cannot go on, Mr. Speaker.
During Question Period this afternoon it was mentioned that Maislin received $34 million, which money apparently was interest free and which apparently will be lost to Canadian taxpayers. We in New Brunswick in an agricultural community want to know why $34 million was poured into one firm in Montreal and $45 million had to do for all Canadian farmers under the administration of the Farm Credit Corporation. Things are pretty badly out of balance when that kind of political patronage is practised by the Government of Canada. Yes, it is a political decision and, yes, it is a bad decision for Canada.
On March 4 I raised a question about the advertising being carried out by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy). I raised the question again today. I believe the notice of the closing date of the summer employment programs arrived on my desk on March 1. There was no way, as the Minister suggested today, that I could disseminate that information to a rural constituency through Canada's present postal system. There was absolutely no way. I could not reach the weekly papers in my constituency. There was no media coverage. Yet the Government could spend $239 million for other advertising. My students, the young people in my riding of Carleton-Charlotte, will not have an opportunity in many instances to apply for the benefits which will come from this program.
There is more money to be made and more employment to be created by making a change in the fuel tax for agriculture, fisheries and forestry. There is more money to be made that way than in any other way in this country, particularly if this change were combined with a change in the capital cost allowance which these industries need and need very badly. Instead of that, we have unemployment almost as if by intention in the fisheries, forestry and farming sectors. We have unemployed people by the tens of thousands.
Farm income is reputed to have declined 10 per cent one year and 15 per cent the next year, and as we looked at the future of agriculture in Canada in December we saw that in the last two years we have given farmers year after year less
and less incentive and burdened them with more and more costs.
What is the consequence of all of this? I will be very repetitive because I have already stated this about three time in the House but it is worthy of statement once more. When interest rates were running wild in this country the increase in the cost of money to farmers in the potato industry exceeded the total cost of production of an acre of potatoes ten years prior to the time of the 22 per cent and 24 per cent interest rates for farmers. Yes, we are critical of this Government, Mr. Speaker. We certainly are. I had conversation last night with a couple of my grandchildren. Nothing impressed me more after I had hung up the phone than the fact that today, when I would be speaking on this Bill, what would be foremost in my mind was that I had inherited a sane, sound, sensible financial management from Government. However, after some 30 years of elected office under an irresponsible Government such as we have now, I am passing on for my grandchildren to pay, my hospital bills, my old age pension and my Canada Pension Plan. Justify that, gentlemen of the Government. I did not inherit that. My first public meeting was a school meeting in what was my school district then. The object of those taxpayers when they voted the money to rebuild a bigger and better school, was that within 20 years we must have it paid for the children of the next generation.
The object of this borrowing Bill and the Blue Book which was mentioned earlier is to live high off the hog today and let the next generation pay. The next generation will grovel in the mess left behind for them in the hog pen of this Liberal Government.
I do not know how to condemn this Government further. If I did, I think I would. We are subsidizing and subsidizing. We are subsidizing everybody but the man in the moon. We are giving no consideration and expressing no concern as to how this nation will share its social, its industrial or its economic responsibilities ten years down the road with this type of administration.
It has been pointed out what the increment will be on an annual basis as a result of borrowing today. That is what we are passing on to the next generation. Why do we not give incentives for people to invest, for people to farm, for people to fish and for people to go to work in the forests? Why are we not spending some of these moneys to rejuvenate our assets. Why are we throwing money down the gutter by way of $239 million in advertising and maybe a total of $1 billion of Crown Corporation and Government advertising? These are astounding figures to ask our grandchildren to pay.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, according to my calculation, this is the nineteenth time in this session that the Government has used this device to cut off debate on an important piece of legislation. Today, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) rose in his place and announced
March 14, 1983

that time allocation was going to be imposed again on another matter of importance, namely a tax Bill. That will be the twentieth time in this session of Parliament that closure, or some form of it, has been evoked. This is a device that is supposed to be used very sparingly and with a great deal of discretion.
When one looks at the issues upon which time allocation was invoked, they generally dealt with financial measures such as amendments to the Income Tax Act. They are the very fundamental issues which make this institution necessary. We have seen closure invoked on 17 occasions when we were dealing with measures pertaining to the financial administration of the country. The other two occasions involving closure dealt with the question of the Constitution and the adjournment of the House.
When we review the legislative matters upon which closure was imposed, we suddently realize that this institution is no longer functioning as a parliamentary democracy. It is more like a parliamentary dictatorship. This Parliament is functioning under one Party rule and by a Government which really only represents one-half of the country.
Closure has become the rule rather than the exception. When this fact is coupled with the excessive use of Orders in Council and the implementation of such things as forced metric and the emergency planning order, the result has been a severe undermining of the institution of Parliament. It severely undermines the purpose for which the parliamentary institution was devised; to authorize the collection and expenditure of public funds on behalf of the people of Canada. In other words, the Government is to act as a trustee on the advice of the collective wisdom of this House. However, under this Government this Parliament has become nothing more than a rubberstamp. Parliament has become impotent and powerless, with no mechanism to deny the Government's frivolous, wasteful and extravagant expenditures. Parliament can only take such dramatic steps as ringing the bells or engaging in a long-term filibuster. The power of Parliament has been subverted and transferred to the hands of those who occupy the Treasury benches, supported by a group over there who follow their Party mainly for partisan purposes rather than putting the interests of the country ahead of their Party.
The views of the former Auditor General, who said in 1976 that Parliament has lost or is close to losing effective control of the public purse, effectively represent today an accurate reflection of where we are. It is interesting to note that the latest report of the present Auditor General highlights a similar concern. It is the fact that we have a Crown corporation proliferation in this country which really serves as a subgovernment. In effect, these Crown corporations are not accountable to the shareholders through the Parliament of Canada. Since they cannot be controlled, they continue to build empires frivolously and spend the taxpayer's money on questionable practices.
I was interested to hear the views of the Auditor General on the matter of VIA Rail when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. He observed that a corporation like VIA, which has extracted over $2 billion of taxpayers' dollars,
Borrowing Authority
is calling this year for some $755 million. He complained about the fact that he is unable to tell Parliament and the people of Canada whether this expenditure is made on a sound basis or with due regard to economy and efficiency because he is denied access to the documents containing information about the costs or the bills that the railways submit to VIA Rail. That is fundamentally wrong and detracts from the purpose of this institution. As a result of that lack of control and accountability, we see the expenditures in this country soaring and the demands upon the taxpayers having a crippling effect.
I submit that it is that lack of control and accountability, combined with the attitude of the Government to try to spend its way out of problems, that has put the country in the financial crisis in which it is today.
That same philosophy is inherent in this Bill. Through this Bill the Government is asking to borrow $19 billion without telling Parliament and the people of Canada what the money will be used for. It simply perpetuates the catastrophic financial mess that this Government has created.
Let us look at the deficits that have been created since this Government was returned to power in 1980. It has chalked up some $90 billion in deficits since it returned to office. Another interesting statistic with respect to federal Government spending can be expressed as a percentage of Gross National Product. In 1979-80, that figure was 20.8 per cent. In the 1982-83 public accounts, it was 26 per cent. We see a continuing proliferation of Government spending which demonstrates the continued lunacy of the 1970s. It is probably the reason why our country has slipped to being twenty-fourth of the industrialized nations with respect to its economic growth. That is why it has the highest misery rate of any nation in the world and the highest unemployment rate of any nation in the world.
I would like to refer to the Alberta Report of February 14, which I believe summarized this very well. It says:
The great jolt of the 80s has, of course, been the return of economic reality. We look back on 20 years of senseless government. Billions upon billions have been poured into the slop, swill and waste of ruinous irresponsibility-into welfare programs that accomplished little more than to corrupt the necessity and eagerness of people to work, into bilingual 'advancement' programs that were impossible of fulfilment, into economic aid programs that crumbled on the hard rock of immovable economic fact. We have lavished millions on the metric converter who was not necessary while dismaying and discouraging the investor who was. We have drained hundreds of millions from private industry in plans for gigantic projects-the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, Alsands, Cold Lake-only to flush it all away in the toilet of governmental procrastination, indecision and spaced-out philosophizing.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, we sometimes use terms lightly in the House. One phrase that has been expressed from time to time is the reference to the Government turning us into a banana republic. I submit that when we use the phrase "banana republic" to refer to the Government, there is perhaps more realism than analogy in the expression. The truth of the matter is that the per capita debt in Canada today is so large that it is now seven times the per capita debt of Latin America. The accumulated debt of the 360 million

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
persons in those more than 20 nations is nearly double that of Canada. This means that the debt for all the people of this country is seven-fold that of the foreign debt of Latin America.
We are on a very dangerous course in this country, bearing in mind the fact that we are into that period of the year when it is tax time. People across the country will be cognizant of the fact that they are now paying their Government. What they must underline, in each of their tax considerations, is that for every amount they pay to the Government, 25 per cent will pay for interest on the accumulated federal debt.
Mr. Speaker, if you have a tax owing this year of $100, $25 would be payable simply on interest on the accumulated debt. Likewise, that means that all across the country, one-quarter of the wealth given to the Government of Canada is to pay for nothing else than interest on the accumulated debt. We are not, then, with one-quarter of our tax, building structures or ports, providing for shipbuilding industries or for the infrastructure of pipelines or assistance thereto which would create both wealth and jobs in the country. We are paying for money already borrowed. At that stage of money already borrowed, the Government is back again at the trough to ask for another $19 billion.
I submit that somewhere there must be some sanity which will come to the Canadian people, because if it does not come by reason of logic that we must run the country somewhat more along a business principle, it will come to us in the same way the banana republics are learning that neither can they foster economies which are weak, based on debt and borrowing, based on the fact that their resources are insufficient. Canada today would be as bankrupt as Mexico. Our debt per capita is higher than Mexico's. The only reason we are not bankrupt is that because this land is resource-rich. We are rich in forests, in minerals hardrock, in fisheries, both salt water and fresh water, and rich in agriculture.
We are a wealthy land blessed with resources. It is on that back that we have mortgage tomorrow based on the confidence of other nations. Our next generation will be in debt because the other nations know that the resources are there, in other words, the wealth is there, but the truth is that on the basis of pure economy, we are in worse economic shape than the Latin American countries. That is a despicable record for a nation which should have been doing precisely the opposite.
The truth of the matter is that if the Japanese, with their 110 million persons, took hold of these advantages of resources and talented people, they would no doubt have the wealthiest economy in the whole world today. Here we are, wanting nothing, but dropping to fortieth position according to the OECD. Japan, an island of rock with a minimum of agriculture, and the only extended list of resources being that of fish and tin, has the second highest economy in the world today. It imports all of its uranium, coal, gas and oil. In short, it imports everything. We are energy-rich. Energy being the basis of our production today, it seems to me folly that we should be in a
situation where the Japanese are able to outstrip and outproduce us. They are doing that because our Government is borrowing upon borrowing mainly for political reasons, not for reasons of industrialization.
I would like to consider the frequency with which the Government has gone back to the trough. This is the second time this year, 1983, that the Government has sought to increase its borrowing authority. In the June budget, it outlined the projected financial requirements to be $17 billion. Then, through Bill C-125 introduced in July, it sought to increase the borrowing authority from $10.2 billion to $21.2 billion, an increase of some $11 billion. The frequency with which the Government has been coming back is exemplified in Bill C-30, which received Royal Assent on July 17, through which it borrowed $12 billion and then through Bill C-59, which was given Royal Assent on April 8, 1981, allowing borrowing of another $14 billion. Then Bill C-111 was given Royal Assent on June 17, 1982, allowing the Government to borrow another $6.6 billion. Bill C-125 was given Royal Assent on August 4, 1982, allowing the Government to borrow another $11 billion. Then Bill C-128, given Royal Assent on November 8 of 1982, allowed borrowing of an additional $4 billion. Today we are debating Bill C-143, requesting that the Government borrow yet an additional $19 billion.
From 1980 to 1983, a three year period, the Government has come to Parliament to borrow some $66.6 billion. That list of borrowing upon borrowing, with the insult of this latest request without a budget in front of us, simply demonstrates, as clearly as could ever be demonstrated, the absolute incapacity of the Government to manage.
Any Canadian citizen who went to the bank to request a loan of some significant amount, be it $1,000 or $10,000, must state the purpose of the loan. A banker would ask, "What is the purpose of the loan?" If the citizen were to respond by saying, "I have no stated intentions for the money, and I just want the money", the chance of obtaining a loan would be basically nil, irrespective of the capacity of the person to pay back the loan.
The Government has asked the people of Canada to give $ 19 billion without a plan. What folly! What a false, mismanaged Government it is which would think for one moment that the people of the country should willingly give it $19 billion without any stated intentions or purpose. The Hon. Member who-


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


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, of course, we on this side of the House agree with many of the comments of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone), particularly concerning the inadequacy of the Government coming before us for money once again without having an economic plan of any kind. However, one comment of the Hon. Member exemplified the tendency of Canadian politicians to use scare tactics concerning the deficit. 1 believe he said that Canada has a higher per capita debt than the countries of
March 14, 1983

South America. Of course, what he did not mention was the fact that the population of the countries in South America is much larger than ours. Perhaps, if we took that into account-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: And they have less money.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -we would have a more adequate analysis. I think that the truth ought to be served, even it does go against the Hon. Member of the Opposition from time to time.
This afternoon I wanted to make some comments concerning over-all economic policy on something which has caught the attention of the Canadian public, the Canadian media and also the House in recent weeks. I am referring to the statement by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops entitled "Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis." It was a statement made to the Government of Canada on the economic crisis which we face as a country.
In that context I would like to put on the record my own view of the theological context in which we ought to reflect on economic matters.
The God of the Bible is a God who wants to redeem the whole of human existence, our social as well as our individual life, in the end by bringing to fulfilment and completion something called the Kingdom of God. And living in harmony with this desire of God involves His followers in the world, and in the world of politics and policital choices, as an inescapable fact of being individual in the world.
What kind of world is it? Well, the original will and intention of God is for a world and for the world. Genesis tells us that God created the world and called it good. Thus, whether we find it in the form of a garden at the beginning of history or as a city at the end of history, the intention of God is for a world, a created reality which is more than the sum of its parts, an organic creation.
This is reinforced by the story of the creation of human existance per se. God creates human beings plural, male and female, in His own image. Like God, humans are personal and free to enter into relationship with each other. This is the intention of God for human life, that we enter into fellowship with Him and with each other, that we enjoy each other's company. Relation is the primary intention of human existence, relation in love, that is, but relation is also the primary structure of our existence. That is why all economic systems which ask us to perceive ourselves as rugged individuals, acting apart from the needs of the community and acting apart from the needs of others, are so much falsehood. Human beings are never without God and they are never without each other. They can only pretend that they are. The law of our being is the law of love, represented and demonstrated in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the man for others. Christ, being a unique and special event in the life of the world and the life of God, is the means through which God has revealed what it means to be fully human and through which He has revealed Himself, that is to say His own solidarity with human
Borrowing Authority
suffering and the pain of the world and the power of His love over the power of death.
Sin has its origins in human will and responsibility, the misuse of our God-given freedom by which we rebel against relation as the law of our being and try to set ourselves up as God, wanting to live a self-created and independent life, denying our relationship with God, denying our relationship with neighbours and denying our relationship with the rest of creation. I am speaking now of the way we treat our environment.
The incarnation is not the incarnation of something radically other, but the coming of God into the life and history of a world in which He is already Creator, already indwelling principle, already ultimate reality. Thus the truth of the Gospel conforms to the deepest truth of our existence. Thus we are encountered by Christ not only in His life, death and victory over death, but in the ongoing life of our sisters and brothers in human history and, more particularly, in the life and needs of the hungry, the poor and the oppressed, the least of them, as Jesus put it.
So if we follow this view which sees the primary religious axis as that between God and the world, then the Church is not a sacred island in the profane ocean of humanity gathering the select few for the heavenly dispensation. The Church is different from the rest of the world only in so far as, and when, it lives human existence more fully as a result of hearing the Gospel. Its task, like that of Israel before it, is to bear witness to the truth of our relationship to each other and to God, to tell the world the truth about itself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair is having some difficulty relating his remarks to the borrowing authority Bill before us. The Hon. Member might just bear in mind the particular measure before the House.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about the context in which we make economic decisions, the context in which this Government ought to plan the way the Canadian economy is run, and I think my remarks are relevant. If they are irrelevant, then we are in a sorry state indeed. If we cannot, in the context of the most general kind of economic motion that we have before us, make these kinds of over-all reflections, then where indeed could we do this kind of reflecting?
It is the responsibility of the Church to tell the world the truth about itself. The Church exists for the sake of the world. The Lordship of Jesus is lordship over the world. The life of the Church is acknowledging and living from this lordship and being instrumental to God's purposes for the world. So the Church is not an end in itself. It exists to continue the work of its Lord to help save the world, not to save individuals only, but to save the world. Not to condemn it or to help men out of it, like the Gnostics, but to save the world.
Once we have concluded that the world and its redemption is the proper focus of faithful Christian activity, we must look to the prophetic tradition in the Bible for guidance. It is here that we find a long record of protests against religion that

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
exalted the eternal at the expense of the temporal, the transcendent at the expense of the imminent, the vertical at the expense of the horizontal, individual piety at the expense of justice and the life of God at the expense of the life of the world. Christians must realize that we can only be in the world, even if we are not of it, if we are actually willing to be participants in history, to make choices. Standing back from the fray is not an option, no matter how much piety accompanies the standing back.
The Bishops are to be commended for speaking out, for speaking out that way is part and parcel of the Christian life collectively as the Church and individually as Christians.
If we want to act in and for the world, as God would have his image-bearers act, then we must ask ourselves what kind of choices, what kind of sides is God reported to have taken in the Biblical record. The inescapable answer to such a question is that God did take sides and that the choices he made, the sides he took, were invariably on the side of the poor, the needy, the vulnerable, and the oppressed. The continuity with and fulfilment of this bias on the part of God, because God does have a bias, in and by Christ is stated most eloquently and clearly in the Magnificat of Mary (Luke 1:46-55) where the arrival of the Lord of History is praised and welcomed as the scattering of the proud, the putting down of the mighty, the exalting of those of low degree, the filling of the hungry, and the sending of rich away empty.
God is creator, judge and redeemer. He is the judge of the oppressor, and deliverer of the oppressed. Judgment and deliverance are in a sense interchangeable in the Biblical tradition, both semantically and conceptually, depending on what is needed and by whom at any particular point in history. Both have their origins in the steadfast, loving rule of God, who wills to humanize and redeem the oppressor by breaking the prideful domination of others and to humanize the oppressed by liberating them from bondage.
The Church cannot just say that war is bad but some wars are necessary. Rather, it must say: participate in this particular war or do not participate in it. The Church cannot just say that it is wrong for people to starve, but then say nothing definite about what form a solution might take. What I am saying is that it is the responsibility of all those who would act out of a particular religious point of view to be concrete. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being concrete. In fact, it is only by being concrete that we have a hope of being right, that we have a hope of saying the word which is needed in any particular point in history.
So I repudiate the criticisms of all those who have criticized the Bishops on the basis that they were too concrete. It is only by being concrete that they have lived up to their responsibilities.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to join in this discussion today. I had an opportunity last week to talk about the various points of view put forward by the Opposition.
I would like to put forward today in a more positive way my views about Government borrowing. I recall very clearly being asked my views during the last election campaign. In particular, I remember a discussion I had with the Mississauga newspaper. Each candidate in that campaign was asked his or her view about the deficit and Government borrowing. I replied that I felt Government borrowing to be a legitimate financial tool for the federal Government, that I am not afraid of using this tool. I do not see taxes and spending cuts as the only alternatives to financial crises. I see Government borrowing as an equally important tool for Governments to use.
I was reminded of this point of view today in an article in The Toronto Star by Professor Ruben Bellan, who is at St. John's College at the University of Manitoba, the economics department. Professor Bellan says that when we look at attempts to cut the deficit to get rid of Government borrowing, we get a paradox. I quote as follows from Professor Bellan's article in today's paper:
A corresponding paradox may attach to attempts by a federal government to reduce its budget deficit. To achieve such a reduction the government reduces its spending, raises the rates of taxes already being levied, introduces new forms of taxation.
The effect of its spending reductions is to put people out of work: Government employees lose their jobs, as do persons employed by firms from whom the government now buys less. Increase in rates of taxation and the imposition of new taxes have the same effect.
In short, Professor Bellan has pointed out that severe tax increases and severe cuts in Government spending tend to accelerate a recession rather than answer the recession. I agree with his point of view. I believe that Government borrowing is a way that Government can use to cushion ordinary Canadians against the blows of a recession like the one we are currently experiencing.
We heard some interesting comments in the House in the last couple of speeches. I think the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) spoke from the heart when he said we had to aim our economic policies at human misery, the most vulnerable and most needy in society. That was a laudable comment. Equally, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) discussed the extremes in the other direction, cautioning us against too much borrowing and too much spending. There is a traditional middle of the road between those two positions. It is possible for a Government to borrow responsibly and cushion its people against a recession. That is what we are doing now. I would like to point out that our borrowing is as a result of transfers to ordinary people, businesses and other levels of Government. That is the major part of our spending, the major source of financial requirements.
I would like to point out some very interesting testimony in the Finance Committee last week. One of our officials noted that if we add up all the deficits and all the surpluses of all the Provinces in this country, we actually have a $300 million surplus, not a deficit. The Provinces are in a surplus position. The federal Government carries the weight of borrowing, not the municipalities and the Provinces. It is our borrowing that is being transferred to the Provinces and other Governments,
March 14, 1983

which enables them to run their schools, hospitals, medical care, transfers to people, welfare, and social programs. That is the kind of action we have to take. We have to recognize that there are people in need who must have this cushion underneath them during tough times.
The Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) accused the Government of encouraging people to live high off the hog. Despite my affection for the Hon. Member, I regret that I must reject that point of view. I do not think our children would thank us if we passed along to them a devastated economy, and that is what would occur if the federal Government did not take the kind of affirmative action it has taken.
Our children will not necessarily appreciate the borrowing we are going through, but they will see it as far more preferable to a devastated economy. They will recognize, as I recognize now about previous people who have borrowed, that the borrowing spread out difficulties over the years, that we are able to offer the economy a little less of a blow now because we are borrowing against our future. That is acceptable. It is fine as long as it is done in a responsible fashion and we demonstrate that we can repay this borrowing at some future date.
As well, I reject the argument that we are comparable in this regard to poorer countries. Poorer countries by definition have a smaller capacity to repay such a loan. Therefore, it is a political red herring to drag in countries in Latin America and around the world that have lower standards of living and lower resources at their command.
I remind Hon. Members that in the June budget the Government emphasized the policy of a reallocation. We did not bring in huge new spending programs. Instead, we trimmed our sails in one area in order to finance expansion in other areas. We did that with purpose. We felt that the federal Government should be responsible. Therefore, we priorized our spending areas more carefully, trimmed a bit off and spent the saving. As a result, we have had $3,000 home grants that have gone right to the heart of the industry and revitalized that industry. We have railroad rehabilitation programs that are not only building up a vital infrastructure, but stimulating otherwise depressed industries. We were able to spend money to help out on unemployment insurance. We did not simply go to already depressed employers or distressed workers and ask them to bear the whole load.
We put a bit extra in. The upshot has been a higher deficit, but it has been a deficit that is affordable. We need only look at the recent experience in the -money markets to show that interest rates are coming down, that we are not crowding out the private sector, others who want to borrow.
In summary, I believe that our deficit is an important cushion for all Canadians. I believe we are the major stimulus in the economy at the present time. Without us, our economy would be flat and very desperate. Finally, I believe that our policy of reallocation and careful priorizing of our spending is paying off.
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that whenever the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) speaks, rather than offering positive proposals as to what this Government is doing, he simply comments on what other Members of this House are saying. That exemplifies exactly what this Government is doing. Rather than act, it simply talks.
We listened today to the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who spoke about this Government's irresponsible approach to financing expenditures. In the short time since the last election, this Government has increased the Canadian debt by some $90 billion. We now have before us Bill C-143. The Government wishes to have the authority to borrow an additional $19 billion without giving this House any type of commitment as to whether this money is going, without showing any economic restraints or any concrete economic policy, and we in this Party are in opposition to the irresponsible approach of our Liberal friends opposite.
I believe it is important that all of us, as Members of Parliament, reflect upon what our thoughts were when we first came to this Chamber and what prompted our involvement in politics. My reason was quite straightforward when 1 decided to involve myself in the political process in that I totally disagreed with the economic management of my Liberal friends opposite. In the close to nine years that I have been a Member of the House of Commons, that irresponsibility has grown. When we look at what they have offered to the Canadian people we see a depressed economy, one of the more depressed economies since the Depression itself.
During my short participation in this debate, I would like to review, on a very personal basis, what we in this Party are going to do about it, and why I as an individual also sought the presidency of our national association. I want to do everything within my power, Mr. Speaker, to return to the Canadian people the hope and opportunity which this country once had and no longer has under the Liberal Government opposite. I ask Hon. Members of this Chamber, and all Canadians, where did those bright hopes of the early 1980s go? When we went into this new decade, our hopes were great for this country of ours. There were a number of megaprojects which were to come on stream, but because of the inaction of our friends opposite some 10,000 jobs were lost in just the energy sector itself. I remember at one time, Mr. Speaker, that to live dangerously was at one's choosing rather than because of a Liberal Government policy.
Even though there is much that we as an Opposition can criticize as to what this Government is doing, I have found in my travels throughout this country that the Canadian people are tired of what I call "old time politics". These are politics whereby the Opposition criticized what our friends in the Liberal Government were doing. Canadians are now looking to us, the Conservative Party, to offer constructive proposals to cure the economic malaise which this Government has brought us into.

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
I would like to review with you a brief five-point program which we would implement in the event that we were the Government, and which we will implement after the next general election. We will reduce the Government budgetary deficit, Mr. Speaker, and we will redirect and limit Government spending. We will simplify not only the income tax forms, but also the Income Tax Act under which we function, to encourage again risk-taking investment especially as it relates to the small business sector. We will amend the National Energy Program to reduce Government red tape and eliminate Government confiscation as it relates to the 25 per cent backing Clause. We will reduce the burden of Government and unnecessary regulations, again as it relates specifically to the small business sector. We will assist Canadians to reach the forefront of new technology with aggressive research and development policies. We did this in our budget in 1979 in which we increased our funding to research and development. Those are just basic principles, Mr. Speaker, and we are in the process of putting meat to the bone so that we can once again restore economic activity in this great nation of ours.
When I indicate to people in my part of the country that we plan to simplify the Income Tax Act, they say, "Well, the Liberal Government has already done that". These individuals indicated that the Income Tax Act was already simplified, and this is the way the Liberal Government's tax forms reads now, "Item Number 1: How much money did you make last year? Item Number 2: What are your expenses? Item Number 3: How much do you have left? Item Number 4: Please send the Liberal Government the amount listed in Item Number 3." That is how this Government has destroyed the economic activity in this nation.
One might ask, Mr. Speaker, what we as a Party are going to do to restore a climate of confidence in this nation of ours. I would like to refer to the budget that we introduced in 1979. We can point to that with pride, and we have something substantial which we can point to by way of the record. That budget, Mr. Speaker, squarely confronted the economic difficulties with which this nation was faced, and it proposed solutions based on sound economic management. There were policies which offered encouragement to the private investment community and yet provided protection for those who were disadvantaged in this society. Our budget contained measures which placed women in a position of equality with men so far as family enterprises are concerned. We introduced an energy tax credit to assist lower and middle income earners in Canada to meet the higher energy costs. We had our mortgage and property tax credit scheme. We had measures to help specifically the small business sector as it related to the high interest rate, which would have effectively cut interest rates in half. We also offered substantial capital gains relief with relation to the farming sector. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we were reducing the Government's budgetary deficit and we were reducing Government spending. To top it all off, that budget was labelled as the most socially progressive budget which had been introduced in Canada in the past 10 years.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare that to what is taking place now. We have a Government which has destroyed the energy sector. We have a Government which wishes to do the same thing to the agricultural sector. We have legislation before this House called Canagrex which wants to give full and total control to the Government over the agricultural sector. We on this side of the House have a responsibility to the Canadian people to offer hope and faith in this nation of ours once again.
Whenever I have occasion to speak in regard to Government policy, I am reminded of the time when the President of the United States addressed the two Chambers two years ago. He likened Government to a baby. He indicated it is like an alimentary canal with an appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. We, the Progressive Conservative Party, have to return that sense of responsibility to Government, and I can assure you as an individual Member of Parliament and as a Member of this Party that we are going to return responsibility and we are going to return faith and hope to this great nation of ours.
My parents immigrated a good many years ago to this country from Holland because they saw this country as the country which would hold hope not only for themselves but for their children. Mr. Speaker, Canadians are looking to us, as a Party, to restore that hope.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, once again I want to rise to speak to this appalling Bill C-143, which is the Government's edict demanding $19 billion. This Bill which is in itself-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has already spoken on this amendment on February 28 and therefore cannot be recognized again under the rules. The Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker-


Donald W. Munro: A point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, there seems to be a question. On Monday, February 28 when the House was debating the amendment which it is currently debating, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) was recognized and spoke.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. As I read Hansard for that particular day and subsequent days, the debate is on "Resuming consideration on the motion and the Amendment-"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is quite clear that a debate took place on the amendment which is exactly the same subject as the amendment before the House at that time.


Neil Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad we have that matter cleared up.
The Government is asking the House to give it authority to borrow some $19 billion to meet projected expenditures in the
March 14, 1983

coining fiscal year, without giving the House the opportunity to examine what it intends to spend the money on.
I have two concerns about how the Government proposes to spend this money. One in particular is the recent announcement that over the next fiscal year the Government intends to reduce the amount of money available for social housing. That is being done in face of the housing crisis in Metropolitan Toronto and Ontario today. It is irrational that this should be the case when we have the highest unemployment on reocord in the country today. It is well known that for every job created in housing construction, 3.5 jobs are created in spin-off industries. Housing is not only a social need, it is also a tool for major job creation.
Nearly 18,000 families are on the Ontario Housing Corporation waiting list. Cityhome in the city of Toronto requires
16.000	new units to handle its waiting list. Emergency hostels provided for transients have become permanent homes for hundreds of people who cannot find affordable accommodation. At the same time, thousands of units of affordable housing are waiting to be built in Metropolitan Toronto, but the federal and provincial Governments are forcing their delay or cancellation.
Today the Oak Street site is a vacant lot. If Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation would approve the housing subsidy under its non-profit co-operative housing program, the site would contain 149 units of housing, a small park and a daycare centre.
Non-profit co-operatives are developed by a board of directors and then run on a democratic basis by the tenants. By removing the profit component and by making units available to low income people assisted by federal and provincial rent subsidies, this development would provide affordable housing to those who need it most.
Metro Toronto has been allocated a 1983 budget of 815 coop housing units. This is a substantial drop, since the 1981 allocation was 1,300 units and the 1982 allocation was 1,100 units. Besides the Oak Street site, there are 14 sites in Metro where construction could begin if CMHC gave a financing commitment. These sites include Windward, Harbourside and Arcadia Co-op on the Harbour front, Lambton Co-op in York Borough, three Scarborough locations with over 300 units, three downtown locations, Toronto Women's Co-op in Park-dale and the North of Metro Co-op. With this many projects on hold, co-op housing developers must turn down all new proposals.
CMHC is a federal body and is the main provider of subsidies for non-profit co-operative housing. Given the enormous need for social housing and the high unemployment in our construction industry, the NDP has urged the Province to take direct action in the development of co-operative housing. Over
2.000	person years of employment could be created by Government investment in the co-op housing that is ready to be developed this year in the Metro Toronto area.
Cityhome is the City of Toronto's non-profit housing development corporation. Right now it requires 16,000 new housing units to meet its waiting list.
Borrowing Authority
The Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing allocates CMHC funding for municipal non-profit programs. In December the Province transferred 172 units from the 1982 allocation to the 1983 allocation, and indicated that no allocation would be available for additional new units in 1983.
Cityhome wanted to develop 964 units in 1983. The Commissioner of Housing believed the Province would support the building of over 600 units. These units would be located at 27 Elm Street, Elizabeth and Chestnut, Bathurst Quay, Greenwood and Walpole, Coxwell Stables, Jones and Curzon, Jarvis and Homewood and Queen and Vanauley. Construction of those 964 units would result in over 2,000 person years of employment.
We in this Party believe the Province of Ontario should be expanding the municipal non-profit housing sector, not cutting it back. We will continue to argue for a major infusion of new funds into the co-operative and non-profit sector to create jobs and meet our housing needs. When we take a look at the actual cost savings, apart from the social benefits to society, we find that to keep an individual in an institution costs upwards of $30,000 per year. To allow that person to live within the mainstream of Canadian life in the community, the cost to the taxpayer is something around $8,000 per year. This is a substantial saving to the taxpayer and provides the disabled person or the psychiatric patient upon his discharge from an institution with an opportunity to become a fully participating member of society again.
It is not so long ago that we in Canada observed the International Year of Disabled Persons. In fact, the House recognized the importance of that international year by establishing a Task Force comprised of Members of all political parties in the House to conduct an investigation into the needs of the disabled in this country.
One of the major findings of that Task Force was the crying need for deinstitutionalized programs for disabled people in the country. I am not talking about the kind of deinstitutionalization that has taken place in Ontario, where literally thousands of mental patients are being discharged from care centres into the community without adequate community support bases being provided. There is a particular need for adequate housing for those phychiatric patients who have been discharged. I am now talking about the kind of deinstitutionalized program that is taking place in the Province of Ontario where there is an intention to close homes for the mentally retarded. I am sure that the inadequate housing that will be provided for these patients will be of less benefit to them than the existing accommodation.
If the Government were to ask the House for authority to borrow funds for these socially useful purposes, I am sure that Members on this side would not be as reluctant as we are to give the Government the authority to borrow that sizeable amount of money. We hear talk about deinstitutionalization and the cost of keeping people in institutions as opposed to allowing them to live in the community.

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
If the Government were to say that it wanted to use these moneys for job-creation projects, housing construction and socially-useful purposes, I may feel an awful lot easier about giving that authority. Today I do not.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for the purpose of debate, may I say that there is an indication that a certain "Mr. Crosby" has spoken. There is no indication whether it was the Hon. Member for Halifax West or the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I think the easiest way to clear it up would be to ask the Hon. Member for Halifax West whether or not he has already spoken on this Bill. If not, he may proceed to participate in the debate.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, that happens to be an embarrassing question because I cannot answer without reservation, except to say that I was under the impression that at no time had I spoken on any aspect of the borrowing Bill, that is to say, Bill C-143. I am virtually certain that I did not, but at the same time I can just as easily assure the Chair that the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) probably spoke on the Bill. With that situation and in the absence of any objection from Hon. Members, I will proceed.
In ten minutes it is very difficult to express with any satisfactory result one's view of the provision in Bill C-143 which authorizes a further borrowing that in total amounts to $19 billion. It is one of the simplest provisions before the House of Commons, but at the same time it is one that has the greatest possible ramifications for the people of Canada. To try to put into real terms the effect of a massive legislative measure such as an authority to borrow $19 billion, let me point out that this borrowing and other anticipated borrowings will bring the total debt load of the Government of Canada into the area of $200 billion. If we divide that among the people of Canada, we will see immediately that every man, woman and child will owe, as a result of all this borrowing, some $8,000; that is $8,000 for every Canadian person.
When we attribute that borrowing to the work force in Canada-the people who actually have to pay the bills and provide the wealth and resources to the Government which enables it to carry on its services and pay for its debt-we realize that the debt more than doubles. Every working Canadian can look forward to carrying on behalf of the Government of Canada a debt load of some $18,000 and to paying and providing the resources to pay the interest on that amount of debt.
When we look back a year or so ago when the interest rate was at 19 per cent, we realize the enormity of that burden on the people of Canada. Unfortunately it does not end there because each of us lives in one of the Provinces of Canada, in the Northwest Territories or in Yukon. In respect of that residence we have, as wage earners and supporters of the economy of the country, a liability to support our Provinces. That carries with it an additional burden. For example, in the case of the Province of Nova Scotia, my obligation as a
resident apparently is to pay $5,224 in addition to the $18,000 that I owe as a wage earner of Canada. If we increase that number proportionately, we find that my debt load is not only the $18,000 with which I have to support Canada, but the $10,000 or more which I have to supply in respect of my obligations to the Province of Nova Scotia.
I could almost sit down now because the thought of owing $26,000 on top of every other responsibility of a wage earner in Canada is of such magnitude and so horrendous that it dispels and dissipates every ambition for economic success in the future. This is exactly what has happened in Canada. We have become victims of our own extravagance. But it is not our extravagance as individual Canadians; it is the extravagance of the Government of Canada. It did not learn the lesson which was learned by Canadians in the post-war period after 1945 and in the early 1950s. I remember as a university student in that period reading a reproduction of an editorial which appeared in the New York Times, in which the Government of Canada was praised for not only balancing the budget, that is to say equating the expenditures of the Government of Canada to its income and revenues, but providing a tidy surplus. It was not a great amount, but it was enough to put aside for the proverbial rainy day. Since the heydays of the early 1950s, the attitude of the Government of Canada changed very drastically and it got completely away from the idea and concept of a balanced budget.
I just want to take a minute or two to address myself to the concept of a balanced budget. Many people say that that is a right-wing view, that it is the view of arch-capitalists that we have to balance our expenditures against our income. It is a rule of economics that we cannot deny regardless of our other views. It is a fact of economic life that if one allows one's expenditures to exceed one's income and revenues, one will get in difficulty somewhere along the line. It is not only those who want to be economic purists who respect the concept of a balanced budget. It is also those who want to provide a future for all Canadians and to provide the services which all Canadians need right now. The only method to ensure the provision of social services is to have the kind of economic purity which results from a balanced budget.
We in the House of Commons have to remind the Government of Canada constantly that having abandoned this essential and necessary economic concept, it now has to recognize and realize the error of its ways and return to that concept. Until we bring back into the economic and governmental affairs of Canada the concept of a balanced budget, we will remain in the economic no man's land in which we have been drifting for the past decade and in which, of necessity, we will have to drift for another decade.
Just as I favour the concept of a balanced budget, I recognize that we cannot return to that concept overnight because we have made a social contract and have guaranteed to the people of Canada that we will provide necessary medical services, hospital care, and education, in some circumstances at no cost and in other circumstances at a tuition fee. We have to continue these kinds of services, but at the same time our challenge and task is to bring all this into line, that is to say,
March 14, 1983

the concept of a balanced budget and the necessity for continuing social services, including health care, education and all the services to which Canadians have become accustomed.
The other side of the coin is that in falling into the horror of continual deficit budgeting we have built up an economic burden that we can no longer carry. I have heard from time to time that the Government of Canada has said to provincial leaders that they must take up more of the economic burden. As I have already indicated, it would appear to me that practically every Province of Canada has reached the limit of its financial capacity as well. For instance, every resident of New Brunswick carries a debt of $6,200. In Newfoundland, the per capita debt is $6,300. Even in rich Ontario the per capita debt is $4,060, and in Quebec it is $4,500. I could go on with these statistics, but they merely point out the facts that Canadians, who are not only residents of Canada but residents of the Provinces and Territories of Canada, have reached the limit of their debt capacity and that this spending spree has to stop.
When the former Minister of Finance introduced his budget he gave the indication that the spending spree was going to stop, that he was bringing forward a program of restraint in Government spending which he called the six and five program. He immediately took the dollar bills that were saved as a result of the six and five program and assigned them to other areas of Government expenditure. The net result was even greater Government spending and an increase in the deficit.
The deficit has risen over the past two years from $11 billion to $19 billion, to $23.6 billion to $26 billion, and now it is nearing $29 billion. As long as we attempt to carry a deficit of that size, every social service and every educational service is in danger. But the spending goes on and on.
Last week we learned that the Canadian National Railway has piled up a deficit of $225 million. That was after spinning off all the loss operations, such as CN Marine and VIA Rail. When will it all stop? When will the Michael Pitfields stop feeding at the public trough? When will all this spending stop? What we are doing here is dealing with this Bill and with this amendment and trying to convince the Government that it has to stop its spending, that it deals with the realities of Government expenditure and service, and get Canada back on the road to a balanced budget.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?
I see the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) rising, but again I have to ask the Hon. Member whether he has already spoken. Perhaps the Hon. Member will give me a moment to check the list. There are so many Members who have spoken on the Bill that I think it is important to check the list.
The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) is rising on a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been checking the record. The Bill was
Borrowing Authority
introduced on February 17, 1983 by the Minister. There were five speakers on the main motion at second reading. The fifth speaker proposed an amendment. Following that it is my understanding that speakers could speak to the main motion or to the amendment. But the amendment has not been brought to a vote. Why is it that those of us who have spoken on the amendment-I admit frankly that I did-are not permitted to speak to the main motion? We had only ten minutes allotted to us. In ten minutes you can say very little about a proposal as substantial as this one. Nineteen billion dollars is a great deal of money. I think it is most important the Canadian people have an opportunity to find out just how much it is. Therefore, I feel the amendment ought to be put, if you like, with the vote deferred so that those of us who have spoken on the amendment can speak now on the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) raises the point at issue exactly. First, let me deal with the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers). I see that he spoke on Monday, February 28 as reported in Hansard at page 23300. I cannot recognize the Hon. Member for Red Deer to speak on the amendment again. However, as indicated by the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich, if the House sees fit, I will put the question on the amendment. Once the amendment is disposed of then Hon. Members may proceed to debate the main motion. Members will also recognize that we have a House order that calls for a vote at 4.45 p.m. on the amendment and on the main motion. We could, of course, defer the vote. I am in the hands of Hon. Members. The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling).


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, There have been discussions among the Parties. We have agreed that, if we had no further speakers on the amendment, we would allow the motion to be put, and the vote would be defered until 5.45 p.m. If no one rises to speak, we will proceed in that fashion, provided there is unanimous consent of the House.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm the agreement as indicated by the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling). Inasmuch as some of the comments made by the Opposition have been constructive, we have no objection to constructive criticism continuing.


Mr. King:: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify whether I am on your list. I spoke to the main motion on March 4, I believe. I would like some clarification on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Again, I must ask the House to be patient. There have been so many speakers that I have to check the list. I know the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) is on the list of speakers. I want to determine whether his name was on the list of speakers on the main motion or on the amendment.
The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen spoke to the amendment on Friday, March 4, 1983. He cannot speak again to the amendment.
The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) has put forward a suggestion which I think is appropriate for me to put to the House. Very simply, let me put the question on the

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
amendment, and having done so, defer the vote to 5.45 p.m. This will require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The vote on this matter will be deferred until 5.45 p.m. today. Debate will now be on the main motion.
The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: Finally. We have been waiting to hear you all afternoon.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that my colleague from Nipissing, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) will be listening attentively.
Once again, I want to rise to speak to this appalling Bill. Bill C-143 is in itself such an outright admission of fiscal and administrative failure that in our parliamentary system as practised anywhere but in Ottawa under the Liberal Party of Canada it would only be presented if accompanied by the resignation of the Government responsible.
We all know now that because Liberals feel no guilt they, therefore, have no guilt. Out of the goodness of my heart, let me present them with a slogan that might or might not serve them well in the next election. It is: "Being a Liberal means never having to say you're guilty."
Therefore, before the beginning of the new fiscal year, before we have so much as seen a budget-and I would remind you that when this Bill was introduced we had not even seen the Estimates-and before we are given any idea what the money is wanted for, we are being forced to authorize a blank cheque for $19 billion.
Let me use what I think is a very graphic illustration to give some idea of just what we are talking about when we glibly toss around phrases like "$19 billion." If your ancestors and mine had started a company in the year Jesus was born, capitalizing it with $1 billion but, running it so badly that it lost $1,000 a day, we would today still have a quarter of our capital left. That is $ 1 billion.
O)
This Bill tells us that the Government wants us to give it a blank cheque for $19 billion, $5 billion of which is to paper over its various sins of omissions of this fiscal year and another $14 billion to get it well under way to its undisclosed and uncertain destination in fiscal year 1983-84.
Let us look at what little we do know about Government spending plans for the coming year. Let us see if they are the stuff that gives us any spine stiffening confidence that our moneys are being well husbanded and sparingly spent. Bear in mind that this is the Government which has just forced its six and five regime on its pensioners and the senior citizens of the nation. Yet, it has allowed the salary and wage costs in the Ministry of Economic Development, for example, to rise by
52.3 per cent. This cannot be due merely to new recruiting because the manpower of the Department has gone up by only 3 per cent. It is hard to see how it can be due to a reorganization of functions in the economic area because at the same time the salaries of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion have risen by 9.1 per cent and those of Industry, Trade and Commerce, by 8.4 per cent. Indeed, wages and salaries in the Government as a whole have gone up by 7.6 per cent which, by comparison with the Government's past standards, is pretty good. However, in comparison with what could and should be achieved by an administration for which fiscal responsibility is something more than a slogan and in comparison with the Government's own six and five guidelines, it is an affront.
If a Government comes to this House and asks for a blank cheque for $19 billion, at least we should be assured that its estimating and forecasting is accurate. Let us look at what its estimates tell us about the coming year's construction costs. We must presume that some of this money will go to pay construction costs, but we do not know that.
The Ministry of Transport is building a firehall and garage at St. John's National Airport and is making some modifications on the air terminal at the Regina National Airport. The previous Estimates for these came to $40.4 million. This year's Estimates come to $78.2 million, which is an increase of 93.6 per cent.
What about our new embassy in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? Last year its cost was estimated at $1.7 million. The latest guess is $32.8 million, which is an increase of 1,829 per cent. So it goes. The costs of Canadian police services facilities at Rockliffe, St. John's and Fredericton are up by 59.6 per cent.
Let us turn to the classic place for hiding sins of omission, standard item No. 12 which is "other expenditures". This item is up by 88.4 per cent this year. What does that mean? I guess we will have to wait for the debate on the Estimates and hope for an explanation then. In the meanwhile, we are expected to pass a blank cheque Bill for $19 billion, part of which moneys will presumably be spent on this item, whatever it may represent. In any event, we are told that none of that is any of our business and that we should just shut up and pass the legislation. It goes without saying that this kind of legislative conduct is bad for the political system. It goes without saying that this sort of catch-up financial fumble ball is the mark of an exhausted Government which is out of control of the public purse, out of touch with the public mood, and out of sync with economic realities. Yet, as long as its tame sheep will bleat on demand, the Government remains in control of the House and this Bill will pass.
When I look across the aisle, I think of the line in "HMS Pinafore", sung by Sir Joseph Porter, KCB, which is:
I always voted at my party's call and never thought of thinking for myself at all-
And the next line, which you will remember:
I thought so little they rewarded me-
And so on. How little times seem to have changed, in Liberal Ottawa anyway.
March 14, 1983

There is a line spoken by Sir Winston Churchill in "Churchill; the Wilderness Years" which was shown in recent weeks on the PBS System. Mr. Churchill had at least been offered a Cabinet post by Neville Chamberlain after being resolutely ignored for a decade because of his independent views. Mr. Chamberlain expressed regret for this, and Sir Winston replied that as long as Party discipline is not so tight as to stifle honest dissent, democracy is safe. I am wondering if we will see that here in Ottawa.
Of course, this Bill will pass because it must. It will be passed because the Government, which has lost control of the country and the public purse, retains control of the legislature. As a result, democracy is ill served.
It is clear that while it may technically retain the confidence of this House, it has forfeited the confidence of mainstreet Canada, and this Bill and what it represents is why.
It is wrong in principle to force through a draft for any sum to pay for God knows what and move the country further along God knows what undisclosed path. It is wrong by every standard of measurement to purloin $19 billion from the taxpaying public.
I want to say to those who heretofore have been very acquiescent on the other side of the House and who are willing to give the Bill the stamp of endorsement that the great public, their electorate and mine, whose money they are taking, are watching them now. They must now pass judgment on this, their Government's Bill. Of course, I know that the people of Canada will make their decision later.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take part in this debate and speak against a Bill which would allow the Government to borrow $19 billion. Many speakers have tried to explain what $19 billion is. I believe, when speaking to the amendment approximately a week ago, I indicated that, at least by my arithmetic, it would take a husband and wife 53,000 years to spend $19 billion at the rate of $1,000 a day, seven days a week.
I would like to make a couple of points in the ten minutes that I have. They deal primarily with the question of waste in proportions which I think would make any democracy in the history of the world blush. Let me give a few examples, for which I am indebted to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) since these examples come from one of his recent householders. My first example, remember, comes from the Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). It is a plane ticket for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), which cost the ordinary taxpayer $2,611, so that he could fly by Concord Jet on June 14, 1982, from Kennedy Airport to Heath row in London. I did not have time to check what the regular airfare is but I am prepared to wager that it would be much less than the $2,611 that is required of those who have the taste to fly by Concord.
My second example involves photocopying. The Auditor General tells us that the federal Government spends in excess of $50 million each year currently for photocopying, for approximately $900 million photocopies per year.
Borrowing Authority
The third example of absolute, total waste is the $674,000 spent to buy briefcases for public servants between April of 1980 and June of 1981.
The fourth example relates to land banking. The Government spent $775 million in land banking for future Canadian housing needs. According to the 1978 Greenspan Report on land prices, instead of controlling land prices, the program created a shortage of land, providing spectacular profits for land speculators as prices skyrocketed.
The next example is the promotion of the six and five. That is the restraint program, as Hon. Members will remember. How there is a connection between six and five and the Canada Unity Information office is beyond me. The Government spent $1 million to set up exhibits at the Canadian National Exhibition, the Pacific National Exhibition and Expo Quebec. I might add, since I am dealing with the Unity Information office, that I am advised that the Government spent $4,500 last month to advertise "the Crow goes without a flap" in the Montreal Gazette. That was the ad which told us that westerners would not benefit from the abolition of the Crow rate.
The sixth example of unparalleled waste is the fact that the Auditor General told us not long ago that the net debt of the Government of Canada is understated by $14.5 billion as of March 31, 1982. Oh, the list becomes very long.
The 1981 Canada Savings Bond issue had a $1 billion blunder in it. As Hon. Members will recall, these geniuses of finance opposite decided to offer the bond issue at 19.5 per cent interest, and the economist, Donald McGillivray, has estimated that, based on the interest rates prevailing at the time, the cost to the taxpayer was a mere extra $1 billion more than was necessary.
I cannot resist the example of the Jet Stars flying in formation to Winnipeg. That was when Messrs. Munro, Gray and Blais used three separate Jet Stars to fly to the same Liberal fund raising dinner in Winnipeg. Indeed, the cost of fuel alone would have been $27,000, and first class commercial airline tickets would have cost $1,770, return.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Oh, did we miss you?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will say that I was on an aircraft to Winnipeg, but it was not for a fund raising dinner. It was for the inauguration of a new plant which we were creating in Winnipeg as a result of the F-18 offset, a plant which, I might indicate, is highly profitable and has a very long future to consider. I would have hoped that the hon. gentleman would have checked his facts before he started making allegations.


Mr. Daudlin:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, ten minutes is a very short amount of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Hon. Member for Essex-Kent rises on the same point of order.

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take any time from the Hon. Member, and I know that the Minister did not want to raise this matter because his name was perhaps mentioned. However, it seems to me that unless the rules change, and the changes we are getting into right now have gone beyond where I believe they have gone, the practice of the House remains that Hon. Members and Ministers are to be called by their responsible Ministry or by their riding. I think that the Hon. Member would want to do that.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I know, as I was saying it, that I was making a mistake. I hope that Your Honour will forgive me. I notice that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) did not tell us whether or not he went to the fund raising dinner.
The next item which I would mention concerns the question of the $200,000, I believe, which is being paid in salaries, benefits, travel allowances or expenses, to keep Mr. Edwin Clark in Paris for a year with his family in the style to which he has become accustomed. I do not believe that there are very many people opposite who will stand and defend that particular use of the taxpayer's money.
I suppose that my favourite example, because everyone in Canada can relate to it, concerns the $ 11,000 which the Government spent to send Miss Janet Smith from the Privy Council office to study French on the Riviera in France. Do you know how the Government defended it, Mr. Speaker? It stated that paying to send this young lady to take French lessons in Quebec, New Brunswick, Ottawa or anywhere else would require a cash outlay of $13,000, I believe. In other words, Canadian taxpayers were being saved, by some perverted bit of logic, the sum of $2,000. If one ignores our balance of payments problems, it just might make sense, but not otherwise.

I should like to switch to French now to mention a few points raised by University of Montreal Professor Maurice Marchon about current problems related to inflation and unemployment. Here is what he said about our situation over the past ten years:
The Canadian experience at the beginning of this decade has some similarities with the Swiss and Japanese experiences. The Bank of Canada intervention on the money market in 1971-72 and the fact that interest rates were kept too low resulted in a money supply expansion rate which was not conducive to price stability. The national product growth rate was very high in 1971-72, but inflation reached 11 per cent in 1974. The rapid increase in the inflation rate cannot therefore be due mainly to rising energy prices controlled by the Government, but above all to an overly expansionary monetary policy.

He continues and basically says, as I understand his writing, that the Government does not understand monetarism or the proper use of the theories of John Maynard Keynes.
Concerning the problem we have now, I refer to some points made by Professor Antonio Martino, Professor of Monetary History at the University of Rome, in an excellent book entitled "Constraining Inflationary Government". One of his points, which is totally germane to what we are discussing now, is that Government deficits reach a very high level and they
inevitably lead to "refinancing of the deficit through money creation". That is happening now and will continue to happen.
Professor Martino quotes Richard Wagner and Robert Tollis on the same point as saying, "While some Government borrowing is for investment, most of it is for consumption. This means that budget deficits replace the creation of capital goods with a subsidization of consumption". Further down, he quotes Walter Eltis as saying, "It must be particularly disturbing to Keynesian policy-makers that the countries where the influence has been greatest are those which have suffered most from inflation". Further down, in his concluding paragraph, he discusses inflation. In effect, he says that Keynes' obsession with the short-run was also doomed to result in both destabilizing macroeconomic policies and in an inflationary bias. He discussed how Keynes' policies have destroyed the most effective constraint in Government growth. At one point it was considered undesirable to have a deficit. Now it has become a desirable feature.
I must tell Hon. Members that our deficit this year is on the order of $26 billion. It is rather like a pyramid. It becomes larger every year. The point that Hon. Members opposite cannot comprehend is that the more they create deficits, the more they create additional problems for taxpayers in servicing the debt, and we will have even more unemployment. As evident in today's Gallup poll, unemployment is now, by far the largest problem for Canadians.
It is like talking to the trees. They do not listen. Like the Bourbon kings, they neither listen, learn nor forget. I suppose it is obvious that I wish they would bring on an election so that we could change to a Government which believed in people instead of larger and larger deficits.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have heard a number of definitions of the quantity of money which is being requested in this legislation, the $5 billion for current expenditures and the $14 billion for future expenditures, unspecified, and for purposes which are not clear. Regarding the $19 billion that are contained in this Bill, it is worth recalling that in the Estimates that were tabled about 10 days ago a table, Chart B at page 9, indicated the various envelopes under which the expenditures for the year are foreseen. With respect to the public debt, we are talking about indebtedness and future indebtedness, and I am thinking of the pages that are sitting in front of you, Mr. Speaker, and the debt that is going to be on their heads. We are borrowing; they are going to pay. Let us remember that. That applies to the children of every person in this room, in this Chamber, and across this country. Their children are going to be faced with repaying the debt that we are being asked to authorize here.
That $19 billion, to come back to the table, Chart B on page 9 of the Estimates, indicates that the debt servicing this year is going to amount to $18.57 billion. In other words, what the Government is trying to borrow now would just about meet the servicing of the current debt. We are being asked to increase that debt so that next year that amount of money would not
March 14, 1983

service the debt, that is, the settlement of outstanding loans, the rescheduling and also paying the interest.
Furthermore, it is worth remembering that over the past six years the percentage of the degree of servicing the public debt has actually doubled. In 1977-78, the amount required for servicing the public debt was $5.5 billion. Today it is $18.57 billion. It has more than trebled. On the average over those six years, that is a 12 per cent inflation factor. Our indebtedness has been increasing at the rate of 12 per cent per year. We hear the Government boasting, puffing out their chests and saying, "What great boys we are because we have brought down the inflation rate." They are increasing the inflation rate because the average increase in indebtedness over these six years is 12 per cent.
A number of Members have been trying to provide a means of comprehending the size of the borrowing authority that we are dealing with today, the $19 billion. I have tried to reduce it to actual physical scale, and I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, have ever seen a stack of $1,000 bills all gathered up together with a piece of paper around them. A thousand of those $1,000 bills would make a million dollars, and that would be only four inches thick. Three million dollars, if they were stacked on top of one another would make a stack one foot high, and that is only three million dollars. The Peace Tower is about 300 feet high and if they were stacked up in front of the Peace Tower, by the time the look-out point was reached with stacks of $1,000 bills a total of $1 billion would not have been reached. And we are talking about $19 billion. If we wanted to have all of those $1,000 bills stacked in front of the House of Commons it would make quite a sight, would it not? Nineteen columns of $1 billion each sitting side by side. The main entrance to the House of Commons would be blocked by the $1,000 bills that we are being asked to authorize in this Bill. It is preposterous.
If we put it another way, if we stacked them all the way up, they would reach to over 6,000 feet, 6,333 feet is the exact figure, and that is, as close as I can make it, about two kilometres, for those who prefer to speak in kilometres. We have a column two kilometres high of $1,000 bills, and that is the scale of this particular operation.
Put in another way, where could one find such funds? Let us say they were spread equally amongst all of the constituencies of this country. There are 282 constituencies. That would mean that each constituency would be responsible for raising $67.3 million. To make it even more impressive, $67.3 million in some constituencies perhaps would be no great problem, but let us look at it in terms of Prince Edward Island. Those four constituencies in Prince Edward Island-and I am sorry that the Minister is not here to realize what his Government is asking this Parliament to do-would be required to raise $269.5 million. I do not think the banks on Prince Edward Island could raise that unless they were given some notice, and therefore that gives us a notion of the magnitude in terms of constituencies.
In terms of population, what does it mean? Here again I refer to the pages. They, and everyone in this country, are under an obligation, if that amount of money is to be raised,
Borrowing Authority
$19 billion, to find $750 and put it out on the table there and say: "Okay, Government, there is your $19 billion." That is preposterous. In terms of families, it means about $750 for every man, woman and child, and if you deal with that on the basis of, let us say, a family of four, that means $3,000 for a family of four. Every family of four in this country would be required to find $3,000 to make up this sum.
Because of the nature of Clauses 2 and 3, one being the requirement for $5 billion for current expenditures and the other one for $14 billion, I do hope that when this goes to committee we will be able to introduce an amendment which will split the Bill so that we will leave the $14 billion to one side until the year in which it is to be spent appears and until we have some notion from the Government as to the manner in which it proposes to spend those funds.
That is my case. It is a lot of money. It could block the doorway to the Peace Tower. It would require Prince Edward Island to raise almost $270 million. It puts at the door of every Canadian the requirement to raise $750. That is a preposterous notion when you consider that $14 billion of that is for purposes of which we have no notion whatsoever.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, those persons who have lost their jobs, their homes or their businesses and those who are now unemployed and those trying to enter the labour market for the first time have awakened to the size and magnitude of Government financial operations. In other words they are more conscious of taxes and spending than ever before. What concerns most people I talk to about Bill C-143 is the process by which it is being handled. We have this situation. The Government wants to borrow $19 billion, $5 billion for use between now and March 31 and $14 billion for future requirements.
What we want to see is a projection of revenue and expenditures before we approve the borrowing of the $14 billion. It does not seem to be an unusual request. Anyone with any sense of responsibility for financial matters would want to know revenue and expenditure levels before loans of the magnitude of $19 billion were undertaken.
There is no doubt that the people of Canada just do not trust the Government and the process it uses. The raising of taxes, the approval of spending Estimates and the lack of forecasting for future expenditures is very much in question in the minds of the people of Canada today. The people of this country want some assurance that the pipeline has a valve that will meter the flow.
The feeling is that if we do not watch the process closely, those who sacrifice to bring down inflation will have done so for nothing. In other words, we are on a narrow path. If we walk carefully, we can make it safely out of the inflation and recession that we are enduring. If not, we are in difficulty. Part of the walking carefully is knowing where we are going.
We and people generally would be happy and would view it as being more acceptable if we saw a new budget and then the borrowing authority brought in later. In other words, let us see

March 14, 1983
Borrowing Authority
what our revenue will be to cover the $89 billion proposed in the spending Estimates. Let us see the estimated shortfall, and then we will look at the borrowing requirements.
Three Auditors General in a row have said that Government spending is out of control. Numerous boards and commissions have said the same. Just contemplate the magnitude of the Estimates, $88.9 billion, a 17 per cent increase over the Main Estimates of last year. That is not the end of it. We will have Supplementary Estimates A, B, C, D, E and F. We do not know what it will come to. We do not know how much more spending will be done and how high the amount will go before we are asked to approve another borrowing authority beyond the $19 billion.
If we look at the budgetary deficits, we see a picture of deficits which began at $5 billion in 1975-76. It went to $6.2 billion, then to $10.3 billion, onwards and onwards until we have approximately $30 billion by March 31 of this year. With that record, no wonder there is a lack of trust between the people of Canada and their Government. Since 1980, the Government has run up $90 billion in deficits. Those who are trying to rearrange their lives from the effects of the recession-and there is no one who has not been hurt by the recession-those who have been ravaged by high interest rates and are carrying a heavy debt load live in fear that inflation will return and they will have another round of the same.
We have an opportunity to put back into our national affairs a measure of confidence, no matter how small it may be. We should have a forecast of revenues and expenditures together with an anticipated borrowing for five years ahead. Other Governments do it. Large corporations forecast long and short-range. There is no reason in the world why it cannot be done here. We should begin here now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Hon. Members will recall that a few minutes earlier the House unanimously consented to defer the vote on the amendment until now. Accordingly, it being 5.45 o'clock, pursuant to order made Tuesday, March 8, 1983, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment. Call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment (Mr. Skelly) lost.
Motion (Mr. Skelly) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 14, 1983


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Borrowing Authority
Messrs.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please
say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: If the House agrees, we will not ring the bells to call in the Members.


Madam Speaker:: The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Madam Speaker:: It being past 6 o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 15, 1983