1983-03-22

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-143, to provide Supplementary Borrowing Authority, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:: That Bill C-143, An Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"exceeding in the whole, one dollar, as may be required for public works and".


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time that I have risen in the House to debate Bill C-143, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority for the Government of Canada. In the past we have expressed our concern over the size of the borrowing authority which the Government is asking Parliament to approve. We have expressed alarm over the apparent lack of accountability by the Government in requesting permission to borrow $19 billion without, in our view, adequately presenting a valid case.
Today I want to stress the adverse effects that this Bill may have on the fragile recovery which may be stirring in the Canadian economy. In particular, I want to outline some of the dangers inherent in this Bill which might start interest rates on an upward course again, a course which has proved so destructive in the last two years, which has wreaked so much hardship on people and their families and their plans for the future, and which has proved so damaging to the national incentive to sustain our farms, our plants, our jobs, and our hope for the future. It is a concern which is apparently not shared by the Government.
There has been considerable debate on this Bill, Mr. Speaker. It has already been through first and second reading and we have debated it in committee hearings until two o'clock in the morning. We are now at report stage and our Party alone has at least 25 MPs who are anxious to discuss its implications for our country and our constituents. We are no closer to the
answers we sought than we were when we started. We have been asking all the right questions; let me repeat some of them.
Why does the Government need to borrow billions of dollars in a Bill of this magnitude? Where are the Government's financial forecasts to show how this borrowing fits into an over-all fiscal framework or game plan? Exactly how is this borrowing going to affect borrowing in the private sector? How will borrowing on this scale affect the ability of Provinces to borrow funds for their deficits? Will the Provinces and the private sector be crowded out of the money market, the source of much of the required financing? Is it all the Government requires in the fiscal year which is facing us? Exactly how will the Government arrange this borrowing in the time frame it has set? Will it strangle or choke off the uncertain and diffident recovery which may be under way? Why can the Government not split this Bill into smaller stages, returning to Parliament to borrow as the money is required?
[DOT] (mo)
The answers we have gleaned from the Government to date have been all the wrong answers. They have been vague and simplistic. At best these answers have been evasive. At worst they have been openly hostile to Parliament and to the parliamentary process.
Let me give some examples. When asked why the Government needs to borrow $19 billion now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) simply says "to pay the costs incurred by the recession". When asked for its fiscal forecasts, the Minister says simply to wait until spring when he may introduce a budget. When asked how this borrowing is going to affect the economy, the Minister says neither he nor his Department has done the necessary studies to identify the kind of impact which could be generated on interest rates.
When we express our concern over the ability of the private sector and the Provinces to raise money from the limited resources available to them in Canada, the Minister states that corporations are not borrowing anyway and he implies that the Provinces can look after themselves. He dismisses any possibility of crowding these potential customers out of the money market.
Faced with his own statement that the Government has been borrowing at the rate of roughly $500 million a month, the Minister states flatly that he expects to borrow in the neighbourhood of $2 billion between now and the end of March, which is only seven working days away.
When asked how he is going to raise the $16 billion which he is seeking authority to borrow after March 31, including the roll-over, the Minister and his Department of Finance
24002

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
officials simply say they do not normally announce their borrowing plans in advance.
When asked how he can, in effect, double his current volume of borrowing without adversely affecting interest rates, the Minister said, and I quote: "You do not broadcast your plans well in advance to those who are loaning the money".
When asked specifically to detail the nature of the analysis which has been made by his Department of the impact of this borrowing on interest rates, the Minister told the Finance Committee that there was no specific analysis made of the impact of interest rates on this particular borrowing.
When asked whether he fears that borrowing of this magnitude in a short time frame-the Minister told us in Committee that he expects to have spent this money by mid-summer-will lead to higher interest rates, the Minister simply said he does not believe that there is any danger of that happening in 1983, and if he is still Minister of Finance in 1984, he will be happy to let us know his views at that time.
When asked why the Government does not split this Bill and borrow part of the money before the budget and the rest of it later in the year, the Minister says he will be back for more money later in the year as it is. He implies that he does not trust Parliament to approve his borrowing requirements. In fact his whole stance before the Committee seemed to indicate that it was easier to borrow the whole batch now rather than subject the Government to parliamentary scrutiny again in the near future.
The only emphatic stance he took at Committee was to underline his need to get the whole $19 billion through now. For instance, when I asked him if he was going to exhaust the $14 or $15 or $16 billion by summer, that that implies that he was going to borrow an awful lot of money in a limited time, the Minister said "absolutely".
These are not the kinds of answers which inspire much confidence in the Minister as a prudent and knowledgeable manager of the fiscal side of the economy. They are not the kind of answers which inspire confidence in the hearts of businessmen who must plan now for plant improvements or possibly even plant expansions in the future.
People have been so stung by the vicious swing in interest rates in the last little while, their fingers have been so burned, their pocketbooks so emptied and their credit ratings so strained, that they want-they demand-some sense of stability about interest rates in the future. They want, and increasingly they demand, some guarantee that they will be able to pursue their plans, that they will be able to invest their money, that they will be able to place their orders for new equipment and materials without suffering the shocks they incurred during the great recession.
There is some evidence that this reluctance to proceed on the basis of future growth is already threatening inflationary pressure on the economy. Recently leading economists have told me that even though there are encouraging signs of recovery, businessmen are still reluctant to call back laid-off workers, or to restock their inventory, or to start producing
enough production runs to meet anticipated demands. It is clear that consumers who are still saving at the rate of about 13.4 per cent of personal disposable income are not rushing out to spend their hard-earned savings on new cars, new appliances or a whole variety of consumer goods.
Statistics Canada predicts that the Canadian economy could show real growth in the first quarter of this year after declining steadily for six quarters and contracting a full 5 per cent in 1982. Statistics Canada is suggesting that a cyclical upturn may be at hand, if it is not already under way, but we know that this recovery must be nursed with tender loving care. We know that a national recovery plan is imperative if we are to put people back to work and to hire the young Canadians who are entering the labour force.
Yet at the same time we know that the size of the deficit in the coming fiscal year will be about 8.5 per cent of GNP. That is the highest percentage in the industrial world, with the exception of Italy. We know that the $30 billion deficit, which the Minister has indicated he may require in the fiscal year, amounts to roughly half the total savings of Canadians.
We know that employment in Canada dropped 5.5 per cent last year compared with only 1.5 per cent in the United States. We know that the amount which the Minister and the Government is asking Parliament to approve is equal to the size of the entire budget of the whole country ten years ago.
We feel that the Government can send a clear signal that it plans to regain control over Government spending, that it will attempt to master the country's economic problems, that it will mount new and effective job-creation programs by measures targeted at increasing economic growth without resorting to unlimited borrowing. That signal would be a move by the Government to split this borrowing authority. That would be a responsible course of action, one for which Canadians are waiting.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, once again I am very pleased to rise in the House to address Bill C-143, an Act to borrow $19 billion, only to realize that this is a totally impossible request which the Government is making of the House of Commons. The reason I say it is a very impractical request is that I believe we are seeing across the aisle a Government which is essentially adopting the Christopher Columbus school of economic theory.
I remind the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) that it was Christopher Columbus who set out on a mission on borrowed money. As a matter of fact, not only was it borrowed but it was borrowed from a foreign country, and he was dependent upon foreign decision-makers as to what he could do. He set out and on the way he lost some ships because they were buffeted by winds, just as the Government is obviously buffeted by the winds of public mood. One day the ship of state is lurching in one direction; the next day it is lurching in another direction.
March 22, 1983

When Christopher Columbus got to where he thought he was going, he was not certain where he was, and he was not certain where he had been when he returned. I remind Hon. Members opposite that when Christopher Columbus actually arrived in the new world, he did not bring new technology, new approaches or golden riches. He brought syphilis to the new world. That is the kind of contribution Christopher Columbus made to the Caribbean countries. To apply Liberal economic planning to the Christopher Columbus school of economic theory is an apt comparison.
Today the House of Commons is expected to support the borrowing of $19 billion. I must say that we in the New Democratic Party will be supporting the amendment before the House to reduce that $19 billion request to $5 billion plus $ 1. There is no question in the deliberations we have had that the Government requires $5 billion to get through this particular fiscal year, to bring us to the end of the month of March. That is a fait accompli. That is something of the past. We are prepared to co-operate to that level.
To think that we are going to approve the borrowing of $14 billion when still to this day the Minister of State for Finance, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fisher) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) himself, have refused to outline in any definitive way how this money will be utilized is simply asking too much at this time. I do not think it is an unfair request for Members of Parliament to expect to have some indication of what the Government is going to do with this $14 billion. I do not think that is unreasonable at all.
We keep hearing the Government Members say that we have to wait until the budget comes down, to have faith in it because it will be a good budget and then everything will be fine. I want to remind the Minister of State for Finance that we have just heard from the Government's top financial adviser, Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada. The other day Governor Bouey went out of his way to describe what he felt was the solution to our economic problems. He said ignore the fact that there are nearly two million people unemployed in this country today from every single region and from every sector of the economy. He said ignore that and ignore the fact that there are nearly two million people on welfare in what has to be the richest country in the world. He said ignore the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of young people about to enter the job market, many for the first time, in the next few weeks who are bound to be disappointed because there are no jobs. He said to ignore those young people and ignore the people who are living daily under the threat of lay-off and plant closure. He said ignore the thousands of small and medium-sized businesses that are either in the stages of receivership or foreclosure, or are being threatened by bankruptcy. He said ignore the farmers who are being requested to sell off their property so as to access any operating capital for spring planting. He said ignore the poor of Canada. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, one begins to wonder whether the Governor of the Bank of Canada has not lost touch with reality.
Borrowing Authority
We hear Members of the Official Opposition and Members opposite say that a recovery requires the business sector to invest money, to expand plants, to expand operations. We hear them say that a recovery depends on Canadians spending their money on goods and services.
There is absolutely no way that economic recovery can occur in this country when businessmen are being faced with the threat of bankruptcy in every corner of the community. This is no environment in which to expand or to invest in the future. There is no incentive for consumers of Canada to buy new goods and services and to spend their hard earned money when they see their relatives-their brothers-in-law, their sons and their daughters-out of work and their friends probably being threatened on a daily basis with loss of work.
There is a fear in this land. There is a fear in the business community and among the consuming public. This fear can be abated only when the Government of Canada brings forward a budget that will show the Government is prepared to accept its leadership mandate given to it a few years ago and that it will provide some bold, imaginative and creative schemes for serious job creation in that budget.
In other words, the Government should bring in a program that will put those two million people who are out of work back into meaningful positions so they can make a contribution to Canadian society and to the Canadian economy. But I hear the Governor of the Bank of Canada telling us to ignore that, just bite the bullet and wait it out. He says there are positive signs and recovery is beginning.
I would ask any Ottawa Member in this House who has been in his riding in the last two or three weeks to identify those sources, the indicators of any serious economic recovery. I suggest that the closest one can get is to identify two or three sectors where there is some slight, moderate or barely perceptible indication that things may be turning around. For every sector where that slight and feeble indication of recovery is taking place, I suspect one can identify a number of sectors where the situation is continuing to deteriorate and others where there is simply a bottoming out. I believe it is improper and unnecessary for anyone to suggest that recovery will take place in Canada by simply standing by with our hands in our pockets and waiting for someone else to solve our problems and create confidence in this country. Quite frankly, when one considers the human tragedy and suffering that is occurring in this country, that approach to solving our economic problems, I suggest, is quite immoral.


Mr. Stevens:: How are you doing in France?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let us consider the fact that the bankers and business leaders in 1931 were saying the same thing as bankers and business leaders are saying today. They said at that time that there were all kinds of indicators which showed that recovery was around the corner. They were asking people to be patient because the stock markets were active. Imagine the President of the United States at that time having an adviser

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
like Governor Bouey. Imagine what the "new deal" in the United States would have been like. I suspect we would still be climbing out of a depression. However, there was an adviser who suggested that the country take action and be bold.
I want to tell the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) that 1 am not suggesting that the Government should be spending money like a drunken sailor. I am suggesting that it is time for the Government to begin acting like any sound businessman who would borrow money to invest in the future of his corporation and country.
This country needs an investment in infrastructure. We need to improve our rails, our port facilities and our municipal works. That is the kind of investment that this country requires.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the debate which commenced this morning on the motion put by the Opposition did dwell for a few moments on the debate which occurred with respect to the Government's request for additional borrowing authority to meet its ongoing support for the economy and those social programs which we all recognize are necessary due to the present state of the economy.
In order to remind Hon. Members, I think it is important to put on the record the amount of debate on the Bill which has occurred thus far. To this point, Members have spoken on this legislation for over 29 hours and there have been six days of parliamentary consideration of this borrowing request by the Government. In six days of debate there have been 14 speakers for the Government, 61 speakers for the Progressive Conservative Party and 21 speakers for the New Democratic Party.
Considering the amount of debate and attention given to the Bill by Parliament, I was somewhat disappointed to see the type of motion that was moved by the Opposition this morning. I was dismayed by the lack of imagination and constructive, biting analysis that one would have expected from the Opposition after 30 hours of debate. What was their proposition? It was that the borrowing authority for the operation of the Government be reduced to $ 1.
It is quite apparent that the Opposition does not intend to debate seriously the plight of Canadians who are looking to the Government either for unemployment assistance or for assistance in maintaining employment. It is quite obvious that the Opposition either has no intention or is unable seriously to debate the Government's request to continue the economic management of this country because of the particular problem within their own Party at this time. It is rather obvious that a significant number of Opposition Members are concerned only with their jobs or their aspirations regarding the job of Leader of the Opposition. It is quite apparent that those who are left in the ranks of the Opposition have but one thought in mind, and that is to attempt to distract the attention of the country, the Government and others who are observing, from the plight of the Conservative Party, with its preoccupation with the job of one Canadian in this country.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It's the Official Opposition.


Paul James Cosgrove: How else can one reconcile the intent of the motion that the Government of Canada be closed down, that the Unemployment Insurance offices in this country be closed, that the Regional Economic Expansion offices be closed, that the total-


Mr. Mayer:: You know better than to make stupid statements like that.


Paul James Cosgrove: -Government support to Canadians now in need be shut down.


Mr. Blais:: Forgive them, for they know not what they do.


Paul James Cosgrove: As the Hon. Member for the NDP has signalled, Canadians in need are looking for Government assistance, for unemployment benefits, for welfare assistance and for job training assistance. Concerning the NEED Program, the Government's initiative of $500 million has been taken up by some Provinces so that that Program is now providing, this day, jobs to Canadians looking for jobs. The Government has committed the expenditure of some $2 billion toward getting the housing industry moving and doing other things. Funds have been committed toward regional and economic expansion. The suggestion of the Opposition is that we close down those operations. Its members say to Canadians looking to those programs for help: "That is too bad, but we are really concerned about our problems, the problem of finding a leader and the more serious problem, no doubt, of finding some type of policy which will address the future".


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You need more than a leader.


Paul James Cosgrove: That is what the Opposition has proposed, as I say, through a motion that we restrict spending to $1 and that we close down assistance which the Government of Canada is offering to Canadians at this time. It is obviously not a serious proposition.
However, then there is the difficulty which the Opposition faces. Are there perhaps a dozen candidates for leadership? There are a dozen suggestions as to how the problem should be approached. I warn that every Member of the Opposition who now stands will have a different theory to contradict the 12 other theories that we have heard from 12 different candidates as to what Canada should be doing now in addressing the future and addressing the recovery which is now under way.


Charles James Mayer: Tell us where you stand.


Jean-Jacques Blais: He's not running for your leadership.


Charles James Mayer: He doesn't stand. He's supposed to be a responsible Member, but he doesn't stand for anything.


Paul James Cosgrove: The Hon. Member who has had responsibility in this House as Finance critic of the Opposition Party, at least for a week or so, has indicated that there are no signals,
March 22, 1983

that the Government has not indicated where these expenditures are directed, notwithstanding our commitment to these social programs. What is the record of the Government in addressing the efficient management of the economy, the efficient management of-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A very poor record.


Paul James Cosgrove: -the funds for which we are requesting borrowing authority? I am very happy that the Hon. Member who had responsibility for the Treasury Board operation of the former Conservative administration is present in the House. He well knows that when the Conservatives took control following the Liberal administration, they carried on with these programs upon which I can just barely touch in the few moments remaining to me, where the Government took initiative, addressing Government efficiency and concern for proper management of the expenditure of funds.
I refer, of course, to the policy and expenditure management system which was put in place in 1979 by the Official Opposition while in Government. This is a program where spending is broken into ten expenditure categories. Cabinet committees take responsibility for expenditure management within this envelope system. Each envelope is provided with a policy reserve and it functions as a bank account with unallocated funds. Priorities must be struck and, for any expenditure from those funds, a careful study must be done and all Ministers affected must express an opinion. This envelope system helps to ensure that Ministers trade off a request for new expenditures with ongoing priorities.
I would like to draw a second matter to the attention of Hon. Members. Of course, I am also glad that the Hon. Member who was the Minister responsible for the Treasury Board while the loyal Opposition was in power is here because he knows that the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates are placed before Government. They have been introduced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) with a detailed, minute breakdown, comprising hundreds and thousands of pages, showing the allocation of the expenditure of funds for which borrowing authority is requested.
Within the Government, the Treasury Board itself, in its ongoing, every day operation, rigorously examines all requests for spending authority by Government Departments and agencies. I remind Hon. Members that the office of the Comptroller General has substantially added to efficiency in Government programming and evaluation. I think of the improvement in the Management Practice and Controls Program, again a Program which was adopted by the Opposition during its brief period of responsibility in Government.
Another example of control of expenditures is that the Auditor General carefully examines the Government's financial statements and reports to Parliament on his findings. The Government and Hon. Members opposite, Parliamentarians,
Borrowing Authority
then have the opportunity to taking the report and the Estimates through detailed study and, in committees of Parliament, have an opportunity to review Government spending.
Continuing on to a new point, I remind Hon. Members that in 1975, as a matter of policy, the Government announced that it would endeavour to hold trend growth in expenditures to no more than trend growth in the economy. All of these-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. 1 regret to inform the Minister that his allotted time has expired.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Consent to continue.


Paul James Cosgrove: I would not add to my comments, except-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Is the Minister seeking unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Paul James Cosgrove: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is agreed.


Paul James Cosgrove: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to sum up, not by introducing anything new, but merely by recounting the fact that the Government has set out in detail the ways in which the borrowing authority and moneys sought will be expended. I have attempted to outline, in point form, the ways in which the Government, throughout the last year, has detailed its plan for efficient management of its expenditures. I believe that in fact Hon. Members are not surprised by any of this material.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Chair would normally be prepared to recognize the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Jean-Jacques Blais: It's hard to miss.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: However, it finds itself in procedural difficulty. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South was the mover of the motion which is presently being debated, and the Hon. Member, at the time he moved the motion, chose not to speak. Therefore, it is presumed, under our rules and practices, that the Hon. Member has spoken, and there are a number of precedents which the Chair would be prepared to quote in support of that argument. However, the difficulty could easily be resolved if the House were to give its unanimous consent to recognize the Hon. Member for Mississauga South at this time.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I gather that there is unanimous consent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, involvement with another matter made it necessary for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), to speak before me.
COMMONS DEBATES	March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
We have witnessed what I consider to be a disgraceful performance on the part of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove). He gave a sad explanation of the Government's fiscal stance. The Minister confused in his remarks borrowing with spending, with unallocated funds, and said that we have hundreds and thousands of pages of Estimates showing where the money is to go.
That is not what we are here to discuss. We are here to discuss the question whether a Government should be entitled to borrow money without presenting a fiscal plan for that borrowing for the fiscal year commencing on April 1 next. We are dealing with an amendment to Part II of this Bill, which deals with borrowing which is to take place in the fiscal year 1983-1984. We in this Party have moved an amendment to reduce that borrowing authority for that fiscal year to one dollar. We made that motion after a great deal of soul searching and thought as to where this Government and the Parliament of Canada should go.
I first of all want to quote to the House what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said on October 27, 1982, as reported on page 20081 of Hansard. On that date the Minister said:
In the budget I intend to present early in 1983, I will review again the fiscal situation for the current fiscal year, set out estimates for 1983-84 and future fiscal years, and then seek additional borrowing authority as required.
The Minister finally, after a great deal of persuasion in Committee, gave us a reasonable explanation of the economic position of the country with respect to the current fiscal year. He has absolutely totally and completely refused to give us any proper projection with respect to where we are going in the year 1983-1984, as he promised to do.
Therefore, it would be totally improper for this House to authorize that Minister to go to the public of Canada and borrow money for some cause for which he has no plan and, for some method of proceeding for which he has no direction from this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, we are not so naive as to believe that the Government can get along without money. We are not so naive as to believe that we are somehow, by halting the Government in its tracks and, by opposing the borrowing under Part II of this Bill, going to stop what is going on in the country and prevent old age pensions being paid, the NEED Program being carried on, and the like. We must take a look at the financial situation of the country as it presently exists. That is what I would have thought the Minister would have dealt with this morning. But the Minister did not do that.
On March 18 the Minister had on deposit with chartered banks in Canada $4,310 million. The Minister has already borrowed illegally, as we all well know, by taking advantage of Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act, $1,100 million from the marketplace. This Bill, as it now proceeds, will give the Minister an additional $3.9 billion in borrowing authority.
If we add what the Government has presently in the bank to the borrowing authority here, the Government will have, should this Bill with the amendment pass, the right to borrow
or have at hand a total of $8,210 million. That is more than enough to carry this Government through, at least until the May 24 holiday. And that is all the freedom this Government should have. This Government has an obligation to present to the people of Canada a budget, and it can do that. The Government promised to do that, and we call upon it to deliver on its promise.


Jean-Jacques Blais: So let us pass the Bill.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We will not pass a Bill that allows the Government to get out of its promises. This Government promised to come before the country early in 1983. We are already into the spring of 1983.


Paul James Cosgrove: It looks like winter to me.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have no indication when it will bring forward a budget. It would be totally wrong for this House of Commons to allow the full borrowing set out in Part II of the Bill to proceed. We have suggested in our amendment that it be reduced to one dollar, that is to say, no borrowing without a budget. The Government does not need any borrowing without a budget. It has enough money to carry on well into May and it has ample opportunity to produce a budget tomorrow, next week or immediately on April 11 when we come back here. It has ample opportunity to produce a budget, ample opportunity to give a proper financial accounting to the people of Canada and ample opportunity to give the people of Canada projections to show where it is taking us. Indications so far this year are that it is taking us down the road to total and complete financial collapse.
In the Estimates produced by the Minister of Finance on November 12, 1981 for this current this fiscal year, the Minister forecast revenues as being in excess of $80 billion. The Minister now forecasts revenues of only $66 billion, a drop in revenues of over 17 per cent, yet we are expected to approve borrowing without a forecast of what the revenues will be and without even a forecast of where the Government is going to constrain expenditures. The Government expects to just produce an estimate of what it would like to spend and tells the House of Commons that it is entitled to borrow it-borrow it or borrow more-and maybe print it. Our party has real concern about the fact that since November of last year the Bank of Canada has monetized to the extent of $1 billion, which is nearly 10 per cent of the cash available in the country.
We must be responsible, as Members of Parliament, to make sure that our country is managed properly. It is totally ridiculous and utterly unfounded to allow the Government to come to the country and say that it is entitled to borrow $14 billion without a budget, without a projection, or without a statement in any form as to where we are going.
We would have opposed Part I of the Bill had the Minister of Finance not made reasonable disclosures to us in Committee. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the debate in this House ran on for many days and was finally terminated by closure. That debate would not have had to be terminated in
March 22, 1983

that way had the Minister of Finance come clean with the people and with us when he made his statement on February 17. Had the Minister of Finance produced on February 17 the kind of figures and analysis that he produced in Committee, the debate with respect to Part 1 of this Bill would not have needed to be nearly as long. It was only because we dragged it out of him at the Committee hearing, which lasted until almost two o'clock in the morning, and then for half a day again; we finally persuaded the Minister to give us the projections of what was going to happen this year. There were no projections for next year, yet he demands $14 billion toward next year without even a whisper of where we are going. It is unconscionable to ask this House of Commons to approve Part II of the Bill.
Therefore I say to you, sir, that it would be totally improper for this House to allow Part II of the Bill to remain as presented. I call on Hon. Members of this House to act as responsible Members of Parliament and to vote for the amendment.


Mr. Pierre Gimaiel (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, this morning we are discussing the Government's borrowing authority. I just heard the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-an excellent Member of Parliament, I may say-make a speech in this House on the Government's finances and the budget. A marvelous speech, I must say, but I think the Hon. Member has, unwittingly, strayed very far from the actual needs of Canadians. Clearly, the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is more interested in the speeches he is making here in the House and in those he could make if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had tabled a budget a few weeks ago. The Hon. Member would have been able to turn on his eloquence for Canadians, and I must admit that he is a past master of the art. However, if we look at what a budget really is for, it is to inform people what the Government is doing with their money. Today, Mr. Speaker, Canadians certainly do know what the Government of Canada is doing with their money. In the Bill before the House today, the Government is asking for authority to borrow $19 billion. This may seem like a lot. It is nearly $1,000 for every person living in Canada. I know that many people are wondering where these deficits are going to lead us, why they exist and whether there is any risk involved. I think that as politicians, we have a duty to speak up, and I think there are several reasons for doing so. First of all, we must help Canadians understand that this country of ours which in my mind is a country that, although it is only a little over 100 years' old, is way ahead of any other country in the world, because of its principle of sharing. In this country, people have never been forced to have only one language, one colour, one race or one philosophy. This is a great country, and its aim has been to give the people who live in it-wherever they may be in this immense territory
Borrowing Authority
which is the second largest in the world-an insurance policy, as it were, giving people the right to life, health, liberty, food, housing, education and all kinds of benefits which make life livable, even in its darkest moments.
Today, the Government of Canada is obliged to borrow more than usual, because all those policies that have been established in the past to assist Canadians who are in need were not meant to be there only when Canadians did not need them. They were meant to be used by Canadians when they needed help. Mr. Speaker, it is all so very simple. After going through the first great depression in the thirties, Canadians said: We will never let people go through that experience again. Never again are people going to be homeless because they are out of work. Never again will they be stripped of their self-respect.
Mr. Speaker, I realize there is a limit to the amount of money one can borrow. When the Government is the borrower, and the Member for Mississauga South is aware of what is involved here, I believe people should be informed about the consequences of Government borrowing. If the Canadian Government were to borrow outside the country the $30 billion it will probably need when the next budget is brought down, I would be worried. I would also be worried if more than fifty per cent of the money in this country were concentrated in the hands of a few individuals or families. But what does the Canadian Government do when it borrows $30 billion? It gets the $30 billion from the Canadian banks and from the Canadian people through Canada Savings Bonds. And what does that mean? That means sharing, Mr. Speaker. I know people who are going to buy Canada Savings Bonds this year. Part of the money they will spend on Savings Bonds will be used to pay for the Canada Savings Bonds they purchased ten or twenty years ago.
That is one way for generations and individuals to share the wealth. The strength of our state, of our country, and especially of each and every Canadian lies in the fact that there is not a single Canadian who, by saying that he will take his money out of the country, can seriously jeopardize our economy because the money in Canada belongs to everybody. The richest Canadian is poor in terms of the total amount of money which belongs to all Canadians. That is what matters, Mr. Speaker, and over the years, Canadians have shown that they were prepared to share with others, and that is why people in my riding can survive. I thank all Members of the House as well as those who were here before me who voted for sound policies, I thank them sincerely. Right now my region is going through difficult times. It has developed since the turn of the century thanks to industry. That industry is now in a slump, the unemployment rate is very high, but the people in my riding know that the Canadian Government now spends over $1 million in weekly unemployment benefits in a small town such as Alma alone, with a population of 30,000 and not even that much. I wonder how we would manage if our pensioners

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
had smaller old age security payments. We often forget that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation is the only agency in my region which makes mortgage loans and, if the Government had not provided that tool for Canadians, how much would people in my region have to pay for the mortgage loans which they now get at ridiculously low rates?
I should mention our young people who are given help through welfare payments, unemployment insurance benefits or job creation programs, and who are still free to plan their future as they see fit. Soon a youth hostel will open in my region thanks to the tens of thousands of dollars spent by the Canadian Government. Why? To give young people an opportunity to become independent, to express their views and to meet one another. That is what the Government wants to achieve through its various policies.
The Canadian Government is handing out huge amounts under the various health programs-$17 billion this year in equalization payments to the provinces-not to mention direct payments to the people through grants to the agricultural and industrial sectors or direct job-creation programs. And why do we do that? Simply to keep the economy going.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the worst enemy of any country is the narrow-mindedness of some people, and, unfortunately, I have come to realize that Members opposite are often narrowminded. How easy it is to say that one is against the metric system or for the 6 and 5 program, but that it should not be implemented, and what not. That is what we are fighting against and what Canada has fought against. Those billions of dollars end up in the pockets of Canadians somewhere. That is where they end up and, in my opinion. Parliament ought to give the Government an opportunity to help Canadians weather the difficult times we are now going through.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have been following with some care but some difficulty the kind of verbal convulsions coming from the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel). But we are used to his kind of verbal convulsions. I recall about 18 months ago he defined for us in the House what constitutes a Liberal. It was quite a definition and he ended up by saying that anyone could be a Liberal even if it takes being a communist. You could be a Liberal and a communist at the same time.


Mr. Fisher:: We are democratic. We do not try to keep people out. We are open-minded.


Benno Friesen: Well, Mr. Speaker, Hansard records what the Hon. Member said at that time. I listened with care to his theory of economics today. I must confess I believe he got his theory from Marx, but it was not Karl Marx, it was Groucho Marx. What he had to say about what constitutes economic theory was nothing short of humorous.
He said, and I believe I quote him accurately: "A budget merely tells the Canadian people what the Government is doing with the money". I suspect that that might be one of the
functions of a budget, but certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot more than that. I hope on reflection the Member will recognize that the budget sends some very definite signals to the business community as to the intention to involve the co-operation of all other aspects of the Canadian economy in the business of the country.
I have with me, Mr. Speaker, the current issue of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce "Bulletin", and it so happens that it contains a quotation from the former President of the Treasury Board, the current Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), the economic czar of Canada. He said:
My concern is the desperate need we face in this country to find more equity, risk money, to finance new ventures, and indeed to reduce the present excessive dependence of business on bank credit. It is new investment in capital equipment and technology that generates productivity gains, brings down our costs, and improves our international competitive position. To the extent that equity replaces borrowed capital, it reduces the upward pressure on our interest rates. A number of proposals to encourage investment have been put forward. The president of the Toronto Stock Exchange proposes tax credits for the purchase of treasury shares in Canadian corporations. Everyone in the business wants something done about the capital gains tax, and I must say I have sympathy for this plea-particularly from the point of view of recognizing and allowing for the inflationary content in long term gains.
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems the business community faces is the confused signals coming from the Government benches. If a trumpet gives an uncertain sound, how can one prepare for battle? On the one hand, you have those so-called rigid economists like the former President of the Treasury Board, who say that Government borrowing hurts the business community. On the other hand, you have all the other Ministers of this Government saying we have to borrow more money, as the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean says, in order to be compassionate. As long as the Government speaks with two voices there will never be a clear, dependable signal to the business community as to how it can arrange its own projections.
The fact is that the former President of the Treasury Board is exactly right. When the Government borrows money the way it is today, $30 billion for one year, most of it from Canadian citizens, the Government enters into direct competition with the business community for that capital. Now, as soon as the Government competes with the business community for money it puts pressure on interest rates. In my community one lending institution sold $1.5 million worth of Savings Bonds because the interest rate the Government offered was so high that it was more attractive than what the business community could offer. In one day it took $1.5 million which could have been lent to the business community. Then you have $30 billion being borrowed by the Government this year alone in order to run its affairs, and that is $30 billion which could have been used by the business community in Canada. In doing so the Government has narrowed the option of the business community so that it cannot function properly. That is the first bad effect of this borrowing.
March 22, 1983

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it appeared to me that borrowing at the level this Government borrows is neither democratic nor compassionate. I know that all of us in this Elouse want to be democratic. We believe in democracy in the election process, but we certainly do not believe it in the borrowing Bills. I see the Hon. Member taking notes here; I expect a response. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have a country in debt to the tune of $120 billion to $130 billion and we can safely assume that not one Member here in this chamber is going to help pay off that debt. Not one of us. Yet we are today discussing increasing the indebtedness by another $19 billion, which not one of us will help to pay.
Now, presumably a democratic principle is that those people affected by a decision should be able to vote on that decision. Yet none of us are going to pay this debt. Probably our children will not pay it. Very likely the first people who will have to pay this debt will be our grandchildren who are not even around today.
The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean says we have a whole new list of rights guaranteed to us. He forgot one. It is a new right which has now been passed on to all succeeding generations in Canada, the right to be in debt for thousands of dollars, immediately on birth, to the Government of Canada. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it democratic to impose on children not yet born something they have no voice in, something about which they cannot choose? I ask Hon. Members, would you in your own household incur the kind of indebtedness that you are forcing on your children and grandchildren? No, you would not. Yet as a Government you seem to think it is moral and upright and democratic to do this. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of indebtedness, which produces nothing and returns nothing, has the aura of democracy but has no democracy at all. It has the shell of compassion but no content. It simply produces anxiety and anguish for future generations.
The third point I want to make is that my friends to the left and their spokesman, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shus-wap (Mr. Riis), want to increase Government indebtedness by another $10 billion. On the one hand, they want to increase the indebtedness by that much; on the other hand, they do not want any more borrowing. On the one hand, they want to be the champions of small-businessmen, their new-found crusade. They want to help the small business community. On the other hand, they want to increase the indebtedness of the Canadian taxpayer by another $10 billion and again put pressure on the small business community by increasing the competition for the money that community needs to increase productivity.
Well, they cannot have it both ways. Either they want to have a Government which is accountable for its spending and limits its expenditures in such a way that it lowers its indebtedness in time and frees up money for the business community, or it carries on in its own merry way, as it has historically. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot be the friends of small business and the friends of higher Government debt at the same time. The two just do not mix. Sooner or later they are going to have to make an ideological choice, and sooner or later the people of Canada are going to-well, they have
Borrowing Authority
already when you look at the last poll-catch on to that little gimmick dreamed up by these people. So we have to see this borrowing Bill for what it really is. It represents competition with the business community in the free marketplace for funds which could be used to increase productivity. It is taking that money to be used by a non-productive entity, namely the Government. It is borrowing which is neither democratic nor compassionate.


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that in this debate on legislation to determine the Federal Government's borrowing authority, a number of points have been made, and I would like to start by commenting on the point argued by my hon. colleague that the Government, in stating its intention to borrow this very substantial amount is going to reduce the private sector's room to manoeuvre to the point that small and medium-sized businesses and large multinational or Canadian corporations will no longer be able to find in this country the risk money they need to carry out their projects. My hon. colleague can rest assured that I am very concerned about the extent of the federal deficit. Like my hon. colleague opposite, I am indeed concerned about the economy's ability to support these projects. In fact, I am preparing a study on the availability of risk capital in this country.
However, in 1983, now that the Government will probably be bringing down its next budget very shortly, perhaps we should go beyond these generalities and provide some figures. I may say that the very grave concern I can read from my hon. friend's face is unfounded, because if we look at the present availability of savings capital in Canada-I think there are probably various approaches to the question-there is no danger that either the Federal Government or the Provinces, who will be borrowing as well, will bring about a crowding out of financing in Canada. The total amount Canadians are expected to save next year will be a little over $60 billion, and that is after consumers have met their own borrowing requirements. This means that once the Federal Government has borrowed $30 billion and the Provinces and municipal governments have borrowed $15 billion, we still have $15 billion left for the private sector, and unless the private sector wants to invest in some megaprojects or other ventures, which does not seem very likely if we look at their present investment plans, there will certainly not be the kind of problem described by my Opposition friend.
However, we should be concerned about this, and I think that when the next budget is brought down, I will comment on this particular point. However, something must be done now. We must have guidelines and we must set up criteria. We must find out how the Government could and should reduce the deficit in a very radical way as soon as the economy recovers, since the deficit, far from being structural, is linked to the economy. If we look at the room for manoeuvre ... I was

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
listening just now to my colleague who seems to be saying: The Government is not taking the situation seriously and it should cut its expenditures. Nevertheless, none of the Opposition Members, and that includes my hon. colleague, were able to suggest a single program where we could make cuts. On the one hand, I entirely disagree with my friends on the opposite side of the House who talk about billions the way other people talk about nickels and dimes, and on the other hand I note that my hon. colleague opposite has failed to identify a single program where the Federal Government could make cuts that would substantially reduce the deficit. Should cuts be made in unemployment insurance benefits? Or should cuts be made-
Take, for instance, transfer payments to individuals or the Provinces, if there is no room to manoeuvre as far as debt payments are concerned: when we wanted to bring equalization payments to the Provinces back to more reasonable proportions, the Opposition Members told us that we were destroying the fabric of Canadian federalism and abdicating our responsibilities. Yet, this cutback was necessary because the idea behind these transfers, whether for health insurance, hospital insurance, post-secondary education or social services, is that the Federal Government will guarantee equivalent services, for ail Canadians, by paying 50 per cent of all costs.
This is the principle of transfer payments to the provinces, but even by simply limiting the rate of growth of transfers- and this does not mean a reduction of the payments in absolute terms-and even though the transfers will increase only by 11 per cent a year over the next five years, in spite of these cutbacks, the Federal Government this year will pay just over 60 per cent of the costs of post-secondary education, a little over 50 per cent of health and 50 per cent of social services costs. Is this normal? For our part, we tried to trim the Federal share to fairer and more equitable proportions which would be more in keeping with the spirit of co-operative federalism. Yet, when we announced the cutbacks, there was a general outcry on the other side of the House.
We cannot cut back on our equalization payments to the provinces, and are told that we cannot reduce unemployment insurance benefits or old age pensions-a fact which we are fully aware of-and have no say in the market-set interest rates, while hoping that the various Governments would never try to distort the rules of the market when borrowing-for all those reasons our freedom of movement is reduced by 70 per cent and we are left with about 30 per cent of federal expenditures directly related to programs under our jurisdiction.
This is the only room we have to manoeuver. This is the situation because, regarding the first three elements which make up 70 per cent of our expenditures, we have had no suggestions as to how we could cut back on our spending. As for the remaining 30 per cent, can anyone tell us which programs are ineffective and in which ones we could make substantial cutbacks? Even if we accept cutbacks due to the economic situation and if as my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) put it, we must show some compassion for hard
pressed Canadians in this difficult period, we must cast aside any partisanship and ask ourselves how we could bring down the present deficits to more acceptable levels as soon as the economy recovers. Indeed at that time even more so than today, the private sector will need some risk capital, and I hope that federal expenditures will be directed at sectors about which my colleague mentioned non-productive borrowings earlier. One important issue in Canada at that time will be to turn around the present trend concerning productivity to ensure that we can maintain our position as an exporting country because with our small market of only 24 million people, we have to be able to compete with other countries. That is the challenge that we must face. I think that, together, the 282 Members of this House should look ahead to the next two, three and four years to reverse the situation properly and leaving behind the present crisis find means to make sure this will never occur again.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it was a great pleasure to listen to the Hon. Member for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle). He asks what we would do differently to present programs. On other occasions I have pointed out to Hon. Members opposite that the indirect subsidy to Petro-Canada is $1 billion per year, direct grants and add-ons amount to $400 million, and the PIP and LEAP Programs bring it even higher. You can get up to $2 billion without even trying, with those kinds of expenditures.
We on this side of the House have asked why the Government is so determined to increase the size of the House of Commons by some 30-odd Members at a cost of millions of dollars. Also we on this side of the House have asked whether it is really worth while to have a man like Donald Macdonald working on the public payroll at $800 per day when we will not even provide pensioners with $800 per month. We on this side of the House have asked whether it is really necessary for the Government of Canada to spend in excess of $100 million per year on Government advertising to promote, by and large, the Liberal Party of Canada.
If the Hon. Member opposite is really sincerely interested in the issue of public policy spending choice, I suggest he read the speeches which have been made in the House in the last two and a half to three years. I ask him and Members of his Party why they stood in the House in December, 1979 and turfed out a Government which was creating jobs at the rate of 30,000 per month in the private sector, which was reducing the borrowing requirements of Government by 30 per cent in the first year, which would have taken the pressure off capital markets, which would have kept the pressure off interest rates, which would have kept inflation down and would have kept Canadians employed.
March 22, 1983

When we stop and examine history, it is clear that it is the history of Government by the Liberal Party of Canada which has taken us to the situation of today. When the Hon. Member says that the problem is not structural, he is wrong. It is structural. It has been built in by the Liberal Party of Canada.
The election of 1972 was the beginning of that structural problem. In relative terms those were good times in Canada. The electorate of Canada sent a minority Government to the House, and it was a Liberal minority Government. The Liberals jumped in to bed with NDP Members. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed as Finance Minister a man named John Turner. In those very good times the Liberal Party of Canada, along with the New Democratic Party of Canada, decided to start borrowing money, decided to start bribing the voters of Canada with borrowed dollars. That is when it began. There were huge expansions of programs and budgetary increases under John Turner of 30 per cent a year for the two years he was Finance Minister. Those budgets were supported by the NDP and the Liberal Party. We did not need to expand Government services in that period of time for any sane, common-sense purpose, but they were expanded for political purposes, for political gain and for the purpose of bribing Canadian voters.
What the Liberal Party and the NDP said to Canadian voters in that period of our history was: "We will give you more services, we will give you more goodies, and we will not raise your taxes". This seems like magic until we look behind it and see that they were giving away those things with borrowed dollars. Canadians can fool themselves for some limited period of time that life is better. They can go down to the bank and, if they have any assets, they can borrow money and spend it. They can eat supper out every night, take marvellous vacations and spend beyond what they earn. But some day the bailiff will show up at the door, their possessions will be repossessed, they will be declared bankrupt and they will be in an awful mess if they do that for any length of time.
That is the history of what brings us to the House at this time. It was the minority period of 1972-73 when the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party acted together and borrowed money. We did not need to expand programs we did not need, and this has caused the structural problem of today. We lived through the five-year period from 1974 to 1979 when the Liberals were the majority, and they continued to expand programs but not expand taxes. They continued to expand the deficit in good times.
Here we are today in bad times when we really need those dollars to provide assistance to people in trouble. Instead, where is the money going? An absolutely huge portion of it is going to pay the interest on the public debt. It is not available for UIC claimants, small businesses or farmers. It is going to pay the interest on the money which the Liberal Government borrowed when we did not need to borrow. That is the reason for the difficulty we are in today.
To compound that error, we had a short-lived Government, the government of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). What was its record? On the job-creation side,
Borrowing Authority
not only did it create over 30,000 jobs per month on average in its nine-month period of time, but it put Canadians to work and turned them into taxpayers. Those jobs were not created in the public tax-spending sector of the economy. For the first time in a decade jobs were being created in the goods-produc-ing sector of the economy. If we chart labour market statistics in the country, it was the only time in a decade when jobs in the productive sector of the economy were growing faster than jobs in the service sector, and it was the only time when jobs in the public sector were declining slightly. Right there is the prescription for economic health in Canada.
What did the Conservative Government find when it laid out a budgetary plan, not for a single year but for five years ahead to get us out of the borrowing cycle and to economic health and continued job creation? We found that the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party together had four more Members in the House of Commons than the Conservative Party of Canada. They stood in the Chamber on the first confidence day on that budget and turned the Government out of office. Then they ran election campaigns claiming that 18 cents per gallon of gasoline was too much, and we stand here three years later knowing that prices have increased well over $1.
This reminds us of the 1974 campaign promise that 90 days of wage and income controls were too much, and Canadians got three years. Three years when 90 days was too much; over $1 when 18 cents was too much. Those kinds of election promises are very consistent with the kind of moral attitude that would borrow money in good times, with a minority Government from 1972 to 1974, in an attempt to bribe voters with their own money. I guess it is a sad commentary on the Canadian people that it has succeeded and that perhaps its success has led us to a kind of moral turpitude which is problematic for all of us in the House.
If we were the Government tomorrow, could we stop the borrowing requirement of the Government? The answer is no. It is in there structurally and it is a long, slow, difficult process to turn it around. But if we were to demonstrate a little common sense and a great deal of determination to turn it around and to move the country back toward a balanced budget, then out there in the land people who are aggressive would take some hope, and with that hope would stick out their personal necks a little further and start to create jobs and employ Canadians. If that psychological turn-around were to occur, we would be creating more taxpayers and fewer taxs-penders. If we were to create more taxpayers and fewer taxspenders, we would be well launched on a path toward deficit reduction.
If I were standing in the House today with a full budget that laid out the spending plans of Government, and if the cornerstone of that budget was to borrow money to create infrastructure or permanent, lasting things in the country, then I would be able to look at the deficit in a somewhat different light. Instead, I cannot think of a single example where this Government has tried to cut down on waste, but instead is forcing us

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
to vote for increased borrowing, in the face of this lack of determination to cut out waste I urge every Member of this House to stand when the moment comes and deny the Government the borrowing opportunity it seeks.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, in this Bill we are addressing one aspect of an economic package. Let us be clear; the economy in Canada is not where we want to see it today. We have not yet had that resurgence of consumer confidence which so many have told us is the key to economic recovery.
Let me point out that this borrowing authority is necessary in these weak economic times because it is critical that there be stimulus from the public sector. I have not heard any concrete alternatives proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition has talked about cutting back on Government waste. We are all in favour of that.


Mr. Huntington:: Why don't you do something about it, then?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: 1 would like to see the Opposition come to us with its list. There are like-minded people on all sides of this House who are prepared to get away from useless expenditures and see that money is directed toward job creation. But with what specifics has the Opposition come forward? There has been absolutely none, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Thacker:: Name yours.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Until the Opposition is prepared to come forth with concrete alternatives, I do not feel its Members have the credibility to stand up and say: "There is waste, and therefore we will not vote for this Bill". Let the Opposition come forth with concrete alternatives.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We have.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: l have some ideas I would like to try on Members in this House. First, consumer confidence is critical.


Mr. Shields:: There is none.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: I think there are signs of a turn-around. We cannot guarantee that this economy will turn around. Many people think that the secret of our economic recovery is based on what will happen in the United States. Yes, a turn-around there will be helpful. Does that mean that we as Canadians should not attempt to be better in our own country? Does this mean that we should not attempt to be more competitive and that we should not endeavour, each one of us, to bring to our jobs and daily tasks a new-found attitude of commitment and desire to be better? We can do that. That is something the Government cannot legislate. It is something that we have to do as Canadians.
I believe we could be doing something to help restore consumer confidence. We have many excellent manufacturers in this country, people who make good products, products
which when given the right boost by our consumer markets could take off and become world leaders. The Science Council of Canada identified 200 threshold firms who were on the verge of take-off and have developed a competitive edge and demonstrated excellence in their production. We could be giving these firms an added lift if all Canadians as individuals were to engage in a "Buy or shop Canadian" program. Canadians could say to themselves: "In the past we have been looking to foreign producers to give us the goods we want to buy; could we not find those same goods in Canada?"
Let me refer to farm products. Our farms are highly mechanized and competitive. Some of the most competitive and productive industries in Canada are our primary industries, bar none in the world. Canadians should be looking to Canadian produce. Why do we always have to have fresh foods imported at high cost during the winter months from foreign countries? Why should we not support our own primary manufacturers to a far greater extent?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Why should we as consumers not say: "Yes, we have preserved that old car and the old car has seen better days but let us take a look now at cars produced in Canada by Canadian workers". Many automobile producers in Canada have demonstrated that they can downsize models, be competitive and produce cars which consume less fuel and others that run on natural gas and propane. Why cannot Canadian consumers say: "We are going to take a fresh look at what the North American producers have been doing and what our workers have been building in our own plants in Canada"? These decisions consumers can make and they are important.
One of my colleagues talked about the lack of incentive for infrastructure production. Where was he when we were talking about the NEED Program that we have brought in, encouraging municipalities to come forth with infrastructure projects which will contribute to the long-run productivity of Canada? More important, it will be producing more jobs in the short run for the people who need them most. Here is a directed program. Has the Opposition come up with a better program for creating jobs? It is not perfect, of course, but have we heard better alternatives from the other side?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are the Government.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Until the Opposition comes up with a better program, let the Opposition look to the infrastructure projects that we are prepared to create with our NEED Program.
I believe there are other areas where we could take advantage of our great strengths. Our service sector in Canada is without parallel in the world. Our financial institutions, our lawyers, our insurance companies and our accountants have a collective reputation unmatched by any other country in the world.


Blaine Allen Thacker: That does not hold for the Government.
March 22, 1983


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We need all those people just to interpret the Income Tax Act.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Are we doing everything possible? I hear a lot of babbling from the other side, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that Members over there feel that maybe they have not come forth with the concrete alternative which they know they owe to their constituents.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You are the Government.


Jack Wendele Shields: Get rid of the National Energy Program.


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


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Let me talk about the service sector and how we can be more productive. I believe Canada's reputation in the service sector-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Is disgusting.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The Hon. Member opposite says that the reputation of our service sector is disgusting. That is an insult.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Our Armed Services are in terrible shape.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: That is an insult to our service industry. He has not worked in that sector. Could we not take these service sectors and parlay their reputation into making Canada a headquarters for the multinational corporations-


An Hon. Member:: The only service you create is bigger government.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -whereby they could bring in more foreign capital, service it here, add value and then serve as a base for funnelling it around the world. This would require some amendments to our tax system. We would have to look at our tax treaties and the way we should tax foreign income coming into Canada to be the conduit tax principle, and that flows out again. This is a way in which we could utilize to even greater advantage the skills and abilities of Canadian firms and institutions.
This does not mean I have total confidence in everything that all of these sectors are doing during these tough times.


Jack Wendele Shields: What about the Government?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We all have an obligation to ensure that Canadians who are working and striving to keep their businesses, their farms and their homes are given every benefit of the doubt during these tough times, so that when we emerge from this recession we will be able to meet the demands of the new technologies that will be necessary for Canadians to compete in the decades ahead.
None of us like this period. We are not proud of it but we are fighting to cope with it. When we emerge from this period we want these sectors, our home owners, our business people and our farmers, to have their capital intact so they can perform the functions required of them in this country. It is not this borrowing authority, it is the lack of any concrete alternatives put forward by the Opposition that I stand and condemn today.
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson). He talked about the need for stronger Canadian input into the automobile industry and about control of or more direction in foreign ownership in this country. As I listened, I asked myself what he is doing on that side of the House. Has he forgotten that there has been a Liberal Government in Canada for the last 20 years? Has he forgotten that for most of the last half century it has been the Liberal Party which has been running the country, and running it into the ground? Our automobile industry, our forest industry and our oil and gas industry have been ruined. They have been ruined by a Liberal Government that has not taken control of the economy or provided the very leadership that that Liberal Member talked about.


Jack Wendele Shields: Supported by the NDP.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I would say to my strange friends to the right that I listened to their last speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). Like so many Tories have done in the House, he whined and cried about the fact that in December of 1979 the Liberals and the NDP brought down the Government. The Social Credit Party, who were their allies in the House, would not vote with them. They forget that two months later the people of Canada voted against the Conservative Government which was under the leadership of the Prime Minister of the day. It is interesting to note that the Conservative Party is now throwing out the same leader that we and the people of Canada disposed of. I tell them not to blame us. They are finally realizing the situation and taking the same action themselves.
Our Party supports the amendment which would limit the Government's borrowing authority. I support the amendment for all the reasons that were given by our finance critic, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I believe it would be criminal to give the Government $14 billion in addition to the $5 billion that it has already spent and is asking for in this legislation without first receiving any economic rationale or indication of how that money will be spent. Members of Parliament should not allow the Government to have that money without knowing whether it will be spent on jobs, pensioners, small business development or whether it will be used to hire more Government appointees, provide grants to the Liberals' friends, or for more advertising to promote the Government Party rather than Government programs. That $14 billion should not be granted unless we know how it will be spent.
The Government's lack of economic planning is evident from its NEED Program. The Government announced that Program in its budget of last October. We have heard that Program defended by many Members on the Government side over the last six months. But let us see what has happened with that Program. In its October budget, the Government talked

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
about creating 50,000 jobs for Canadians. It spent four months promoting and advertising the Program while the Minister of Employment and Immigration travelled across the country bragging about it, but it was four months before any information was given to those groups who are eligible to apply under the Program. It was four months before the Government completed the brochures that it would send to those eligible groups such as native communities, unions and small businesses. The Government spent much time advertising and promoting its Program but did little to take concrete action to provide jobs. As a result, almost six months after the Program was announced, only 4,000 or 5,000 jobs have been created. Canadians have spent a dismal winter of unemployment, and Unemployment Insurance benefits have been lost at a rate of up to 70,000 a month. However, in that same period the Government has created 4,000 or 5,000 jobs through that widely promoted Program.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that the Government does have a role to play in the economy. We believe that there must be job-creation programs implemented and that many Government workers are honestly trying to do a good job, despite what some Conservatives say. However, they are not being provided with the necessary leadership to make these programs work. The groundwork and preparation for the NEED Program should have been completed when it was announced in October. The Government should have been ready to proceed and create jobs for the winter we have just gone through. Once again, those jobs were not available because the Government failed to do the work that was initially required.
For that reason, the NDP cannot support this borrowing Bill. We cannot sanction giving a blank cheque to a Government which did not provide the proper leadership for the expenditure of the money it had last winter.
We have no knowledge of where this money will be spent. Will it be used to help the pensioners? We have already seen White Papers and Green Papers and pronouncements by Ministers on the needs of pensioners, but there has been no pension reform. Will the money be spent on medical services? We have heard announcements from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) about the need for a better health Act in the country. We have heard much about what she would do about extra billing and about doctors who opt out of medicare plans. Will the $14 billion be used to improve medical services? Will the Government use this, rather, to send out its message through news releases and other means about what it might do five years or six years down the road? If that is what it intends to do, then the money would be wasted. While the money is needed for pensions, medical services and jobs, we have absolutely no knowledge of where the Government's priorities lie.
Another indication of the Government's lack of planning is that this Bill has been brought before the House before we have seen the budget. Members should be aware of the Government's plans before giving it borrowing authority. We
should not give the Government a blank cheque without knowing what it will do with the money.
We in the New Democratic Party want action and leadership for Canadians and direction for the Canadian economy. We want to help the unemployed in Schefferville, those people who have been laid off by a heartless company which had a heartless president. We want jobs for the people who have been laid off in Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Port Alberni, Leaf Rapids, Kamloops, Sydney, Windsor, Hamilton and Gimli. We want security for those in Winnipeg, Regina, and Toronto who fear losing their jobs. We want the Government to respond to the need for jobs and help those who want to keep their jobs. That help is not coming from the Government.
Action must be taken to help the farmers, such as the De Mings family in Manitoba whose farm is being foreclosed by the Royal Bank. That is a bank that has not paid one cent in federal income tax in the last year and has a $20 million tax credit which it can use to defer or prevent it from paying taxes in the coming year. Farmers are losing their farms to banks which are making record profits. At the same time, small businessmen are losing their businesses.
In closing-because I realize my allotted time has almost expired-what we are saying is that there are a number of Canadians who are facing a very difficult financial situation. They are losing their jobs, their customers, their farms, their offices and their businesses. We have sympathy for those Canadians, but we want more than sympathy, we want leadership from the Government. We do not want to give the Government money without any leadership. If it provides the leadership, then we will help to provide the dollars; but until then, we say "No, no, no" to more Government spending without a purpose.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: Shame, shame, shame.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-143, through which, as Your Honour knows, the Government is requesting $5 billion to take it to end of this month, and then $14 billion as an interim advance on next year's deficit. Your Honour will know that this Party is opposing this Bill and that we have proposed an amendment to reduce the $14 billion to $1. The $5 billion plus the carry-over will take the Government well into May, even into early June, and at that time it can come back to the House and quite properly request funds with documentation as to how that money will be spent.
Before the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) leaves, I want to address the point which he raised. He asked why Canadians cannot buy Canadian cars. The reason Canadians cannot buy Canadian cars is that the Liberal Government made a decision back in the early seventies that we would not go to the world price in energy. By that one decision made in
March 22, 1983

the early seventies to hold down and subsidize the price of oil in Canada, the Government is now taking away jobs from the automobile workers in Oshawa and southern Ontario.


Paul James Cosgrove: Do you want to charge them more for fuel?


Blaine Allen Thacker: The reason is that that Government decision sent a message, sent signals to us as ordinary Canadians, to buy big cars and to the manufacturers to continue to produce those big cars. That is what the marketplace does.


Jean-Jacques Blais: What about the Americans? Tell us about the Americans.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The United States made exactly the same mistake. Meanwhile, Japan, Germany and the other-


Jean-Jacques Blais: The Americans went to world prices.


Blaine Allen Thacker: -countries that had to go to world price immediately turned their engineers and technicians toward building cheaper, more efficient cars, so that eight years later they were just whipping us in the marketplace because their cars were more fuel efficient.
If the Government gives a subsidy of 15 per cent, I can absolutely guarantee that that subsidy of 15 per cent will become an inefficiency of 15 per cent. Therefore, as those automobile workers line up in the unemployment lines and as they turn to welfare, as they must in some cases, they should know that that is the direct result of the Liberal Government's decision in the early seventies that we were not to be blackmailed by some Arabs. It was felt that that was an artificial market and that we were not to be subjected to that. However, there is an international marketplace, and now Canadians are paying to realize that lesson.
Your Honour remembers that Bill C-143 was closed out on second reading. Marathon sessions were held during the committee stage which finally ended, I believe, at two o'clock one morning. Now we are at the report stage and we have proposed the amendment to reduce the $14 billion to $1.
What is the purpose of Parliament? What was the historical reason for the development of Parliament? The reason is that there were monarchs. Power and decision-making was basically concentrated in a group comprised of the king and a small number of advisers. The people who were not within that small group, which received all of the benefits, were suffering. Therefore, gradually, over many hundreds of years, they rose up and called for representation. In fact, people fought and died for the power to be able to say to the monarchs, "No, you cannot place that tax on us". That is how Parliament came about. The primary purpose was to control the purse strings.
Nothing is different today. The primary purpose for our being here, each and every one of us, including those on the Government side, is to be able to go back to our constituents and account for every penny for which the Government is asking. Today the Government is asking for $14 billion, and neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor 1 can go back to our constituents and say: "The Government wants the $14 billion because of this, this and this". The Government will not tell us, and that
Borrowing Authority
is what is wrong with it. That is why each of us must stand up as individuals and say: "No way, Cabinet; we will not give you a cent until you tell us how you propose to spend it". That is our duty.
Liberal Members opposite will stand to defeat our amendment which is in line with that long, historical development. In the past, those who spoke for the people had their heads chopped off. In representing the people and Parliament, they went to the Crown and said: "No, you cannot have what you ask for", and so the monarch chopped off their heads. It is our duty to speak out today. I can assure the House that we will honour our duty to the people of Canada. However, one can be sure that Liberal backbenchers have given up their independence in order to keep a Cabinet in power which should have long since gone down the trail.


Paul James Cosgrove: I think the Hon. Member has lost his head.


Blaine Allen Thacker: The nation is in deep trouble, but it was not always that way. Nor does it have to be in the future, because we have great resources. If we can elect for ourselves a Government which will free up people to get out and build, we can take off.
We must remember that in the late sixties, before the present Government came to power, there were balanced budgets. The national debt was just a drop in the bucket, yet at that time we had a sound post-secondary education system, hospital insurance, medicare, Old Age Security and Family Allowances. In short, we were a sound country. We were highly respected in the world and we were charging up the mountain with a great future ahead of us. Each of us, as young people graduating in those days, had half a dozen to a dozen jobs to choose from. It was a great place to be.
Now, some 15 years later, under the Liberal Party and Government, where are we? The yearly deficit is now over $30 billion. The accumulated national debt, if one adds in the Crown corporation debts, is over $2 billion. Almost one in every three tax dollars goes toward servicing the debt, which then concentrates wealth into the hands of people who already have money and lend it to their Government. Our postsecondary educational system, our hospital insurance, our medicare, all of those social infrastructures, are in deep trouble. Our senior citizens are having to pay for the mistakes.
The Government failed to realize those ancient lessons of history. We are not the first nation in the world to have gone through this situation. Many nations before have gone through it and have left their writings, going right back to the Bible, setting out the reasons why there should not be high interest rates. It is no accident that usury is a prohibition in the Bible. It is because people actually lived under it and experienced it. It was very horrific to them. Their Bible, written at the time through divine revelation, addressed the problem, stating that high interest rates were usurious. We know that high interest rates simply come from deficits. Government deficits lead to inflation, which leads to high interest rates, which lead to collapse.

March 22, 1983
We are at the point of collapse because those idiots opposite fail to comprehend the lessons of history. They thought they could do as a Government what we all know within our own hearts we cannot do. They put a penalty on our children and on our grandchildren for which they will pay. There are seven million young Canadians between the ages of 18 and 33 who clearly see the penalty which has been put on their shoulders because of sheer stupidity and the grab for power-there is no more polite way of saying it. Like the monarchs of old, the Government is trying to concentrate decision-making. We, the people, will not put with it. The Government is going down the tube the minute there is an election.
I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I should inform the Hon. Member that his allotted time has expired.
It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of laying on the Table of the House the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the calendar year 1982, and I may remind Hon. Members that pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(4), this report shall be deemed to have been permanently referred to the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, it has been estimated by Government officials that it now costs between $9,000 and $10,000 to remove urea formaldehyde foam insulation from a home, while the maximum grant allowed by the Government for this purpose is $5,000.
As of March 1, out of a total of 30,500 applications on file, only 3,200 grants had been processed and returned to the home owners, with another 1,000 in the processing stage. This is very slow progress indeed and should be rectified as soon as possible.
This may be an important factor in why an additional 30,000 such eligible home owners have not registered for the grant. It could be, as well, that they are not aware or have not been made fully aware of the potential health hazard of urea formaldehyde foam, and therefore their concerns have been minimal.
Taking all this into consideration, I would like to recommend to the Government that it extend the final date of registration past the deadline of June 30, 1983, to give more opportunity to those eligible home owners to register for the grant. This extension was recommended by the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee.
Hopefully the Government will reverse its decision and take the advice of the Committee and, as well, give active consideration to increasing the grant so that it covers the full cost of the removal of the offensive insulation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, President Reagan has recently stated that he might increase the number of American military advisers in El Salvador, as well as increase U.S. military assistance to that unfortunate country.
This comes at a time when flagrant human rights violations continue to take place, as exemplified in the recent killing of Marianella Garcia Villas, President of the El Salvador Human Rights Commission and a Vice-President of the International Federation of the Rights of Man, and after continuous denunciations by Pope John Paul II of foreign backing for the war in El Salvador.
In my view, the situation in El Salvador is indeed very critical and, if negotiations with all sides to this conflict are not initiated very soon, then the danger of increased escalation from outside forces, including those of the United States, will continue.
I, therefore, would like, on the eve of the visit of Vice President Bush, to call on the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Canadian Ambassador to the United States to make genuine and forceful representations to the present administration in the United States to increase their efforts in the search for a negotiated, rather than a military settlement in El Salvador.
March 22, 1983



EDUCATION


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party proclaims its commitment to our post-secondary education system. This commitment, however, is not reflected in reality.
Statistics show that education was the single largest item in Government expenditures during 1970-1971 at 22.1 per cent. By 1979-1980 it was 17 per cent, and it has dropped even more today.
The Liberal decision to impose a six and five curb on postsecondary education translates into a further cutback of the money allocated to universities, $100 million in 1983-1984 and $250 million in 1984-1985. Indeed, last year the Government cut some $300 million by way of the revenue guarantee.
Canada needs more research development and highly qualified manpower to boost the economy's recovery. The Liberal decision to pass the brunt of budget cuts onto the postsecondary institutions renders its commitment meaningless and hypocritical.
For the past 15 years Canadians have been suffering the Liberal experiment with the economy. When it comes to attacks on education, the core of our very nation, it is important that we all say, "No."



THE ECONOMY


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Madam Speaker, two divergent approaches have been taken to curing the economic problems of the industrialized nations. At one extreme is Reaganomics. It finds many supporters in the Official Opposition.


An Hon. Member:: And in the Liberals.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: But Americans have taught Canadians that monetarism and supply side economics are not the answer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why are the Americans doing so well, then?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: At the other extreme is the French theory that Governments can spend a country out of recession. The NDP is a convert to this approach. The result is increased inflation and interest rates in France and an 8 per cent devaluation yesterday. This is a time for sanity.


Mr. Nielsen:: Right.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Our approach has been a dramatic decline in both inflation and the interest rates.


An Hon. Member:: And the dollar.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We know there is no quick fix. We can only earn our way to a more prosperous future. But can we do better? Yes.


Erik Nielsen: Not you fellows-over here.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: And herein lies our hope.
To start with, each of us, as consumers, can shop Canadian. Why buy foreign food when our farm produce is the cheapest in the world? Why buy foreign cars when we make quality vehicles in Canada? Why should we not buy Canadian shoes and clothes?


Erik Nielsen: And steel pipes.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Made in Canada is a proud label. As consumers, each of us can help create new jobs in Canada; each of us can contribute to our economic recovery. We can help ourselves by helping our fellow Canadians.


Mr. Epp:: We want Peterson in the cabinet.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, as of this past week the heaviest fighting has taken place in Nicaragua since the overthrow of Somoza in 1979. The troops who are bringing the fighting into Nicaragua from Honduras are ex-Somozista guards. Newsweek and The New York Times have documented the fact that they are being supported by the CIA with finances, weapons, and advisers.
Today, Madam Speaker, I propose to the Government of Canada that Canada must seriously consider whether it should withold Government to Government bilateral aid to Honduras as long as Honduras permits these forces to use Honduras as their base against Nicaragua.
Secondly, I would ask the Government of Canada to put some muscle into the co-operation that it has promised to Mexico and Venezuela to bring about a ceasefire on that border.
Thirdly, I propose that the Government of Canada strongly protest to Vice President Bush tomorrow when he visits Canada about the U.S. involvement on that frontier.
Finally, I ask that the Government of Honduras sign the United Nations Agreement on Refugees. At the present time Honduras has not signed this agreement, which makes it very difficult for the U.N. to get inside that country where there are literally hundreds of thousands of refugees from several conflicts in the area.
In the light of that, and realizing that Honduras is the poorest country in Central America, I would hope that some of these recommendations that I have just made will be put into effect to promote peace in that country.

March 22, 1983



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, yesterday it was reported that President Reagan had appointed as head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the man who had been its original administrator at its founding 12 years ago, Mr. William Ruckelshaus. I am sure that all of us who have a deep and critical interest in environmental matters welcome this appointment.
As you know from my many interventions in the House, Madam Speaker, environmental concerns, particularly the question of acid rain, are of pressing importance in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. For this reason I have repeatedly urged the reconstitution of our own Subcommittee on Acid Rain, a step which this House saw fit to take last week. So now we have, on both sides of the border, a strengthening of the forces pressing for a resolution of these problems. I and my constituents take great satisfaction in this, Madam Speaker.
I want to commend the Minister responsible for his past efforts, and I want to call upon him to take advantage of these factors which have so quickly changed what had seemed to be a situation of deadlock. It is my hope that he will be meeting with the new head of the EPA in person in the very near future so that progress may be made toward what is, I am sure, our common goal of cleaner air and water all across our common continent of North America.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.



WELFARE


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Just recently, Madam Speaker, I received a letter from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). In his letter, which was in reply to one I had sent him, the Minister outlined his policy regarding welfare payments to native people under the Canada Assistance Plan. This plan is cost-shared by the provincial and federal Governments with announcements on increases made by provincial officials.
By law, federal Government adjustments to native people receiving welfare must be made within two months of provincial adjustments. At the beginning of this year, welfare recipients in Manitoba received increases ranging from 7 per cent to 29 per cent based on the size of the family and the ages of children in that family. These increases became effective January 1 for everyone, except native people, who did not receive increases until March 1.
In reply to my question the Minister said that these increases will not be provided retroactively to cover the twomonth period because of "the extensive work entailed in affecting rate changes". What this means in human terms is that native people, whose cheques are administered by the Winnipeg DIAND office, are being denied money paid to every other welfare recipient in the Province. I was extremely disappointed to learn the Minister's position on retroactivity.
We have heard a lot in recent weeks about the Government's desire to bargain in good faith with native people on constitutional matters. Those are important matters, Madam Speaker, but I would like to know when the Government and this particular Minister intend to act in good faith on bread and butter issues such as this one.



AGRICULTURE


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, Canadian agriculture is facing its most severe crisis in the history of Canada. Thousands of farmers have suffered forced sales and bankruptcies due to the crushing squeeze of soaring fuel costs, feed costs, and interest rates, against reduced prices for their goods. There is real concern about the continuing viability of the industry as a whole.
My Party has urged the Government to provide relief for our farmers by way of improving capital gains tax legislation, interest rate subsidies, agribonds, exemption from the excise tax on farm fuels, and a moratorium on foreclosures. Every suggestion falls on deaf ears. This Government has offered absolutely no relief for farmers and no hope for the agricultural industry.
My colleagues, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydmin-ster (Mr. McKnight), the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), and the Hon. Member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga), have repeatedly requested action from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
Dairy farmers in northern Alberta have lost their market share quota, in many cases through no fault of their own, and are being heavily penalized to the extent of $28 per hectolitre for any production outside the market share quota. This is affecting almost 40 per cent of the producers in Northern Alberta. The Minister was asked to try to alleviate this problem by making recommendations to his Department. The Minister again abdicated his responsibilities to Canadian farmers and chose to ignore the problems of the very people he is supposed to represent in Cabinet.
It has become obvious that the Minister should resign and should be replaced by someone who is genuinely-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.
March 22, 1983



SIGNING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN QUEBEC AND U.S. NORTHEASTERN STATES

Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, last night, on the CBC news, I heard that the Premier of Quebec attended the signing of an agreement yesterday in the United States-in the northeastern states to be exact-for the sale of electric power by the Government of Quebec to our American neighbours, for the sum of $5 billion.
I am of course pleased that our power surpluses are being used, but what really worries me is that this is a long-term twenty-year agreement for the sale of a steady supply, not surplus power, to our neighbours to the South who will probably use it to expand industry in the states concerned.
I am very worried, Madam Speaker, especially since today Quebecers are paying exorbitant prices for their very own electric power. The Canadian Government has made a number of attempts, through legislation, to bring industry to Quebec and to the rest of Canada. In return, instead of taking advantage of the industrial potential of its electric power supply to attract the same companies, the Quebec Government is talking about a long-term contract for power sales over a period of twenty years, at a price guaranteed to be 80 per cent of the cost of producing the same power, using other sources of energy, in the United States.
I am concerned about my constituents, because I think we need the power, and furthermore, I fail to understand why the Leader of that Government who himself accused Maurice Duplessis of giving away our iron ore to the Americans, why he is now giving away our electric power, our only made-in-Quebec source of energy.
I therefore ask the Canadian Government to be-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Today the Conference Board of Canada reports that, while recovery is under way, it will be so modest that unemployment will rise even higher. One of the reasons for this is that Canadians are running scared that the tentative recovery which may be under way may be sabotaged by excessive stimulation which might reflate the economy and start interest rates rising again. People are afraid to call back workers, and they are afraid to hire new ones.
Oral Questions
Informetrica has identified 73 projects due to start this year which are worth about $7 billion and could create at least 140,000 jobs. Will the Minister sit down with his officials and identify what action the Government can take to get these projects off the drawing board?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, this is what I have been doing in preparation for the budget. We are examining what steps will be appropriate to ensure that the recovery which is taking place will be even stronger than what is anticipated. What those steps will be, will be announced in the budget.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of Finance. My point is that some of these projects do not require a dime, or else very little money from the federal Treasury. They do not involve massive expenditures and stimulation in borrowing. Some of them involve the settlement of jurisdictional disputes. Others involve the removal of obstacles in the regulatory procedure, and they include such items as the natural gas pipeline in British Columbia, petrochemical and methanol plants in the Prairies, a water line in Saskatchewan, and the Hibernia-related projects in Newfoundland. Why does the Minister not identify the government actions which could take place and which could get the private sector started on these measures now with limited cost to the Treasury?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, there is nothing to prevent the Hibernia project from proceeding if the promoters are convinced that they are ready to proceed. They would only need to put an application before the National Energy Board and follow the normal procedures which are required. As far as the natural gas pipeline in British Columbia is concerned, again this is a decision which has to be taken by the Government of British Columbia, to begin with. As the Hon. Member knows, the Government of British Columbia has not yet decided what is the preferred option and is examining the matter at the present time.
I am happy that the Hon. Member recognizes that many of those projects do not necessarily require government funding. It is a matter for the sponsors to proceed with the necessary authorizations which are required, in some instances from the provincial Governments and in some other instances from the appropriate federal regulatory authorities. At the present time, as she knows, for instance, with regard to Hibernia, it is not the regulatory process which is delaying those projects at all.


GOVERNMENT BORROWING LEGISLATION
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It would be an absolute tragedy to lose the ground

March 22, 1983
Oral Questions
which we have already gained, at such a terrible cost to Canadians in terms of lost jobs and lost incomes, by reflating the economy. One of the reasons those projects are not going ahead is because of fears that the Government will take action to start interest rates rising again. If the Minister is so unconcerned about this matter, could he tell us why he has before this House a Bill to borrow $19 billion, on which he has told us his Finance Department officials have done absolutely no impact studies? Why is he attempting to borrow $19 billion without any study on the impact of that borrowing on interest rates in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, first of all, the Bill is being debated in this House, and the Hon. Member knows that questions are not usual in terms of Bills which are currently being debated before the House. I have no hesitation in telling her, however, that the reasons which she alleges for some of those projects not proceeding at the present time are completely wrong. It is not a matter of fear that interest rates might rise again that some of those projects are not proceeding.
Some of those projects are being delayed because of lack of demand for the product, for instance, in the mineral field. Some other projects are being delayed because the promoters are not convinced that they are ready to proceed with them or the provincial Governments concerned have not yet decided that it is appropriate to proceed with them, such as the natural gas pipeline in British Columbia. And I can mention a number of other projects.

If the Hon. Member has some specific projects which she would like the Government to consider, and if she has in mind specific examples of undue delays caused by administrative setbacks, I will be pleased to look into them and discuss them with her. But unless she can provide me with solid evidence, I maintain that her allegations are unfounded.


INVESTMENT IN CORPORATE SECTOR
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance who will know that many companies in Canada are chronically short of capital and that, even if they were to get new orders, they would have a very difficult time employing more people and enlarging their facilities. Therefore, what action is the Minister intending to take or will he take to make it possible for people to invest in companies? What will he do to encourage new investment in the corporate sector?


Mr. Deans:: How about the unused capacity?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: For example, will he abolish capital gains tax on new investment?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that my colleague wait for the budget speech to know what action I intend to take. He will then be able to make up his own mind as to whether the measures advocated will be adequate to cope with the problems which seem to cause him some concern.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO PROMOTE INVESTMENT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, we have been waiting. For example, on December 13 the Minister said:
We will also be proceeding with draft legislation for a registered shareholder investment plan under which the taxation of capital gains will be limited to the real after inflation gain. The Lortie Committee, to which I have referred already ... endorsed such a plan-
He went on to say that he was going to adjust business taxation for inflation. How long do we have to wait for the Minister to carry on these explorations and studies? When will the Minister produce something which will make investment and growth possible again?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it would help a lot if the Opposition, rather than filibuster the income tax amendments, would pass that Act and ensure that we can send $6 billion worth of refunds to the Canadian people. It would also help very much if the Opposition would agree to pass the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Small Business Investments Grants Act, which again they are filibustering and refusing to pass. I think these are very important steps that would help small business and help the Canadian consumer. I invite my hon. friends on the other side among the Conservative Party to assume that responsibility, and support the passage of those pieces of legislation on an urgent basis, because Canadian businessmen and consumers are waiting for those measures.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADVICE GIVEN BY PRESIDENT OF WORLD BANK
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the President of the World Bank acknowledged that Governments' battles against inflation have been extremely costly in terms of lost jobs. It also appears that he advised the Government not to stimulate the economy. Will the Minister tell the House what advice was given to the Government by the President of the World Bank, and what was the Government's response?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that I had an hour and a half meeting with the President of the World Bank and his associates. I can tell the Leader of the New Democratic Party that there was no request for advice from the President of the World Bank as to what policy the Government of Canada should adopt, and the
March 22, 1983

President of the World Bank did not volunteer any particular advice to the Government of Canada in that regard.
I understand that the President of the World Bank was asked a question in a press conference and volunteered some information, to which the Hon. Member is referring. But I can tell my hon. friend that the purpose of the meeting had to do with the problem of financing the World Bank, particularly its aid program, and how developed countries could take steps to ensure that they could continue to support the World Bank in its activities relating to the problems of developing countries. This was the purpose of Mr. Clausen's trip, and these were the issues discussed in the course of our meeting. At no time was there any discussion with me as to what was an appropriate policy for the Government of Canada in the current circumstances.


INQUIRY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S BUDGETARY INTENTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, despite the fact that certain institutions and people, including the Government, are saying that there are signs of recovery in the present year, there are others such as, most recently, the Conference Board, who have indicated, quite accurately, that unless there is a significant change in Government policy the current high levels of unemployment will be maintained or they may actually get worse this year.
In preparing his budget will the Minister assure the House that there will be two kinds of distinctive measures in that budget-one set of specific measures to create immediate jobs in the short run, and another set of measures which will deal with serious structural problems in the Canadian economy and provide for some long-range changes guaranteeing long-range job security?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should tell the Hon. Member that forecasters both here and abroad expect the unemployment rate to remain high not only next year but for a number of years after that, be it in the United States, in Europe or in Canada. According to most forecasters, the recession has brought about not only a high level of unemployment but also some structural changes which make it difficult for workers to adapt themselves. This phenomenon is now common to all industrialized countries. I can tell my colleague that it is an issue which causes me serious concern in the preparation of my budget and that 1 will try to find solutions.
As to whether the measures proposed are likely to meet the two objectives indicated by my colleague, again I urge him to wait for the budget, and I hope that the measures I will announce then will satisfy him and meet his objectives.
Oral Questions


LONG-RANGE POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my last question concerns the long run. In 1980 the Liberal Party promised an industrial strategy, but shortly after the election it was abandoned and, in its place, there was a series of ad hoc measures which, to understate it considerably, have not produced the kind of job opportunities that Canadians desire. Is the Minister, when he answered as he did just a minute ago, now telling the people of Canada that when we get the budget after Easter he, as Minister of Finance, will lay down for the first time in Canada a long-range policy whose purpose is to deal with the serious structural problems in the Canadian economy?


Marc Lalonde: What I have said, Madam Speaker, is that the Hon. Member will have to conclude for himself, when he hears the budget, whether it meets that objective or not. However, I have already indicated in several answers in the past that, in my view, we were risking looking for the Saint Graal if we were hoping for the development or presentation of a totally integrated industrial strategy.
I felt that probably the better solution for Canada and most other countries was to work on industrial strategies, that is, we had to work at various sectors, identify our strengths, and try to build on those strengths and propose policies which would further strengthen those strong elements of our economy. I think this is probably a more realistic and more effective way of addressing this particular issue.
As to whether the budget will address this appropriately, 1 again invite my hon. friend to reach his own conclusion when he hears the budget.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO VARIOUS PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Madam
Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the joint statement made last week-end by Messrs. Jacques Leonard and Jacques-Yvan Morin, respectively Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Quebec Government, to the effect that Quebec municipalities will not be allowed to receive direct subsidies from the Federal Government, I would like the Right Hon. Prime Minister to give Hon. Members the assurance that federal subsidies will always be identified with the Government of Canada and paid directly, so that Canadians living in the province of Quebec or elsewhere in this country may know of the Federal Government contributions to various provincial

March 22, 1983
Oral Questions
programs, something Quebec and a number of other provinces dialogue with the students of Canada and the promises and consistently refuse to do.	commitments that were made to them.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that the practice he is recommending is exactly the one which we have followed for some time and which we will continue to follow. That is a practice which I had fully explained at the Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers last year, and I can tell the Canadian taxpayers that they have a right to know where their tax dollars go, and that if the various provinces, especially the province the Hon. Member has just mentioned refuse to identify for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers the federal contributions to federal-provincial projects, we will find a way to spend these funds without their co-operation.


EDUCATION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. He will be aware that last summer his predecessor made a commitment to the Canadian Federation of Students to introduce a $250 million federal bursary program as additional aid to post-secondary students in Canada. On Friday the Secretary of State changed that promise. He offered merely to guarantee $60 million of additional bank loans to Canadian students.
Since the Government will stand to save some $350 million by putting the EPF transfers under the six and five program and, as was mentioned in the House yesterday and today, graduates face record levels of unemployment, how can the Minister claim to be encouraging greater accessibility to Canadian universities and community colleges?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, in the last few months, 1 have had many contacts with the provincial Ministers of Education, and at our meeting of January 23 in Victoria, we agreed on a formula for supplementary assistance to students, which seemed to us mutually acceptable in the present budgetary circumstances. On February 8, the Ontario Minister of Education sent me a letter in which she confirmed provincial acceptance of last January proposals. It is true that this matter was negotiated, discussed and examined by representatives of the provinces and the Canadian Government for a few months, but within the present budget, the support provided by the Canadian Government will be amply sufficient to meet whatever additional requirements have come to light during the last year.


Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State responds to the dialogue with the Provinces but ignores the


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. Since so many students do not have any hope of employment and since an announcement has been made without any definition of how that fund, limited as it is, and acceptable to the Provinces as the limited amount might be, will be applied, when will the Minister give us a definition? When will the amendments be tabled in the House so that student aid award officers and students planning their future with this meagre amount of money can get on with it?


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that he is forgetting the additional amounts which were announced by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, only 15 days ago and which will increase the aid to student employment next summer from $100 million to $170 million. Moreover last year, this House was asked to approve supplementary estimates of $30 million in addition to the $120 million already provided in the estimates and that we have just proposed a further increase of $60 million dollars over a period of two years. Consequently, I do not believe that the Government has failed in its obligation to meet students' requirements. On the other hand, the Hon. Member has alleged that I have not heeded the students' requests. However, I have met with them a few times in the last few months to inform them about my discussions and negotiations with the provinces and they have never been left in the dark.
Finally, with regards to the particular conditions which will apply to these $60 million, I am having discussions with my colleague, the Government House Leader, to have the details of these amendments tabled at the first opportunity so that the House may debate them and these measures can become effective at the beginning of the next term this September.
* *
*


AIRPORTS
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I should like to address my question to the Minister of Communications because he has a great deal of knowledge about the subject. Part of his riding is known as Mirabel. In that riding there has already been a thousand subdivisions of family farms that have been split into either two or three units. This has been done by Mr. Goyer's Canada Lands Corporation. I wonder if the Minister of Communications could request the Minister of
March 22, 1983

Public Works to stop this breaking up of the original family farms and not allow Mr. Goyer to break them up into small pieces as he is doing.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, 1 can inform the Hon. Member that the Government is working with local people, including farmers, municipal authorities and people living in the Mirabel area. As for his specific question, as soon as the information is received, it will be sent to the Hon. Member. However, I can give the House the assurance that Members from the area are keeping a close watch on the development of Mirabel.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister, and point out to him the immorality of what is transpiring in the Province of Quebec. Farms are being broken up into three pieces. Homes are being sold to civil servants and, in turn, are being sold again. Would the Prime Minister please request the Minister of Public Works to have a full parliamentary commission on the disposition of the 80,000 acres at Mirabel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I apologize. I had not heard the previous exchange, but I will certainly take notice of the question.


BANKS AND BANKING
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. He will be aware that Canada's five major chartered banks earned $1.5 billion in profits and paid a tax rate of about 8 per cent, which was the same tax rate as was paid by Canadians who lost their jobs last year and who had to spend the entire year on UIC.
He will also be aware that recently bank officials have been very concerned that the amount of interest they will recover from last year's loans may make their profits go as high as $2.6 billion, which is more than $1 billion over last year. Last week the Minister of Finance defended these high profits and low tax rates by saying that he was interested in having his Government "create an environment in which the private sector will continue to invest and to create jobs for Canadians". The Government has been told that the private sector has indicated that it will invest less this year than it did in 1982.
Will the Minister of Finance tell Canadians how he intends to see that the profits accruing to the banks will go to create jobs?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that today my hon. friend is neither in a book ripping or book burning mood. He raised a question last week concerning the chartered banks. I indicated that a lot of the profit results from the arrangements that have been made whereby banks were allowed to make loans at very low rates, to the small business sector in particular. The rates were well below the going rate and were offered in exchange for the nontaxation of interest on loans that were made to the small business sector.
Those loans have been made to the Canadian small business sector, have benefited the Canadian economy, are benefiting the Canadian economy at the present time, and are contributing to maintaining and creating jobs in the small business sector.
In addition, because of the seriousness of the recession, the banks have had to provide for large potential losses on their loans. Those credits against potential losses have resulted in a lower income from the banks subject to taxation. If the banks are not going to face those losses, obviously that money is going to come back into the profits that will be subject to taxation. But these have been made under current accounting practices for the banks to maintain their viability and to secure the confidence of people in the banks in Canada. If losses are not occurring, they will go back into profits and be taxed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister of Finance knows full well that the small business community in attempting to obtain Small Business Bonds finds it an impossibility. I will bet him an autographed picture of Governor Bouey that he cannot find a single bank which is prepared to offer him a Small Business Bond, because they are simply not doing it.


PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE WINDFALL PROFITS TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the interest rates whereby the banks are collecting these huge profits have destroyed the lives of many Canadians who have lost homes, jobs, businesses and farms, while the banks have continued to argue that they could not afford to reduce the amount of interest they have been collecting. If there is any justification for the outrageous imbalance between the cost to individual Canadians and the profit to Canadian banks resulting from high interest rates, will the Minister of Finance at least agree to recapture that money from the banks through a windfall profits tax so that it can be funnelled into helping Canadians to regain lost jobs, to pay off their mortgages, and to restore some semblance of fairness to our tax system?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 will take the Hon. Member's representation as a suggestion. I will certainly examine it, but for the record I would like to read back to him the report of the parliamentary Committee which studied the situation of the banks a few months ago.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 22, 1983
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: That Committee of the House reported that "high profits were not earned to the detriment of Canadian consumers or businesses" and that "the most consistent and comprehensive data at the Committee's disposal indicates that Canadian banks are not overly profitable when compared to banks in the rest of the world". That is a report from a Committee of this House, on which there were Members of Parliament from all sides of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: If the Hon. Member does not even want to have respect for the work of the Committees of the House, I think it is a judgment on himself.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last summer at the IMF talks in Geneva, Russian and American negotiators came to a private arrangement whereby only 75 launchers or missiles would be deployed on each side.


Miss MacDonald:: Why the IMF?


Paul Edmund McRae: Apparently this was accepted by the joint Chiefs of Staff from the United States, was rejected by the Reagan Government, and then subsequently rejected by the Russian Government. However, it is still considered to be a very viable proposal.
When the Minister is talking with Mr. Bush tomorrow, would he put this kind of proposal before him and suggest to him that it has far more chance of success than virtually sticking to the zero option?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the proposal or the ideas which were developed between the two negotiators have been rejected, as the Hon. Member knows, both by Washington and by Moscow. The ideas of their own negotiators did not find favour in their respective capitals. Tomorrow, in our discussions with the United States VicePresident, we intend to raise this particular proposal and others which may have merit, in an effort to break the deadlock that now appears to exist at the talks in Geneva.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week officials from his Department met with police authorities in Acapulco, Mexico, to discuss recent attacks on
Canadian tourists. I ask the Minister what was the outcome of that meeting? What guarantees did he get from Mexican authorities to protect our citizens while visiting that country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if I recall accurately, the Hon. Member is referring to a particular case of a Canadian who was attacked in Acapulco while walking on a beach. Obviously there are some of these incidents. We are taking our responsibilities seriously in drawing them to the attention of the Mexican authorities. Nevertheless, the preservation of law and order and the enforcement of the law are matters for the Mexican authorities. We are raising these points with them as occasion warrants it.


William C. Scott: What the Minister stated about the incident that occurred last week is true. This man can be described as a very happy-go-lucky man. He is a constituent whom I know very well, but I think too many Canadians are being received very shabbily and attacked by people.


PROTECTION OF VISITORS
William C. Scott: Madam Speaker, in a country with which we have as close a relationship as we have with Mexico, I think the Minister's Department should be a little more forceful in bringing a matter such as this to their attention. We grant Mexicans in this country respect and protection by the laws of our country. We should ask them to do likewise.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is perfectly right, that we expect the authorities of other countries to protect our citizens when they travel in those countries as they have a right to the same treatment in Canada. But, even with the best of intentions, there do occur attacks, there do occur woundings, and in some cases murders. We have some instances in Canada where terrorists have come to this country and have particularly sought out representatives of the Turkish Government for attacks. Even though our authorities are doing their very best, sometimes it is not possible to avoid these very unfortunate incidents.
I certainly appreciate what he has to say, but I do not think we can have a total commitment from any Government, including our own Government and our own police authorities, that no incidents of that type will happen, either to visitors or to citizens of this country.


TRANSPORT
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He will know
March 22, 1983

that a firm wants to build a free monorail in Calgary which involves a factory and several hundred Canadian jobs. The difficulty is that the approvals from the Department of Transport have been slow. There is now some danger that we will lose that factory and those jobs to Philadelphia. Can the Minister tell us what he is doing to speed up the approvals and keep those jobs in Canada?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I will not deny the validity of the judgment passed on this particular item, but a meeting will be held in Ottawa next week and decisions will be made at that time.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am glad to hear that from the Minister.


DELAY IN HOLDING MEETING
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, may I ask why it has taken six months to have that kind of meeting?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have not gone personally into the details of it, but apparently the conversations which took place were too long.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The other day I asked him whether there would be an announcement about the initial price of grains. Since then the Senator responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has indicated that farmers will not be receiving a 6 per cent or even a 5 per cent increase but that they will be receiving a dramatic drop of 70 cents to 80 cents per bushel of wheat.
In view of the fact that there are no increases in the price of grain, no assurances of an absence of strikes so that deliveries will continue, and in view of the beating farmers have received as a result of energy costs and interest rate increases, does the Minister want to proceed at this particular time to provide guaranteed revenues to railways and fertilizer companies, even though farmers cannot afford fertilizer themselves? What does he intend to do for farmers who will go bankrupt, and where does he intend to place them, in view of the high unemployment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, of course I will only reply to the question pertaining to initial payment. The question raised a few days ago by my hon. friend was on that subject. The answer to it is that Cabinet is being seized now of suggestions by the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Erik Nielsen: It has been seized for three years now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the usual speed is observed in this particular instance, we will have a decision in the coming days which will be earlier than in some years and not as early as in others.
Oral Questions


RAILWAYS
Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that in 1980 federal subsidies for transport totalled $2.4 billion, of which $278 million went for grain, $971 for air; $335 million for marine, and $547 for VIA Rail and CN Marine, and since the Prime Minister promised in the 1980 election to doubletrack-


John Edward Broadbent: Doublecross and doubletrack.


Stanley James Korchinski: -but he did not mention anything about tempering with the Crow, does the Minister not think that the Government has an obligation on the basis of his promise not to proceed with any development, to await any tampering, pending any mandate the Government might receive in a future election?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am sure you will not allow me to debate this afternoon which sector of the Canadian economy is most subsidized by the Government. I think the majority of the people will recognize that the grain industry has had its fair share of government support in the past. Be that as it may, that share will be increased substantially when the Bill, about which everybody is talking, is passed by this House in due time. The degree of support of the Government would then be raised to close to $1 billion a year, which is pretty high by everybody's standards.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM CRUISE MISSILE TESTING
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In his talks with United States Vice-President Bush tomorrow, will he make it as clear to the Vice-President, as he has to this House, that the Government has not agreed to Cruise missile testing, nor is it committed to such testing, and that, if in the future the Government should refuse a request made to it to test the Cruise, such a refusal would in no way breach any of the Government's commitments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think from previous answers the Hon. Member can rest assured that I would be repeating myself if I told the Vice-

March 22, 1983
Oral Questions
President that there had been no cabinet agreement not to test the Cruise. But I doubt whether the Vice-President will argue the contrary. After all, the Americans have signed an umbrella agreement which makes it quite clear that, if they want to test certain arms systems, including the Cruise, they would have to come to us and ask for it.


INQUIRY RESPECTING CANADIAN COMMITMENTS
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, 1 specifically asked the Prime Minister if in the event of such a request, and assuming Canada refused it, in refusing the request to test would the Government in no way at all be breaching any of its commitments. It is on that specifically I hoped to have an answer since the U.S. Ambassador to Canada has suggested we would be breaching our commitments.
While the Prime Minister is on his feet, would he be good enough to explain a response made by the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. In conversations with the U.S. VicePresident tomorrow on the Geneva negotiations, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said Canada would be putting forth its views? Could the Prime Minister tell us what those views are? Does Canada now agree with NATO Secretary General Luns that the zero option is unattainable? I would like to know what Canada's views will be in these discussions with the U.S. Vice-President.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the first part of the question I can reassure the Hon. Member that if a case arises I would say that I am prepared to say publicly that, if we do not agree to test the Cruise, there will be no reneging on any commitment, because I have said repeatedly there is no commitment to test the Cruise.
As to the second part of the question, there are many aspects to the views that we will be putting forward. Some of them are contained in statements made by myself or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I made some in the course of last year, on disarmament. I made some at the United Nations and some at Notre Dame University. They all emphasize the importance for both sides to be negotiating very seriously toward disarmament, in other words, that the first track of the NATO decision of December, 1979, was extraordinarily important to us if we were going to be expected to look at the second track.
In so far as the zero option is concerned, I remember arguing at Bonn that the Canadian position was not necessary that the zero option had to be the result of the negotiations. It was a starting point. It was ideally, probably the best, that there be no weapons on either side. But we staked out our position quite carefully that it was not the only position and that it should not be used to prevent a meaningful negotiation.


Pauline Jewett: Unattainable.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister has been considering an application under the nutritive processing agreement for an edible oil processing facility in Wainwright, Alberta. Could the Minister tell us whether he has completed his assessment of that application? Could he tell us when a decision will be made and, if a decision has been made, could he indicate to the House the status of his decision?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the nutritive processing agreement has been an excellent example of the co-operation between the Province of Alberta and the Government of Canada, creating something like 1,500 jobs over the past six years and over 300 applications. The application on whose behalf the Hon. Member, both in the House and previously, has made recommendations, as well as his provincial colleagues, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Economic Development, is one on which I hope we can have a positive solution in our negotiations this week.


FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It has to do with the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, namely, Bill C-43. Is it the intention of the Government to allow each individual Department of Government to prepare its own directives, guidelines and procedures, or will those guidelines and procedures be prepared by the central agency, namely, the Treasury Board? If the latter is the case, when they are prepared will the hon. gentleman arrange for their tabling in the House of Commons?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, the approach I am taking is to have a high degree of centralization of the rules and procedures. I will get to my hon. friend as soon as possible about the possibility of tabling the information.


PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO REGIONAL OFFICES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, one of the problems one can foresee is the fact that a great deal of the information under the control of a Department or Government is in the regional offices and other components which are spread across the country. Can the hon. gentleman assure the House that steps are being taken so that information in the regional offices of Departments and agencies will be
March 22, 1983

just as available upon an application, say, under freedom of information, as information is in offices in the National Capital district?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this is the approach we are pursuing in the context of the Act as adopted by Parliament. I think the Hon. Member has raised a very useful point in that regard.


INDUSTRY
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of-I am sorry I have forgotten his portfolio. Is it International Trade?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: It is Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Erik Nielsen: Thank you. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with Maislin, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister tell us whether he has received any indication as to whether Maislin is in a position to meet its financial commitments or otherwise? If so, what indications has he received?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the Leader of whatever title he holds.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: The answer is that I have no indication at this point in time that Maislin will not meet its present financial obligations.


SECURITY OF GOVERNMENT LOAN GUARANTEE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, is the Minister at all concerned about the $34 million commitment in taxpayers' dollars this Government has given to Maislin, and will he take an interest and make inquiries as to the financial position of that company? Will he take an interest and see whether or not, on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, that $34 million is in any jeopardy of being lost to them?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, we take a very serious interest, not only from the taxpayers' standpoint with respect to the Government guarantee of $34 million but also the 2,000 jobs that are very important to this country. There is an interdepartmental
Privilege-Mr. Mackasey
committee which is chaired by one of my officials who is in communication with Maislin on a monthly basis.
Obviously, like a lot of other trucking companies, they are experiencing financial difficulty. That is why they had to come to the Government of Canada in the first place. I share with the Hon. Member our concern over the survival of that company.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE INQUIRIES
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, will the Minister take a sufficient interest to make inquiries of his official and to inform the House tomorrow what the indications are of the financial stability of Maislin, and thus perhaps give some reassurance to Canadians that their $34 million is safe?


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in answer to a question from one of his colleagues last Thursday or Friday, I believe, the new president of the company is preparing a five-year forecast because we did not find the previous five-year forecast acceptable. I believe that will be available some time around the first of April.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I wish to rule today on the question of privilege which was raised in the House by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) in which he alleged that false and libellous accusations against him had been published in the Montreal Gazette.
This case, which is certainly a serious one, poses a number of difficulties for the Chair. The first difficulty that I have is, of course, the time at which it was raised but, for obvious reasons, I will not take that into consideration at the present time.
A reflection upon the reputation of an Hon. Member is a matter of great concern to all Members of the House. It places the entire institution under a cloud, as it suggests that among the Members of the House there are some who are unworthy to sit there. An allegation of criminal or other dishonourable conduct inevitably affects the Member's ability to function effectively while the matter remains unresolved.
In this connection I would quote from a memorandum submitted by a parliamentary expert, Mr. L. A. Abraham, to the British Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege which reported in December, 1967, the following:
The object of an action for defamation is to obtain for the plaintiff compensation for the loss of that esteem in which other people previously held him. But when the House proceeds against a person who has published a libel on a

March 22, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Mackasey
Member in his capacity as a Member it is not moved by concern for the injury to the Member's reputation, nor is its object to secure reparation therefor...
No, the reason for treating libels on Members in their capacity as Members as contempts is their tendency to obstruct Members in the performance of their functions by bringing them into hatred, contempt or ridicule ...
Bearing in mind the dilatoriness and uncertainty of litigation, the possibility of the defamed Member's succeeding in an action for defamation cannot be regarded as an adequate substitute for the summary infliction of punishment by the House itself as a means of preventing Members from being obstructed in the performance of their functions.
On the face of it, this argument would appear to be conclusive justification for a finding that a prima facie case of breach of privilege exists following the submission of the Hon. Member for Lincoln. However, against this the Chair must take into account the full scope of parliamentary privilege and weigh the special rights of Members of Parliament against the rights of their fellow citizens.
The effect of parliamentary privilege is to place a Member of Parliament above the law in circumstances where it provides his only protection in the fulfilment of his duties as a Member. It is not designed to create a privileged class of citizens as such. The Member enjoys his privileges on behalf of those he represents, not for his personal advantage. Defamation of a Member of Parliament certainly falls within the ambit of privilege. However, where a Member has a remedy which would be available in similar circumstances to other citizens, he would as a general rule be well advised to seek that remedy rather than invoke parliamentary privilege.
I should like to read an extract from the report of the British Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege to which I have already referred. Referring to cases which defame a Member or an identifiable group of Members in respect to their parliamentary duties, the report had this to say:
This has in recent times been one of the more publicized occasions for the exercise by Members of their right to invoke Parliament's penal jurisdiction. Your Committee cannot, however, accept that in normal cases it is an essential protection for the House or its Members that they should be able to invoke this jurisdiction when it is open to them, as it is to any other citizen, to take proceedings for defamation in the courts of law. Libels of the character described are, it is true, often couched in intemperate language. But the grosser the libel, the heavier the damages which the courts are likely to award; and if the libel is likely to be repeated, the courts have ample power to prevent the repetition by injunction and, if need be, by committal. Your Committee recommend that in the ordinary case where a Member has a remedy in the courts, he should not be permitted to invoke the penal jurisdiction of the House in lieu of or in addition to the exercise of that remedy.
The report goes on to say:
For example, a Member who has been libelled may be met in the courts by a defence of "justification" or "fair comment upon a matter of public interest". In Your Committee's opinion it would be an indefensible abuse of power if a Member could evade such a defence by invoking the penal jurisdiction of the House.
The citizen has prima facie a right to make fair comment upon such activity of a Member as is a matter of public interest; his right is even stronger to speak and publish the truth of a Member's conduct. These rights should not in the normal way be defeated by the use of the penal jurisdiction of the House. The exceptions to this general principle are likely to be rare. But if the rights of a citizen, though enforceable in the courts of law, are so exercised as to be likely improperly to obstruct the Member in the performance of his Parliamentary duty, it must be within the power of the House to restrain him.
The question for the Chair to determine, therefore, is whether the Hon. Member for Lincoln should seek his remedy through the courts, or whether, in order to bring the matter to
a swifter resolution, the Chair should accord this question of privilege precedence over other business.
I should like to quote from a ruling of my predecessor given on July 23, 1977, which conforms to the main thrust of the British Select Committee Report. He said:
I have said many times that the intent and clear purport of the language-the language referred to being that of the Select Committee Report I have just cited-is that the protection of an elected person against unwarranted or intemperate publicity, even abuses or defamatory publicity, is precisely that which is enjoyed by every citizen before our courts. No more, no less.
Searching further into our own precedents I find that on July 24, 1975, my predecessor found a prima facie case to exist as a result of an article, also published in the Montreal Gazette, which claimed that an Honourable Member had leaked budget information to certain businessmen.
In another case raised on April 22, 1980, another Hon. Member raised a question of privilege concerning his interest in a Winnipeg hotel and certain transactions which had taken place relating to it. In that case, although the Chair had not rendered a decision on the issue of prima facie, the subject matter of the question was referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with the unanimous consent of the House.
One point I think should be emphasized. If this matter is referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, whatever its findings they would in no way prejudice the rights of the litigants in a possible action for defamation.
On March 17, 1983 the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) drew the attention of the Chair to the possibility of the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Lincoln being sub judice because of certain bankruptcy proceedings currently before the courts. While I appreciate the point raised by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I would point out that the House has never allowed the sub judice convention to stand in the way of its consideration of a matter vital to the public interest or to the effective operation of the House and its Members.
Given the precedents I have studied, it is clear to me that while the Hon. Member could seek a remedy in the courts, he cannot function effectively as a Member while this slur upon his reputation remains. The process of litigation would probably be very lengthy and there is no knowing how long it would take before the issue was finally resolved.
I have therefore decided, in spite of the reservations I have expressed, that this complaint should be given precedence as a prima facie case of privilege in order to provide the Hon. Member with the speediest possible route toward the reestablishment of his reputation. I am prepared to entertain a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
March 22, 1983

That the allegations in the Montreal Gazette on March 10, March 11 and March 12 of 1983 that the Hon. Member for Lincoln owned 109609 Company Canada Limited and, through that company, while being a Member of the House of Commons, was a paid lobbyist, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the said motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, we have now had an opportunity to hear Your Honour's ruling, and I am sure the House will appreciate the fact that when this matter was first raised by the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), our Leader in the House indicated his concerns as a Member of this House with respect to all the obligations falling upon this House to treat an Hon. Member fairly. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that people on this side of the House want this matter to be dealt with fairly.
In the interests of seeing that what the Hon. Member wants done is done, I would suggest to the House and to my colleagues, the House Leaders for the Government side and for the New Democratic Party, that before we proceed into debate we should have a 24-hour moratorium on debate so that we can get together and discuss the terms of reference of the motion, the rounding out of the motion.
Quite frankly, in reviewing the motion prior to today, we wondered whether in fact the motion did all that the Hon. Member wanted it to do in terms of clearing his name of the charges the Gazette alleges. I point out to the House that in my own case, after study of three articles, I found some ten instances giving me cause for concern as to whether a motion such as that which the Hon. Member has presented to the House would in fact do what he wants it to do. Therefore, from that standpoint I say to the Government House Leader that if the House wants to clear the Hon. Member's name-that is obviously the object of the exercise in speaking to the motion-we feel that the motion should be broad enough to do that in a way which is fair to the Hon. Member and, I would also suggest, fair to the members of the Committee. It seems to us, after reviewing the precedents, that the Committee would be delving into some new ground. We feel that if this is so, it should delve into that new ground with a motion which does what the Hon. Member wants and with terms of reference which do what the House wants, which is to clear the air.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am in the hands of the House. If the House unanimously agrees to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, I can entertain the suggestion; otherwise, of course, the only other choice of the Chair would be to open debate on this particular motion and to entertain such amendments as Hon. Members deem necessary.
Does the House unanimously agree to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North that there be a delay of 24 hours before debate on this particular motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Privilege-Mr. Mackasey


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I do not want to inject my personal views into this matter, as I did not anticipate it would be raised. However, I would be interested in hearing the views of the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) as to whether or not he feels the motion which he has moved, which affects his privilege, is one which he would like to see held over and discussed among House Leaders before the debate ensued. I have no particular objection to waiting until tomorrow or another day for the debate to take place, and I am sure that none of my colleagues do, either. However, I think that since the matter is very much one which ought to concern the Hon. Member for Lincoln, perhaps he would like to tell us what he would like to see.


Madam Speaker:: If the Hon. Member for Lincoln starts debating this question-


Ian Deans: No.


Madam Speaker:: If he is telling us whether he likes the motion or not, he will be debating the question.


Ian Deans: On a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Just one moment. I am simply warning the House against beginning the debate before dealing with the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North. Since that seems to be the wish of the House, 1 will allow the Hon. Member for Lincoln to make a very brief statement with regard to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, you would agree that your statement was quite logically lengthy, and legalistic, as it should be, and very important to all Members. I specifically rose from my seat a week ago-this is not debate-and at that time pointed out what I thought to be the allegations which, to me, were libellous. I specified them and Your Honour read them out. If any Hon. Members of the House think that I am guilty of anything beyond those two points which have been raised, they are perfectly free to rise in the House and refer any allegations which may occur to them, beyond those set out in the motion, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I welcome them, if Hon. Members are prepared to do so. It is an entirely different issue. I want that motion to be read before the House today, as Your Honour has suggested is my right.
I repeat that this in no way prevents any Hon. Member opposite who wants to widen the matter from rising tomorrow to say anything which bothers them about the Hon. Member for Lincoln.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: You're blowing it.


Madam Speaker:: This point having been made, does the House unanimously consent that there be a 24-hour delay?


Some Hon. Members:: No.

March 22, 1983
Tabling of Documents


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I listened carefully the other day when the Hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) spoke. 1 listened carefully to Your Honour's judgment, and I just listened carefully to what the hon. gentleman said now. The hon. gentleman has made it very clear that he wants the matter to be dealt with now. If there are to be any further dealings with it, the hon. gentleman has said that he is quite content that they be dealt with a little later on.
I just want to make it clear to the hon. gentleman that if one is looking upon privileges, he ought not to think of himself as being on trial. I think the people who would be on trial with respect to this matter would be those who are alleged to have breached the privileges of a Member of Parliament. That is what I understand the matter of privilege to be. He is not on trial. He has made his statement in the House of Commons. I worry that the hon. gentleman couches his remarks on the basis that he is on trial. He is not on trial.
The question now is whether or not someone else has breached the privileges of the Hon. Member, and that is the purpose of this matter. That is what I understood the hon. gentleman had in mind. Therefore, I wish the question would be put today and that we would get on with the matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Edward C. Lumley: Madam Speaker, in addition to the documents already tabled under the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table, in the spirit of the Access to Information Act, a list of documents pertaining to the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project, found in the files of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I recently referred to this list in an earlier response to a question of the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). I am now in the process of seeking third party agreement to tabling those documents, but without breaching commercial confidentiality.


PETITIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my petition today is in regard to the taxation of northern benefits and northern allowances. The petitioners, who are supported by the Canadian Teachers' Federation, oppose the taxation of these benefits. They point out the high cost of living in northern communities, the high cost of travel, transportation costs, living costs, etc., and ask that the Government, through the House of Commons, rescind its decision to tax these benefits.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition to the House of Commons today signed by fishermen from the Athabasca Basin region, consisting of that area and communities such as Camsell Portage, Uranium City, Fond-du-Lac, Black Lake and Stoney Rapids. They are requesting that they be allowed to opt out of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act which they say has practically destroyed their industry in this far northern area. There is documented evidence here to back up that allegation.
I would like to say that I have been attempting to meet with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) concerning this petition since January 27 to discuss the very important problems outlined herein, but in those two months he has ignored my requests. On that basis, I would hope that this petition will be found in order and referred to the Fisheries and Forestry Committee where it will get its due and proper consideration.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon I am presenting a petition signed by some 205 residents of the federal riding of Dauphin urging the retention of the historical Crow rate. These petitions are presented by people in some 19 places in the Dauphin constituency, and these are in addition to the 1,312 petitions that I presented to this House on June 23, 1982.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3,902, 3,903, 3,904, 3,906, 3,907, 3,909, 3,910, 3,911, 3,912, 3,913 and 4,515.
March 22, 1983

[ Text]


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	The Acting Medical Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford is Dr. Ali F. Saad. (a) Date of appointment to present position: January 1, 1982. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Clinical Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford, B.C. (c) Salary range: $52,192 to $63,152. *(d) This position requires graduation from a recognized school of medicine and certification in a medical specialty recognized in Canada by a statutory licensing body.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford but the Clinical Psychiatrist, Dr. Luke Glancy, is presently designated by the Acting Medical Director to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Clinical Psychiatrists.
(a) Date of appointment as Clinical Psychiatrist: February 1, 1978. *(b) Nil. (c) Salary range: $48,520 to $59,380. *(d) The minimum educational qualifications for psychiatrists working in the Correctional Service of Canada require graduation from a recognized school of medicine and certification in a medical specialty recognized in Canada by a statutory licensing body.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. There is no Director at Carlton Centre but there is an Acting Superintendent, whose name is John Stewart, (a) Date of appointment to present position: August 3, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Case Management Officer at Carlton Centre, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree,
Order Paper Questions
preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Carlton Centre but one of the two Case Management Officers, Terry Hatcher, is presently designated by the Acting Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to both Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: June
3,	1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Carlton Centre, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
^Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Shulie Lake camp, Parrsboro and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Shulie Lake Camp but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Floyd Rushton. (a) Date of appointment to present position: November 5, 1980, *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Regional Coordinator, Security Contingent Planning, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Moncton, New Brunswick, (c) Salary range: $28,871 to $30,280. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Shulie Lake Camp but the Living Unit Supervisor, Joseph Benjamin Legere, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to the Living Unit Supervisor and the Administration Officer.
(a) Date of appointment as Living Unit Supervisor: October
4,	1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment:

March 22, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Camp Officer at Shulie Lake, (c) Salary range: $23,527 to $26,905. *(d) Same as part A(d).
information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Parrtown Centre, Saint John and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Parrtown Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Robert Smith, (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 19, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Senior Counsellor at Parrtown Centre, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Parrtown Centre but one of the two Case Management Officers, William Peterkin, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to both Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: May 22, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Parrtown Centre, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Westmorland Institution farm, Dorchester and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at Westmorland Institution but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Jim Davidson, (a) Date of appointment to present position: March 1, 1982. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Assistant Warden, Socialization, Springhill Institution, Springhill, Nova Scotia, (c) Salary range: $32,112 to $36,212. *(d) The minimum educational requirements for this position are successful completion of secondary school or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination 320 coupled with relevant experience.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at Westmorland Institution but the Farm Manager, Gordon Helm, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Farm Manager: September 4, 1979. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Living Unit Development Officer, Springhill Institution, Springhill, Nova Scotia, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The povision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Pie IX Centre, Montreal and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. There is no Director at the Pie IX Centre but there is an Acting Superintendent, whose name is Louis Roger Gagne, (a) Date of appointment to present position: January 30, 1982. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Case Management Officer at Pie IX Centre, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission
March 22, 1983

Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B. There is no Deputy Director at Pie IX Centre but the Case Management Officer, Pierre Poirier, is presently designated by the Acting Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: September 8, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at former St. Hubert Centre, Montreal, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Benoit XV Centre, Montreal and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at the Benoit XV Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Carl Pelletier, (a) Date of appointment to present position: November 14, 1977. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Area Manager, Rimouski Parole Office, Rimouski, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Benoit XV Centre but one of the two Case Management Officers, Pierre Laplante is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to both Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: November 1, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Classification Officer, Regional Reception Centre, Ste-
Order Paper Questions
Anne-des-Plaines, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Sherbrooke Centre, Montreal and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at the Sherbrooke Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Pierre Saulnier. (a) Date of appointment to present position: July 27, 1981. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Area Manager, Centre South Parole Office, Montreal, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Sherbrooke Centre but the Case Management Officer, Yvon Trudel is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: March 31, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at former St. Hubert Centre, Montreal, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
'Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Martineau Centre, Montreal and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held
24034

March 22, 1983
Order Paper Questions
the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A.	There is no Director at the Martineau Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Robert Martin, (a) Date of appointment to present position: May 26, 1980. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Co-ordinator, Special Projects, Correctional Service Canada, Regional Headquarters, Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possesss the experience qualifications for the position.
B.	There is no Deputy Director at the Martineau Centre but the Case Management Officer, Henri St. Denis, is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to two other Case Management Officers.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: December 20, 1978. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Counsellor at Benoit XV Centre, Quebec, Que. (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
* Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Lawrence: What is the name of the present (a) Director (b) Deputy Director of the Ogilvy Centre, Montreal and, in each case (a) for how long has he/she held the position (b) what position did he/she hold previously (c) what is his/her salary level (d) what formal education does he/she have?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far as
the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned:
A. There is no Director at the Ogilvy Centre but there is a Superintendent, whose name is Dusan Pavlovic. (a) Date of appointment to present position: October 14, 1975. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Senior Counsellor at former St-Hubert Centre, Montreal, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $28,118 to $31,640. *(d) This position requires a university degree, preferably with specialization in sociology, psychology, social work, criminology or some other specialty relevant to the position, or to have passed the Public Service Commission Examination, "General Intelligence Test 310" and possess the experience qualifications for the position.
B. There is no Deputy Director at the Ogilvy Centre but the Case Management Officer, Paul Michaud is presently designated by the Superintendent to act in his absence through a Commissioner's Directive issued in accordance with Section 29(3) of the Penitentiary Act. The responsibility may be rotated periodically in order to provide experience and training opportunities to one other Case Management Officer.
(a) Date of appointment as Case Management Officer: May 10, 1976. *(b) Position held prior to present appointment: Keeper at Leclerc Institution, City of Laval, Quebec, (c) Salary range: $24,892 to $27,998. *(d) Same as part A(d).
^Information provided is for previous work experience in the Federal Public Service only. The provision of any additional information on individuals regarding previous work experience outside the Federal Public Service and personal educational qualifications is of a personal and confidential nature, the disclosure of which is governed under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Part IV.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the skidway at Cherry Hill, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia, threatened with removal by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in September, 1982, been removed and (a) if not, has the skidway and the land on which it was constructed been purchased by the Government (b) if so (i) who owned the land on which the skidway was constructed (ii) what amount was paid by the Government for the land and skidway (iii) what was the total amount paid initially towards the skidway by the Government?
2.	What is the name of the government official who approved the construction of the skidway on land to which the Government did not have a clear title?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.
The skidway at Cherry Hill has not been removed, nor was it ever "threatened" with removal by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The owner of the land on which part of the skidway was constructed had demanded its removal.
(a)	The land on which the skidway was constructed has been purchased by the Government.
(b)	(i) The land on which the skidway was constructed was onwed by Mr. W. K. Allen, (ii) $25,000. (iii) Originally, $20,000 in material support was provided to the project sponsor by Samll Craft Harbours Branch, under the Canada Works Program. The labour content of $7,000 was provided by the Job Creation Branch of the Department of Employment and Immigration.
2. In 1976, CEIC approved the project as being acceptable under the terms and conditions of the Canada Works Program. At that time, the project sponsor, Mr. S. Conrad, indicated that the skidway could be constructed at a site on which he operated a fish store. Small Craft Harbours agreed to support the material portion of this project, which was constructed by local fishermen for their use. It is within the mandate of Small Craft Harbours to support projects sponsored by the Canada Works Program and the Canada Community Development Program, even if they are not at scheduled harbours.
March 22, 1983


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the motion of Mr. Blenkarn (p. 24001).
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that Bill C-143 and the amendment thereto presents considerable concern not only to Members on this side of the House but to the people of Canada, because the borrowing authority required under this Bill is of such magnitude that it raises the question that the taxpayers and citizens of Canada in general have been asking as to how far reaching is the borrowing that the Government has been doing. I would like to go into that today in detail because I think it is so important to the direction that our country is taking and particularly the direction in which this Government is leading this country.
The first question that I would raise in the House is, what is the size of the debt, the magnitude of the debt? I would like to read some figures into the record. The gross debt, the total liability of the Government of Canada, includes not only interest-bearing debt such as bonds, but accounts payable, pension funds and liabilities, and several other items. At the end of the 1981-1982 fiscal year, the gross debt was $134 billion. By the end of this current fiscal year the gross debt could be as high as $160 billion. I think that is a shocking figure that faces the Canadian people and the Canadian taxpayers.
In comparison, the gross debt at the time the Trudeau Government took office in 1968 was $31 billion. If you look at the magnitude of the problem that we face of debts and borrowing by this Government, it is horrendous. The gross national debt less the assets at the end of last March, the net debt, was $94 billion and it will climb to $118 billion by the end of the current fiscal year. This compares to $16 billion in 1968 when the Trudeau Government took office.
Borrowing Authority
Loans and securities, in effect money raised by the financial markets, including treasury bills, bonds, Canada Savings Bonds, unmaturing loans and securities, totalled $93 billion at the end of March, 1982, compared to $21 billion when the Trudeau Government first took office.
I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this presents a very, very serious problem for the Canadian people. An amount of $16.7 billion is required just to pay the interest on Canada's national debt. We might today well ask the Government, what is the cost to the Canadian people? In the year 1968-69, one tax dollar in nine was needed to service the debt. Today, one tax dollar out of three is needed to service the interest on the debt which has been incurred by this Government.
I suppose the next question we would ask is, was all this necessary? And it is unfair to ask that question if we do not have some positive solutions as to how this tremendous deficit could be deferred. First of all, I believe we have to realize that in the Bill which is before us the $5 billion is needed immediately. We all recognize that. Whether it is the fault of the Government is another matter, but that money is needed to carry on the affairs of the country.
What about the additional $14 billion the Government is asking for? That is important because I believe that shows the direction which this Government has taken down through the last 15 years, and without being too critical, it is because of years of financial mismanagement by this Government. Here we have the Government coming to the House of Commons and asking for authority to borrow an additional $14 billion which they do not need right away, and without bringing down a budget in this House. I believe the people of Canada want to know how the Government of Canada is going to spend their money. The debt the Government has incurred on behalf of every man, woman and child in this country is $700. Every taxpayer will have to pay $1,700 to pay off the incurred deficit of this country, so every taxpayer, every man, woman and child in this country, has a right to hear from the Government on just how it is going to spend their money.
Having cited the size of the debt, Mr. Speaker, and having referred to the magnitude of responsibility which it has placed on each Canadian, I suppose the next question would be, what can be done about it? One of the Hon. Members who spoke earlier today referred to the fact that something had to be done for the farmers, for the small-businessmen and for job creation, and I agree with that. I believe also the Government must take a very close look at how it has been spending the taxpayers' money. I will cite a few examples of how the Government might have saved millions of dollars, even billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money, if it had been a little more careful with its expenditures. One example is the national energy policy which cost this country billions of dollars. There is a new proposal by Mr. Pepin with respect to farmers which

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
will be every bit as devastating to the incomes of this country as the national energy policy. There is also the area of small business. I could go on and on about the Government's mismanagement, and about the lack of incentives for small business, for farmers, for industry and for energy production in this country. But if we are ever going to solve these problems, Mr. Speaker, it is most important that we take a positive look at where the Government intends to go and where we would like it to lead this country.
I would suggest that the greatest problem is lack of confidence. The people of this country have no confidence in the present Government. If we are going to get back to productive incentives which must come to all areas of business in this country, there will have to be some confidence in this Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Order. Before recognizing another Hon. Member, the Chair would like to remind Hon. Members that reference to their colleagues in the House should be by way of the name of the constituency or Department, and not by the proper name.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, despite the short time allotted each Member to speak to the Bill before us today, I am pleased to have the opportunity again to register my objection to the approval of this Bill. Just before closing at the lunch hour, the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) closed his speech by making a statement which shocked me. He said that the trouble is not the borrowing but rather the lack of concrete alternatives from the Opposition. Can you imagine that statement coming from the Government side, blaming the Opposition for the $19 billion borrowing and for our lack of concrete alternatives? The Government sat there for three years, bereft of ideas, and the Hon. Member admitted it had no idea about what to do with the huge deficit with which we are confronted in this country.
This Bill will give the Government permission to borrow $19 billion and, in its typically arrogant fashion, the Government seeks Parliament's permission to borrow the money but it does not have the courtesy or decency to explain why it needs the money or where the money will be spent. But we know where it is going to be spent, Mr. Speaker. It is going to pay the interest on our massive debt. Is this Government worthy of our trust when it has so badly mismanaged our economy to the point where business bankruptcies and unemployment are at all-time highs, and when the GNP is at its lowest level since 1933? Is this Government worthy of our trust when its own Ministers and former Ministers make a mockery of Cabinet guidelines? No, this Government is not worthy of trust. As my colleague just said, there is a crisis of confidence in Canada. I do not believe there are too many Canadians right now who would trust this Government with $19, let alone $19 billion. The Government is directly responsible for the bankruptcies of hundreds of businesses across the country, and now it finds itself in much the same boat. It has had to resort to Governor General's warrants to obtain money, something which generally occurs when Parliament is not in session. And when the Government cannot collect funds through normal or quasinormal channels, these same fellows just dust off the presses
and print more money. Recently, the Government authorized the issuance of $500 million in new Treasury bills, without either having borrowing authority or being in an emergency situation, and the legality of this move has been brought into question.
The Government is in obvious financial trouble, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members of this Government, unlike other Canadians facing similar circumstances, simply have no comprehension of basic economics, or the Hon. Member for Willowdale would not be saying that it is the lack of concrete alternatives from the Opposition. Well, for a start, the budget of the former Conservative Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), was a concrete alternative and if we were still the Government, the country would not be in half the mess it is in today.
Canadians elsewhere understand the delicate and demanding balance between earning and spending, and the need to establish priorities when the balance is upset. The home owners have to face it. The low-wage earners have to face it. But the Government will not. If the money you earn cannot cover your bills, you simply examine your spending habits and eliminate or reduce spending in certain areas. In other words, you cut out the frills, you cut the fat. That has not been learned across the way.
I wish I had more time, Mr. Speaker, to produce all the documentation which I could produce on how the Government could cut the fat and how the economy has been mismanaged, by advertising, by parties, by mountain climbing, by fireworks, by office plants, and hundreds and hundreds of examples of waste: Haiti, CIDA, bilingualism, and on and on, in a nonproductive area of society.
To take our attention away from these and other more serious issues, let me point out that from time to time the Government appoints a Royal commission to find out why it created such a mess. In the case of the latest Royal commission, the "Big Mac"commission, the man appointed to head the commission was a former Minister of Finance who was one of the main causes of the problem, he and John Turner with his 30 per cent a year increases. Here again is something that could be done and has not been done. Nothing has been done except to add to the deficit and inflation.
I would like to point out that when others, notably in the private sector, come forward with ideas which would lead to job creation and economic stimulus, the Government obstructs rather than helps. I would like to give you a couple of illustrations from my riding. The Volkswagen automobile plant is a case in point. Over two years ago Volkswagen came to the Government seeking assistance to locate in Canada. They wanted to come to Ontario, and in particular to Barrie, Ontario, in my riding. The plant would employ 500 people and its establishment in the region meant as many as 6,000 jobs over-all. They approached the federal Government asking only
March 22, 1983

for inclusion in the duty remission program, something without which they would not have located anywhere else. What happened? Well, the feds got in the act and under pressure from the Government the company's German task force, which had already studied plant sites all over Canada, had to fly back and inspect a site in Montreal. After two years of delay when interest rates were nothing like they are now, nor anything else, the Government finally gave its approval for location of the plant in the one place Volkswagen wanted to go to begin with, namely, the City of Barrie. But now the whole thing is up in the air because of financial considerations, when it could have all been done and finished with. All of that is so unnecessary.
Civic and business officials in my riding are also aware of the problems encountered by prospective employers who have to deal with Government, particularly with FIRA and the anti-U.S. policies which have come from across the way, when what we so desperately need in this country is investment. On at least two occasions, potential employers were discouraged from pursuing plant establishment in my riding because of the nature of questions and obstacles erected in front of them. Elowever, with assistance and encouragement from those local officials we have had some of it done at no extra cost in money or time.
1 would like you, Mr. Speaker, to take a look at the way we are chasing away investment in this country and the way we are throwing money at problems. In my area, General Tire spent an estimated $17 million on expansion to build radial tires. What did the Government do? it gave a $51 million grant to another plant in Nova Scotia. That is what the Government wants to do, it wants to take away from the private sector and give it to the public sector. Why? What we need is jobs, new industry and productivity. What we need is renewed confidence in the Government. The Auditor General's Report reveals that the Government is the second most profligate spender in the entire free world, second only to that of Italy. Much of this spending is by the Government created sub-Governments which the Auditor General calls Crown Corporations. They are unaudited and ludicrous. Big budgets lead to big deficits, like the $19 billion borrowing that we are talking about here, and they lead to big unemployment. But this big Government has not learned, so it continues to spend and spend and borrow and borrow. We as Canadians must realize that we are in a period of low productivity. We need reduced spending and then tax incentives to stimulate an increased productivity, not studies and "Big Mac" commissions.
There are only two ways in which we can stimulate a sluggish ecomomy, that is by getting the taxpayer to spend on consumer goods, and by using research and development and other things which are at hand to increase our exports. It is not accomplished by dead-end, make-work projects, Mr. Speaker. Our problems are not solved by throwing money at them. It is done, as I said, by incentives, by increasing consumer goods production and by increasing our export markets.
Borrowing Authority
Every Government makes a lot of changes to benefit someone, but as much Government interference as we have seen in the last 15 years in Canada, particularly in the last three years, costs a lot more than it benefits. This Government wants $19 billion at a time when it has interfered again and again, just lately in Bill C-139. It has interfered with a National Energy Program, it has interfered with the banks, and has stimulated nothing. It is readily bandied about that Government spending now amounts to some 40 per cent of the Gross National Product. This adds up very succinctly to too much Government intervention and Government spending. This last decade in particular has seen massive Government interference in the Canadian economy, to our great detriment. That is why we are now looking at another borrowing Bill of $19 billion. The Government bought a private corporation, Petrofina, for $1.7 billion. Canadair was assisted to the tune of $1.5 billion.
I could go on and on but I see you are giving me the nod. Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is: keep borrowing and borrowing and spending and spending and you will be placing a legacy of debt not only on my children, the children of other people here in this Chamber and all Canadians, but on our grandchildren, all because we will not face the fact that we need to increase productivity and cut out waste.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-143, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority in the neighbourhood of $19 billion, $5 billion of which has already been spent. But the Government has not told us what it plans to do with the balance of $14 billion. Certainly we on this side of the House in the NDP will not authorize the Government to spend an additional $14 billion in the way it has been spending in the past, not without a budget to outline the programs the Government is planning on initiating. We must remember that the Board of Directors of the Bank of Canada, who are closely associated with the other banks and the railways and so on, are advising the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and for him to come out and say the policies of this Government must remain in place is unbelievable, especially for the unemployed across Canada, the people in need of an industrial strategy which will bring about the stimulation the Government has not seen fit to provide.
Recently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been coming before the committee and making statements across Canada about some very basic changes in the transportation system. While we agree that these programs must be updated, we do not agree with the method the Government is using of abolishing the Crowsnest Agreement and giving hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to the railways for upgrading, without receiving any equity or any firm commitments from the railways.
I have in front of me a copy of CP Rail News which shows some of the programs they are planning. They talk about how $39 million funded by the federal Government will be spent to continue the rehabilitation of prairie branchlines. This has been going on year after year. It says, as a prime example, that

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
since 1968 the railways have been receiving branchline subsidies which cover operating costs as well as overhead and profits to be reinvested in rail lines, amounting to $278 million.
We have a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the Minister of Transport, in his announcement to the press, is saying that up to $900 million a year could be provided for the next three or four years in railway upgrading funds. That would be paid for by the Government and the taxpayers of Canada. We cannot accept those kinds of proposals by the Government without some commitment of some kind as to what is going to take place. The railways talk about expansion and what they intend to do. The Government should tell the railways firmly that the transportation system needs to be upgraded in an orderly fashion, that they have the franchise to do it, and if they do not have the necessary funds they will be provided and then the Government will have equity in the railway system. As the system is improved and returns a profit, the equity would be to come back to the Canadian people. Instead, the Government makes proposals without any firm commitment.
In its announcement about upgrading its facilities, CP Rail has said that it intends to go to tender for the main tunnelling work at Rogers Pass toward the end of 1983, assuming that the Crow legislation is in place and that economic conditions improve. That is the type of thing that has been going on for years, Mr. Speaker. We do not have a policy that will meet the needs of a transportation system such as the Government of the early 1900s had with its vision of a transportation system across the country. Ultimately it was built. The Government should look at transportation in a more realistic way and spend money in a more responsible manner.
When the railway is upgraded and the system is able to carry twice the present capacity twice as fast and twice as efficiently with less diesel power and fewer grades to be navigated, there will be a profit and there should be a payback.
I should like to deal with another project in British Columbia with which the Government is involved, Mr. Speaker. Hundreds of millions of dollars of federal and provincial moneys have gone into a northeast coal project, to set up infrastructures and new communities. In southeast British Columbia, however, over 20 million tons of coal per year are being shipped from the Kootenays, but 2,000 employees have been laid off. How can we watch municipalities being put out of business while new competing ventures are financed by the federal and provincial Governments? It does not make any economic sense that the Governments would finance a new venture that would put an existing operation in another part of the Province out of business.
The changes to the Crowsnest Agreement will mean that the Government will be caught up in the process of swindling more than $450 billion worth of coal deposits out of the Province of British Columbia. There are 50,000 acres of prime coal land that have been turned over by the Province to the railways and in turn, through the Crowsnest Agreement, to the federal Government. These are now held in the name of the federal Government. If the Crowsnest Agreement is changed in any
way, the lands should revert to the Province of British Columbia for the benefit of the people in the Province.
These are the kinds of things that the Government is getting into. I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) whether he had been approached about the development of those coal lands in southeastern British Columbia. He said that at this time there was no demand for the coal but that there had been three or four applications or requests for information about the coal lands. I purposely asked him if the Fording Coal Company, a subsidiary of CP Rail, was one of the applicants, but I did not get an answer. It seems to me that this is another indication of the federal Government's dancing to the tune of the railway system, especially CP Rail. This is wrong, Mr. Speaker. The country must have an economic expansion plan with regard to transportation, manufacturing, employment, and so on, in order to ensure that Canadians get the best possible value for their tax dollar.
The Government of Canada has a responsibility to every Member of Parliament to present a budget that they can scrutinize. They should be able to put forward their views and hear from the Government how it intends to deal with a very serious situation caused by years of poor management on the part of the Government.
Students leaving school today are offered only a band-aid program in which the Government sets aside some money for student employment programs which are underfunded. In my riding $216,000 has been allotted to student employment programs, but there are applications for over $600,000 and they are still coming in. Students want to earn some money so that they can return to school in the fall. It is a sad situation in this country when over two million people are out of work and close to that number are on welfare, unemployment insurance benefits are running out, and the Government has no concrete proposals to offer that would deal with the very serious situation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks on the report stage of Bill C-134, the Borrowing Authority Act, by underlining the effect of this measure not only on the Canadian economy but on Canadians. By permitting the Government of Canada to borrow an additional $19 billion to finance the escalating spending deficit-now over $26 billion and headed for $30 billion- Parliament is increasing the national debt to $160 billion and pushing this debt toward the $200 billion level. Let me remind Canadians that the national debt was $31 billion when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was appointed-not elected- to his office.
What does a national debt of $200 billion mean in real terms? Simply this: every Canadian, man, woman and child, must, on average, pay $8,000 to eliminate this debt. But we know that many Canadians have no financial resources so we must place the burden on the ten million Canadians who are employed or have taxable resources. This would increase the
March 22, 1983

effective per capita debt loan of working Canadians to $22,000-but that is not all. Each of these 10 million Canadians lives in a Province of Canada or the Territories and, in nearly all cases, they must share in carryng a further debt at the provincial level. For example, in the Province of Nova Scotia, the per capita debt is now $5,224. That is divided among all Nova Scotians. For the taxpayers in Nova Scotia the debt burden would approximate $12,000 for a grand total debt-federal and provincial-of $34,000.
I am sure most Canadians would consider that a staggering amount. I remind the House that the average income for these Canadians who are faced with this massive debt, is $15,800. Within that figure, Canadians must find the ability to pay off this massive debt.
Let me stop there and remind Hon. Members that according to a 1980 analysis, Canadians pay 45.8 per cent of their income in taxes. That is, a Canadian family which in 1980 had a cash income of $22,500 would have paid taxes of $10,306 or 45.8 per cent. That includes all taxes, federal income tax, provincial sales tax and so on.
This points up the fact that the taxation of Canadians is at a maximum level, it cannot go any higher, yet Canadians must face the problem of paying off the national debt at the levels 1 have indicated. That is to say, Canadians with an average income of $15,800 must assume a debt in the area of $34,000 on an individual basis.
If that does not establish the serious effect of our mounting public debt in Canada, let me add this statistic, Mr. Speaker. In the current fiscal year one dollar of every four income dollars will be applied to service this debt. What is the problem? Of course the problem is Government spending. Government spending for the current fiscal year 1982-83 is projected at over $90 billion. Last year it was $75 billion. That is an increase of $15 billion or 20.5 per cent on a national accounts basis.
What does all this spending mean? When compared with the income and resources of Government, it means that the Government of Canada has virtually abandoned the concept of the balanced budget, that is, equalizing revenues and expenditures. The solution is equally clear. The Government must redirect its programs and its policies so that it gets us back on the road to a balanced budget. It is difficult, if not impossible, to raise the current level of taxation, as I have already indicated. The only hope in this area is to generate and promote economic activity so that the amount of taxation revenue will be increased but not the level at which that revenue is taxed.
1 want to direct some attention to the possibility of decreasing Government expenditures-not to eliminate immediately the deficit because that is a virtual impossibility, but to reduce it substantially and to start us on the road back to a balanced budget. Let us now consider how Government spending might be reduced. First, let me address the economic problem in clear terms. As I have said, we have expenditures of $90 billion with revenues of less than $60 billion and a budgetary deficit
Borrowing Authority
of over $26 billion and approaching $30 billion. The challenge is clear. How will we work toward a balanced budget?
As I have indicated, we could do two things. We could raise taxes or cut expenditures. There is no way at current levels that we can raise taxes, so let me consider some specifics. We have heard time and time again in the House the fact that Crown corporations are running out of control in terms of financing by the Government and in terms of the amount of moneys spent in relation to the amount of moneys received in revenues.
Let me take the Canadian National Railways company. This month CNR announced that its deficit for its 1982 operations would exceed $223 million. That is its worst loss in the 61-year history of the corporation. I point out very quickly that the biggest item in that $223 million loss is the $62 million CNR was forced to write off in connection with its investment in Euro-Canadian Shipholdings Limited which operates the Cast shipping line. That was an investment in a foreign corporation to build ships and other facilities outside Canada. That is $62 million of taxpayers' money which has gone down the drain, and this was from one of our most effective and most responsible Crown corporations over the years. When we find that kind of expenditure of public funds taking place in Canadian National Railways, we wonder what is happening in other Crown corporations.
Let me look at Air Canada. In the March 18 edition of the Citizen of Ottawa, an article was headlined, "Air Canada Anticipating Record Loss". The report indicated that in the first quarter Air Canada lost $27 million and, projecting that over the rest of the year, the losses of Air Canada will be in the nature of $100 million. Add that to the $223 million lost by Canadian National Railways.
Recently Canada Post has been in the news because it has been successful in cutting a $600 million deficit down to a $400 million deficit in the current year, but it can look forward to a greater deficit in the subsequent year. But in the case of Canada Post, as in the cases of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways, it has drastically increased the price to consumers, which include all Canadians.
Also we have Petro-Canada with $1.4 billion invested in the Petrofina oil company. Not only that, the other day it got provision to spend $900,000 on one of its subsidiary companies, Canertech. Then we have the CBC with its $900 million, Michael Pitfield with his $1 million pension, Ian Stewart with his six-month sabbatical, and Donald Macdonald with his $800 per day. It goes right from Crown corporations down to individual Crown officers. The point is that the spending goes on and on, and we have to stop the spending. But we cannot do it unless we adopt a principle to guide us. The principle which must guide us in these matters is the common sense of a balanced budget. That has to be the standard which guides Parliament and Government in conducting the financial affairs of the country. They must make revenues and expenditures match and thus balance the budget, because it is only in that way that we can assure an economic future for Canada.

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Corbin):: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)-External Affairs-Zimbabwe- Observance of Human Rights; the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Trade-Export restrictions on branch plants-(a) Request for release of documents, b) Role of United States Government in prohibiting exports; the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)-Air Canada-Status of RCMP inquiry into transfer of headquarters.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-143, to provide Supplementary Borrowing Authority, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and motion No. 1 (Mr. Blenkarn).
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate, I would like at the outset to make two very important points. First, one must never depart from the very basic point that the cost of Government to the people of Canada is what Government spends, not simply the receipts it takes in the form of taxation. The rest of the expenditure which is not covered by taxation is either a concealed tax in the form of inflation or a deferred tax in the form of borrowing. This is really what we are dealing with today. We are dealing with a hidden form of taxation which is concealed through the provision of borrowing.
My second point is that Canadians are not adverse to paying taxes, provided they are assured of obtaining their money's worth. The Government takes in money and redistributes it to various sectors of society, in particular those who are less fortunate than those who are able to produce, and Canadians have demonstrated a compassion and a penchant for sharing. They demonstrate that in support of charities such as programs for the underprivileged, the Cancer Fund and the Heart Fund, etc. Basically, Canadians are a charitable lot, but the point I must make is that today taxpayers do not believe that they are getting their money's worth out of the money spent by the Government on their behalf. As a result, we see that reflected in Revenue Canada statistics in terms of increases in notices of objections to tax assessment, in the number of appeals and in the cost of collecting taxes through Revenue
Canada. There is a general lack of support. The whole system is coming increasingly under attack.
I think we have some very serious problems because the integrity of the system is somewhat at stake. What the Government spends on behalf of the people of Canada and how it spends it are surely two of the most important issues which should be addressed in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, this is not the case because the Government gets its spending authority primarily through closure. Closure has been moved in this particular session of Parliment no less than 20 times. In the majority of those times the issue at hand concerned a financial Bill, a measure of taxation, borrowing or something to do with the financial affairs of the country. The Government is spending money through closure and borrowing money through closure. What is happening is that Parliamentarians do not have the opportunity to examine critically and to challenge effectively the expenditures of Government. The financial management of this country flounders and becomes progressively worse. I heard the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) talk about the responsibility of the Government to manage the financial affairs of the country. I submit to you, Sir, given this kind of borrowing Bill and the projection of a $30 billion deficit, it is quite clear that financial management is out of control.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken office he has managed only once to balance the budget, that was in the 1969-1970 fiscal year and we had a little bit of a surplus in the amount of $393 million. As the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) noted, the Prime Minister has accumulated some $160 billion worth of debt for the people of Canada. When the Prime Minister assumed office, that debt was at $31 million. The lunatic spending of the 1970s and the deficits of the $10 billion, $12 billion, $15 billion, $20 billion and now $30 billion have in some ways tempered Canadian society. They have tempered the shock, the outrage and the anger which should be prevalent today. Today when we talk about a $30 billion deficit as freely as we do, and the NDP talks about increasing it by another $10 billion for further job creation, one wonders where we are going. Where are we going in this country? Who would have ever dreamed ten years ago that we would have a $30 billion deficit?
In 1970, the last time we had a balanced budget-indeed, we had a surplus-total Government spending was $13.5 billion. There seems to be the feeling that only Governments can create jobs. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) cited today some 70-odd projects that could be started if the Government did not provide money but, rather, facilitated the development of these projects which would create jobs.
While Canadians have been tempered in their outrage, they are deeply annoyed. The hard facts are that the tax paying public is not convinced it is getting fair and good value for the money being spent. The current Auditor General is not convinced of that either. He drew attention to many areas of
March 22, 1983

Government spending which have gone out of control. Crown Corporations, which he called a form of sub-government, are not held accountable to Parliament. He went on to say the following at page 13 of his Report:
Revenues of Crown corporations in the most recent fiscal year were $31.9 billion, and expenses were $33.6 billion. Most of these corporations are virtually unknown even to the best informed members of the tax-paying public. Yet, in the aggregate, they represent a hole in the taxpayer's pocket, resulting, as they often do, in a consistent negative return on investment.
The former Auditor General, in his continuing crusade on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, said in a recent interview, as quoted in The Edmonton Journal for Friday, March 18, 1983, the following:
The '70s saw the biggest spending spree in Canadian history; in the '80s we are going through "a horrible hangover in the sobering-up process," said Macdonell.
Further down in this article we find:
Macdonell explained that bureaucrats operate under a strange system where the bigger their staffs and the more money they spend, the more power they have. There are no incentives for good management, since there are no penalties for bad management.
I could go on. What about Petro-Canada which is a $7-billion service station, refinery and exploration enterprise financed by the taxpayers of Canada? It has over 3,000 service stations. Then there is Petro-Canada International, a $250-million subsidiary to provide money and expertise for selected energy projects. It is to explore for oil-where? In Jamaica, Tanzania, Senega! and Pakistan. That is going on while our own oil industry, particularly the service industry associated with it, is floundering. What about Canagrex? Canadians wonder whether we need these things. They wonder whether we need a Canagrex. It is not needed. What is needed is an export credit assistance program and ways and means of assisting and promoting Canadian agricultural products abroad. We do not need to spend $12 million or $60 million to set up another Crown Corporation.
What about the Royal Commission on the Economy? Canadians question whether we really need to spend $10 million to find out what is going wrong with the financial affairs of this country. We have several privately funded organizations that do that work on a day-to-day basis. For instance, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Institute on Public Policy; the Fraser Institute, and our own Economic Council of Canada which was commissioned by this Government and which is largely ignored by this Government.
What about the advertising budget? It is well over $100 million, and it could be cut by at least one-third. Advertisements, such as the one I have in my hand which reads: "Complete energy security for Canada is this close!" cost the taxpayers of Canada $1 million. I have another advertisement. The Canada Service Bureau is going to spend some $2.6 million this year on setting up kiosks to explain to Canadians how they can get service from the Canadian Government.
There are many areas in which the taxpayers of Canada clearly question the validity of Government expenditure, such as propping up losers, and its contracting practices. Furthermore, Canadians across this country question the burdensome
Borrowing Authority
level of taxes on their petroleum products of over 65 cents a gallon. What value are they receiving?
Finally, if Governments expect the economy to turn around in this country, they must lead and demonstrate by example. In that connection, we note that public sector salaries have risen at a level of 15.9 per cent while those in the private sector have risen by 5.8 per cent. Canadians basically do not believe the Government and its agencies are fairly sharing the burden of this recession. That is why this additional Government spending is not needed. It should not be awarded to the Government of Canada until it cleans up its own act.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-143, to allow the Government to borrow $5 billion this year and another $14 billion next year.
In November, 1981, the Minister of Finance of the day predicted that there would be a budgetary deficit in the upcoming fiscal year of $10.5 billion, with accompanying financial requirements of $6.6 billion. One-half year later, we saw drastic revisions in the same Minister's June, 1982 budget. At that time the deficit was increased to $19.6 billion, with financial requirements jumping to $17.1 billion. As a result, Bill C-125, asking Parliament for authority to borrow needed funds was passed on July 22, 1982.
In just three months from that date the deficit was further revised to $23.6 billion, an increase of $4 billion. To cover this gaping hole in the Government's finances, the Government introduced Bill C-128 to authorize the borrowing of the extra $4 billion. The Government's borrowing authority now stood at $21.1 billion in new loans. And now we find that even this amount is not enough to feed the empty stomach of the Government. Parliament is being asked to pass Bill C-143, which gives the Government authority to borrow an additional $19 billion, less than ten days from now. This brings the total borrowing requirements for 1982-1983 to $26.1 billion, with a deficit which may total $30 billion before we are through.
We must look at the reasons behind this abysmal spending record. The Minister has said that three-quarters of the Government's financial shortfall exists as a result of higher than expected debt charges and lower than expected tax revenues, and that one-quarter of the shortfall is the result of additional spending on income-support programs, such as Unemployment Insurance and welfare payments.
The first of those reasons, that there have been higher than expected debt charges, is very difficult for me to understand in the light of the very significant tumble in interest rates lately. How can the Government be paying unexpectedly more when interest rates have been in decline? When interest rates were rising, the Government blamed its rising deficits on unexpected debt charges. Now that the rates have fallen dramatically, they are still using the same old excuse, although the situation has changed completely. The other two reasons, the lower than expected tax revenues and the greater spending on income support programs, are a direct result of the recession in which

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
we find ourselves mired. Again, I wonder how much of that could not have been foreseen with prudent planning?
In the past year, whenever the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) or his predecessor appealed to Parliament for more money, it has always been accompanied by the excuse that the recessionary effects were more powerful than were first thought. For example, let me quote from the budget speech of the former Minister of Finance on June 28, 1982. He said:
The recession has caused a serious worsening of the Government's fiscal position. The sharp fall in federal revenues is the inevitable consequence of the decline in production, employment and income.
He went on to say:
Federal spending has also been affected by the recession. Higher interest rates add to the costs of Governments as well as firms and individuals. Public debt charges are expected to be $1.1 billion higher than originally forecast.
Similarly, we find this statement in the October 27, 1982, economic statement of the present Minister of Finance:
The recession has been deeper and longer lasting in Canada than the Government anticipated when the June budget was presented ... I must report today that further weakening of the economy in the intervening months has aggravated this deterioration. The budgetary deficit was then projected to be $19.6 billion. I am now estimating it at $23.6 billion. About 70 per cent of this slide is directly attributable to the impact of the recession on anticipated revenues.
We now have the familiar ring of the Minister of Finance telling us that the economy's depressed state simply was not fully appreciated yet again. As a result, Parliament is being asked to authorize the borrowing of an additional $5 billion for this fiscal year. How many times will the Government's financial ineptitude force it back to the public trough? It is obvious to all Members on this side of the House that something is drastically wrong when a Government, because it is so inaccurate in its estimates, must revise them every three or four months.
As I see it, the reason that this Government has been so consistently wrong in its forecasts is that the Government itself, as a very powerful agent in the Canadian economy, has done very little to alleviate the recession. It has offered some limited help to the victims of the recession, but it is too much like mopping up blood while the wound is still bleeding. The wound does not look as bad, but nothing has been done to staunch the bleeding.
There have been only two budgets since the Great Depression that have attempted to leech our economy while it was already weak. Those were the last two budgets of the former Minister of Finance, and we are still suffering from their effects. Only now is there a glimpse of evidence that the worst is behind us, yet Statistics Canada warns us not to be too sure, saying that, "it is uncertain whether these gains mark the formal beginning of a sustained recovery."
I can accept the Minister's concern that too much stimulus will overheat the economy, but what is needed desperately is a program of short-term stimulus that will act as a jump start to the economy and serve as a bridge to a more secure and
prosperous time. A successful short-term stimulus would pave the way to a full economic recovery. First, it would persuade Canadians to spend more of their disposable income instead of saving it. Second, it would encourage new investment in Canadian business and by Canadian business.
With respect to the first point, it must be noted that last year Canadians had a personal savings rate of 13 per cent. This means that $87 was spent and $13 was saved of every $100 of disposable income. One reason for this extremely high personal savings rate is the uncertainty felt by all Canadians with regard to the economy.
If we are to get the economy moving again, the budget must remove that uncertainty felt by Canadians. This can be done by assuring Canadians that the time to spend has arrived as a result of instilling the Canadian consumer with confidence in the economy.
One of the cornerstones of such a short-term program should be an extension of the $3,000 grants offered to buyers of new homes in the Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan. The program is due to finish at the end of April, and I have heard nothing from the other side about their considering an extension.
I was especially interested to hear the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) join this debate when he spoke of the housing programs of his Government. Although he recognized how important these housing programs are to the recovery of our economy, nowhere in his speech did he indicate what the housing policy will be after the Minister of Finance brings down his budget. One part of his speech reminded me of a similar speech given by his predecessor, the present Minister of State for Finance (Mr Cosgrove), just after the budget was brought down in June of last year. I would like to quote from that speech, which was reported at page 18994 of Hansard of July 5, 1982, as follows:
Some housing analysts have been predicting housing starts will be in the order of 110,000 to 125,000 this year. I would like to see starts this year reach the level of last year-
In 1982, Canada's housing starts for all areas totalled 125,000 units, which is a far cry from the Minister's ambitious target of matching 1981 's total of 178,000 starts and far below the 210,000 units per year that CMHC has said Canada needs if we are to stave off a housing shortage.
I see that my time is almost up. I would like to conclude by saying that while the dark cloud of the recession that has descended upon Canada for two long years is beginning to lift, we still have two million people out of work. Now is not the time for complacency. If the Government chooses to bring down an austerity budget-which we hope it does not-rest assured that we will be back here again in a few months listening to the same pleas for more money from a Government that has once again underestimated the depth of this recession.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words about the borrowing Bill before us today. I will say at the outset that I believe it is a sad reflection on the state of this nation's economy when the Government has
March 22, 1983

to return to Parliament to borrow so much money to continue the operations of the Government and its programs. Of course, when we are presented with a Bill such as this we are faced with the choice of either increasing our deficit or cutting services. When I am faced with that decision, I obviously do not want to cut services and make matters more difficult for the ordinary Canadian. Therefore, we have no choice but to see a deficit budget in the country.
I suggest that merely arguing about whether the merits of a deficit are right or wrong is really evading the main issue. We should be concerned about why we have such a large deficit in Canada in the first place. We should be considering what we as Parliamentarians can do to ensure that the fiscal and monetary policies of this country are put in better order. 1 suggest that to do less than that is like putting a band-aid on a broken leg. It may ease the problem temporarily but it will not heal the leg.
As Members of Parliament, we should be searching for ways to revive the country and looking for methods of increasing productivity and enlarging the pie to provide a better standard of living for the ordinary working people, farmers and other citizens of the country. We do not seem to have that type of vision in this country. We seem to be lacking that leadership. As a result, we appear to be drifting.
Canada needs an economic policy that will make us a nation of producers who realize that the new world of technology is upon us. We should be in the forefront of that reality. We also need a policy which makes us economically independent and sovereign.
That is why I am puzzled when I hear speeches such as the ones given in the House today or statements like the one made yesterday by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when announcing his candidacy for the leadership of the Conservative Party. He stated in an interview that Canada must open its borders to more U.S. investment in order to grow, and that Canadian economic nationalism will doom the people of this country. I wonder if Mr. Crosbie is running for the leadership of the Conservative Party and the Prime Ministership of Canada, or whether he is running to be governor of Canada, because from-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member should refer to other Hon. Members in the House by the names of their ridings, please.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he is running for Governor of Canada or, indeed, Prime Minister of Canada, because I believe one of the reasons this nation has not been a more productive nation, and also why we are so far in debt, is that we are the most foreign-controlled of any industrial state in the world. We are the most foreign-dominated. That foreign control and ownership has made us poorer as a nation. It has lost us jobs, research and development, and it has lost and cost us sovereignty and part of our nationhood.
Borrowing Authority
Some 26 per cent of our economy is foreign-owned. In the United States, France and Britain, it is less than 3 per cent, and in Japan it is less than 1 per cent. I think the time has come, when we are discussing borrowing Bills and why we are in such dire straits today in terms of the economy, that we as a nation started considering some of the real structural problems and started correcting them.
When it comes to determining the extent of foreign ownership and control, one can consider many of the realities. We find, for example, that the report of Statistics Canada last November showed that in 1981, foreign-owned firms in Canada imported four times as much as Canadian-owned firms, which means that we lost tens of thousands of jobs because of the tremendous amount being imported by foreign-owned firms. If one considers research and development, one sees once again why we are not a nation of producers. We find that our level of research and development in Canada was only about 1.2 per cent in 1981, or less than half of that carried out in the United States and about half of that carried out in many western European countries. If one considers who does the research and development in Canada, one finds that it is the Canadian firms. Foreign-owned firms do very little research and development. If one considers Canadian firms, one finds that they probably do about as much as firms elsewhere in the world. In the sector of high technology, our deficit last year was some $8 billion and, in computers alone, it could hit about $10 billion by the year 1990. I think it is about time that we as Canadians started to control our own economy and our own destiny.
When it comes to exports, there are a number of facts and figures which show that many of the branch plants in Canada are operating under tremendous restrictions in terms of their exports, and some under outright prohibition. There are documents from the 1960s which show that we lost much wealth in this country and much potential productivity because some 75 per cent of our firms were prohibited from exporting. We have a Cabinet document which the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, currently the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray), tried to get through the Cabinet in 1980, but he was turned down. Once again, he was discussing the problem concerning our branch plants not being able to export into the world market. In 1972, when the Gray Report was tabled, it was said that of the foreign-owned firms which were exporting, some 58 per cent were operating under some kind of export restriction, once again losing Canadians all kinds of potential wealth and jobs which would make this country much stronger and much more equal to other nations.
One could go on and on and mention our tremendous deficit in manufacturing. It was $21 billion in 1981. We could mention the tremendous deficit in the auto industry. The accumulated debt in the auto parts industry is now some $41 billion. It was $5 billion in 1982 alone. We can consider the outflow of capital, the outflow of dividends in Canada. Between 1976 and 1981, the net outflow of dividends and direct capital and interest payments was some $38 billion. As regards the oil and gas industry alone, between 1975 and 1979

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
it was some $3.7 billion. The reason I am mentioning this is that I think this is one of the areas where, structurally, our economy is faulty. We are the only nation in the world which allows so much of our economy to be run and dominated by foreign interests, in the interests and for the benefit of foreigners.
The facts and figures speak for themselves in relation to the net outflow of money, the net outflow of jobs, the little amount of research and development, the restrictions and prohibitions being placed on our branch plants in terms of their export policy, and the imports of goods which could be produced in this country. Therefore, what we must do is to take control of our own economy like other nations in the world have done. We must assert ourselves, assert our sovereignty, so that we do things in Canada which other countries around the world take as being natural and normal.
The other point I want to mention is that it is very strange to hear Hon. Members of the House stand and say, "We need more and more foreign capital because it will solve our problems for us".


Mr. Malone:: Who says that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Historically, that has not happened at all. We heard that from a Tory backbencher just this afternoon, and from the Hon. Member for St. John's West yesterday when he was announcing his candidacy for the governorship of Canada. He does not want to be Prime Minister or Leader of a national Party in this sovereign state. However, when one considers the facts and figures, one finds that not only does foreign ownership really dominate in Canada, but that as well we as Canadians have financed the vast majority of the foreign takeovers ourselves, with our own funds, our own moneys and our own banks.
There was a breakdown in the report entitled Foreign Direct Investment released back in 1972 which I think would shock you, Mr. Speaker, being a citizen of New Brunswick. From this breakdown we find that between the years of 1946 and 1967, there was an expansion of foreign-controlled enterprises in Canada to the tune of some $43.9 billion. Seventy-eight per cent of those funds were Canadian funds. Only $22 billion came from abroad. Between 1960 and 1967, when foreign expansion amounted to $21 billion, only 19 per cent of those funds came from abroad, and 81 per cent of those funds were Canadian funds.
In reality, we are financing the sellout of our own country with our own moneys. We are financing the sellout of our sovereignty with our own funds, from our own banks, from retained earnings of companies which already operate in Canada, from the pension funds of Canadians, and that is not right. We should use those funds to invest in Canada so as to ensure that those industries are controlled by Canadians, by the ordinary workers, farmers and people of this nation. Then we would become a nation of producers and it would not be necessary for us to borrow such vast amounts of money at high
interest rates, saddling the ordinary people with debts for years that are yet to come.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a few comments to make on the legislation before the House today, a Bill that is clear proof of the utter bankruptcy of a Government that has led the country during the past fifteen years. I can understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), given the manner in which things were done during that time. Others before me have commented extensively on and given examples of, the poor administration and the wrong choices made by this Government, all of which have made Canadians extremely worried today. The Members on this side of the House cannot trust the Minister of Finance and cannot respond to his invitation to approve his request for the modest sum of $19 billion for this year and the next.
If we look at the situation, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to provide a few figures. In 1968, the national debt was less than $30 billion, and today, in 1983, it will rise to $160 billion. I wonder about the validity of the line of reasoning followed by Government Members who claim that this borrowing authority will help create jobs through new programs. Our national debt has gone up from $50 billion to $160 billion, and while in 1968 the number of unemployed workers was 350,000, we now have nearly two million Canadians out of work. In the circumstances, I think it is a clear-cut case of poor administration. Perhaps we should recall that in 1968, the interest on the national debt cost Canadians $1.27 billion, and that in 198384, we shall be paying $18.57 billion, in other words, an increase of 1,500 per cent over fifteen years.
I think those figures, which have been published and officially recognized, speak for themselves, and that the public should be able to judge very easily and very accurately that this Government has lost its credibility and it would then ask us to withdraw our confidence in this Government.
It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the present economic situation is the result of insufficient funds for research. We have been speaking about this for 15 years and we are well aware that, because the Government has refused to increase the amounts allocated to research, there has been an inevitable loss of thousands of jobs in the traditional sectors. I am not alone in saying and repeating it. The Minister of Finance is the only person who, while requesting a borrowing power of $19 billion, dares to speak about an economic recovery. I find it somewhat strange, not to say dishonest on his part, to speak about economic recovery when we all know that every forecast indicates that there will still be at least 1.5 million Canadians unemployed over the next 12 months in spite of all the efforts that the Government can make. If the Government had at least demonstrated that these borrowings and putting the country in debt could alleviate unemployment, we would perhaps be forced to admit that this legislation was positive. But it is clear
March 22, 1983

that the greater the debt the Government creates for Canadians, the more people have become unemployed. Because of this, I do not believe that we can respond positively to the Government's request and I must say that I shall consider it a special duty to oppose this borrowing power because we now have evidence that the Government is leading the country into bankruptcy for the first time in its history.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, how could we not blame the Government for refusing to protect at least our most vulnerable sectors when the whole country is faced with high interest rates? Hon. Members will recall that, for our part, we had tried to help homeowners and prospective home buyers by proposing a very special formula which would have eased the present crisis. I repeat that the Government's inaction and utter lack of interest in the traditional sectors such as the shoe and clothing industries and agriculture-which were faced with enormous difficulties because of the policy of high interest rates and the lack of Government assistance-as well as small and medium size businesses for whom the Government refused to stimulate the building industry at the proper time, have created thousands of unemployed.
The Minister of Finance told us five months ago, on his appointment, I believe, that we could make very positive projections. After a few months, because of the mistakes of his predecessor, he himself has realized that his estimates are very far off. We are now talking about a deficit of $30 billion for next year and yesterday, I think, the Minister of Finance said on television that he could not reject the possibility of an even higher deficit than $30 billion. Mr. Speaker, understandably Canadians are shocked by such statements and are convinced that the Government has lost all control over the affairs of this country. The Minister of Finance says that there has been one unexpected problem in particular after implementing policies which have increased the number of unemployed, he tells us that the Government will have lower tax revenues than expected this year.
The Minister of Finance apparently has overlooked the fact that with 2 million people out of work, Canada's tax revenues could not remain at their previous levels. Mr. Speaker, it was clear that with such high level of unemployment, we would lose revenues. And the Minister of Finances seems to imply that he has overlooked the loss of revenues associated with the current high level of unemployment. There we have the undeniable evidence that the minister is incompetent, as were his predecessors.
Under these circumstances, therefore, it was understood that if we were going to choose the high unemployment approach revenues would decrease. It was clear also that these unemployed people who are costing a lot of money and who are becoming a source of unproductive manpower would be costing still more money.
The energy policy implemented by the government has proved to be a total failure both in terms of investments and in loss of jobs. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I do not think
Borrowing Authority
we can support this legislation, even though the government keeps saying that it needs this borrowing power to administer the country. Over the past 15 years, the government has demonstrated that the more money it has, the more it squanders.
At the same time, the Minister never realized that with its deliberate unemployment policy the government would bring about a major loss in the purchasing power of every Canadian. Because of that reduction in purchasing power, our Canadian industry is the one to suffer.
I am really wondering what those Ministers of Finance have been up to in the past 15 years, failing as they did to realize that the lack of research funding is a severe blow to the future prospects of Canada. The choices they did make were bad, and State intervention coupled with direct competition with the private sector is a very expensive proposition. And today the Government is again seeking authority to borrow $19 billion to pay for past mistakes.
This morning I heard the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) say that we have a wonderful country, and that we must combine our efforts and pool our energy to help all Canadians. The Government is urging Canadians to get into debt, it is on the verge of mortgaging the future of all Canadian children and it wants us to help pay for its mistakes. Our answer is a flat no, and I think there is nothing else we can say to a Government which has been so incompetent and which is driving the country into bankruptcy. That has been the prevailing feeling especially in the last three or four years, and yet the Government wants to prolong the agony of a bankruptcy which indeed will be increasingly costly.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we will not give our vote of confidence to the Minister of Finance whose policies have undermined the trust of the majority of Canadians. We have no intention either of accepting the Government's proposal to go on spending the taxpayers' money as wantonly as it is doing now.
It is obvious that the Government has lost all control over the administration of the country, it is obvious that it no longer deserves the confidence of Canadians and, finally, it is obvious that it does not deserve ours either.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the normal course of dealing with expenditures and the needs for money in this House is well known. There is the budget in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) proposes the means by which he is going to raise the funds, and the books on Estimates in their various forms, as they exist now, outline the Government program for expenditures. That will show that 60 per cent of total Government spending is statutory and, outside of amending statutes, a Government is powerless to change or reduce those expenditures.
But we are today discussing, and this may sound a little academic, the third feature of Government financing, and that

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
is the borrowing authority. Obviously the Government cannot match up moneys coming in with moneys going out, therefore it has to borrow. Parliament has the right, and the Government has the responsibility, to come to Parliament to establish that balance of borrowing.
As far as Government backbenchers are concerned, they give Government carte blanche. This Bill, instead of calling for an expenditure of $19 billion, plus a carry-over of $2 billion, might just as well say $35 billion. There would still not be one word of comment from the Government backbenchers. They could not care less. The only time they participate in debate is in fixed-term debate so as to use up time which the Opposition would not have.
Today we are on the narrow question of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), which in effect eliminates Part II of this omnibus borrowing Bill. The transcripts of evidence, I acknowledge, reached my office today. I think the staff did a good job. And after the fuss I raised last week, if they had not been here, I can assure you that this morning there would have been a very tempestuous protest, because we would not have had the evidence which was given in the Standing Committee. I am quite anxious to see the Minutes and Proceedings of the twentieth meeting, dated March 17, which was the last sitting at which the Minister appeared before us.
When discussing the matter with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, the Minister said, "Well, if the Opposition is not satisfied with the Government's spending program, why does it not put forward its own spending program? Why does it not put forward its own estimates and then put them before the public and choose?" That comment reflects the sort of simplistic confrontation-type of philosophy which governs this administration. There are hundreds of thousands of employees in the Government who provide the information. It is distilled and comes forward ultimately in the Estimates. For the Minister of Finance to allege that the same resources are available, or that because Bill C-34 has been passed, we have access to the information and would be able to compile the same sort of Estimates, is, of course, absolute folderal. As a matter of fact, this would tend to deceive the public, or it would be an attempt to deceive the public.
There is no way that Opposition Members can put forward alternative programs. The Hon. Member for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle) this morning was challenging Hon. Members of the Opposition to say which programs should be cut and by whom. He conveniently forgot that 60 per cent of expenditures are statutory. He asks, "How would you reduce expenditures?" Well, I would say the first one would be the $1.6 billion for the purchase of Petrofina, which came ultimately out of Government coffers. That was a vast over-expenditure. There are a great number of over-expenditures by Government. If the Government followed the recommendations of the Auditor General, there would be value budgeting, control of programs, and the whole bit, And when you look into the administration
itself, there are supervisors galore, there are a great number of people far in excess of what is required. There are a number of things like that happening because there is improper management.
We are dealing with a total budget of close to $80 billion. In the lexicon of the average citizen, $10 million would be a fantastic sum but, frankly, it is not a great deal when one envisages $80 billion. That is 80,000 million dollars, Mr. Speaker! I am talking about saving $10 million or $20 million in reforming certain administrative practices. That is very attractive and I believe it should be encouraged. On the other hand, we have reached $80 billion, and we see suggestions for more and greater expenditures on the welfare side, and the tax Bill C-139 is also going to add tremendously to taxation.
Hon. Members across from me realize what they are doing in eliminating IAACs and turning over to the Government all the funds which formerly were provided to private industry through Income Averaging Annuity Contracts. The Government is jumping to, shall we say, a once-in-a-lifetime surge of capital because it needs the money so badly. The issue, Mr. Speaker, is whether we should now give this Government authority to borrow $19 billion before we have the budget promised last fall. I say, no, let the Minister determine and tell us how he is going to spend this money. Then we will tell him how much he can borrow.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I must say again that this is a very important debate. We are dealing with the kind of things in the House that this House is designed to deal with, and that is, money. We are not suggesting, as the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Cosgrove) said this morning, that the Government not borrow any money. We are not suggesting that the Government be irresponsible and renege on its commitment to unemployment insurance and all of the other social programs which the Government finances on a day-to-day basis. We are simply suggesting in this amendment that Part II of the Bill be deleted and the Government be allowed to borrow $5 billion to meet its obligations to the end of this fiscal year, which is going to come about in approximately two weeks. And until the Government can come forward with some details as to how it intends to spend the additional $14 billion, we suggest that that borrowing authority be withheld from it. I find that logical.
I find the statements made by the Minister of State for Finance this morning rather incredible in the sense that he appears not to understand what the amendment is all about. Beyond that, the question can be asked, why should the Opposition be concerned about borrowing or about Government spending? I submit we must concern ourselves about spending and about the kinds of taxation which this Bill essentially grants-because that is what it is. It is deferred taxation. Every time a Government borrows monay, in effect it is deferring taxation to a later date at which this money will be repaid. Therefore, if we did not concern ourselves about this Bill, I submit, essentially we would be irresponsible. Not only that, but when you consider the level of borrowing which this
March 22, 1983

Government is asking Parliament to authorize, it then becomes even more of a concern.
I will repeat what I said at another time in commenting on this same Bill: every $1 billion which the Government either spends or borrows, amounts to $40 per capita. So that with the current deficit of approximately $30 billion, you are looking at about $4,500 for a family of four. That is a horrendous amount of money. If we take the $80 billion anticipated Government spending just referred to by my colleague from Edmonton and relate that to a family of four, you come very close to $13,000 per family of four in Canada. That is a very significant amount of money in anyone's life, let alone the average Canadian wage earner. In fact, in many areas the Government is going to be spending on behalf of that family of four in the coming fiscal year the same amount of money the major wage earner in that family earns. That gives you a bit of an idea of the amount of money we are talking about. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if those of us elected to this place did not express our concern over the level of Government spending when it is that high, we would be totally irresponsible and find it very hard to go back to our constituents and explain why we did not at least raise an objection to what is going on.
As I said, it is not the fact that the Opposition objects to Government spending, it is the fact that the Government has given no indication of what the spending is for. If it is going to be for some very useful projects to help create employment and generate tax dollars to replace the money being spent, that is fine. But if it is going to be used essentially to pay for yesterday's groceries, then I think that is something we should look at. The only way we can do that is through a budget. On the one side is Government revenue, or earnings, although I hate to even use that word because Government has no money itself. The only money it has it takes away from taxpayers. So the Government does not earn money. On the other side, we know Government expenditures have been going up at the same time that revenues have been going down, so naturally you have a deficit. What we are saying on this side is that if we are going to address the problem of Government deficits, hence the large borrowing Bill we have here today, we should certainly take a look at a budget to see what the Government is going to do or what direction it is going to take in order to increase productivity so that in fact there are more taxpayers and the Government has more revenue. That would make sense to anyone, yet we do not see this.
We were told that we were going to have a budget very quickly after the first of the year. It is now over two months since the House came back into session on January 17 and we are told that the budget is still weeks or months down the road. We are facing a very critical time as far as Canadian farmers are concerned, and it would be nice to know what the Government plans to do to ease some of the tax burden the farmers are going to be faced with in getting the crops in the ground this spring so that, hopefully, we can give them some encouragement to stay in business and plant another crop. It does not make any sense to me to see the level of fuel tax raised so high that it effectively puts farmers out of business. They end up
Borrowing Authority .
having to draw some kind of social assistance to survive, and they certainly are not paying any taxes. Where this money is going to be used is what we should be discussing. How is it going to be used across the nation to create jobs? How is it going to be used regionally?
There are some very pertinent questions we could ask concerning my own area, Mr. Speaker. We want to know what is going to happen to the Rivers air base. It is a small matter relative to the problems across the country, but it is a major concern for an area in my constituency and it would be nice to know if the Government has any plans there. We would like to know where the money is going to be spent on upgrading of many of the branch lines in western Canada. That is a major concern to a lot of people. Yet we cannot get this information. I have written letters to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), but we do not seem to know what kind of priorities the Government has as far as the upgrading process is concerned. In fact, we do not know which lines are going to have money spent on them this year or what the long-term prospects are.
The last Throne Speech was made on April 14, 1980, close to three years ago, and we are still in the same session. In that speech the Government talked about the Western Development Fund. We do not know what happened to that. There was supposed to be $4 billion for that fund, but it was cut down. Really, I think the only money which supposedly came out of the Western Development Fund was money for compensation payments as the result of the embargo put on grain sales to Russia after the invasion of Afghanistan. I think it is stretching things considerably to think that that should be part of western development. Many of us in western Canada looked forward to the Fund, and yet we see no sign of that money being made available to develop western Canada. What we do have is a situation where we are looking at reforming the Crow rate, but we do not know when the Government is going to table that legislation in the House.
I am trying to point out to the Government that if we could see some of its spending plans and what it intends to do in the budget, I think the Opposition would feel much better about approving the Government's request to borrow some $19 billion. All we are saying in this admendment, in lieu of that, is that the Government should have $5 billion to the end of the fiscal year, but then we should wait until we see a budget and an over-all expenditure plan before the authority to borrow the additional $14 billion is granted. That to me is a very reasonable kind of approach.
The Minister of State responsible for finance talked this morning about all the programs the Government has in place to assist people in this very trying economic time. That is fine, no problem with that, but it seems to me to be sensible for the Government to put some emphasis on creating jobs and encouraging people to get back to work so that they could become taxpayers and add to Government revenues instead of detracting from them and increasing the deficit.
The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) talked about foreign capital, and he said that we did not really

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
want foreign capital in this country. I would simply like to point out to him that he comes from a part of Saskatchewan settled by people from other parts of the world. They came there and brought with them foreign capital and foreign expertise. None of us are native to this country, or very few of us. We brought that expertise and capital to this country, and that is what made it great. I am not concerned about where that capital comes from, but I am concerned that we control it as Canadians once it gets here and that it be used to benefit all Canadians.
Those are the kinds of things we would like to see in the budget, Mr. Speaker, and the sooner the better, not only for this House but for all Canadians.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in this particular debate I think it is very important that we come to some agreement about fundamentals. I think the first fundamental that we should bear in mind is that the borrower gets into debt. Borrowing means debt, it is as simple as that. But the Government seems to have forgotten that. That is the simple, straightforward notion of which I think we ought to remind ourselves in this debate. Borrowing means debt. If you have sufficient revenue, you do not have to borrow, and then everything is fine. But if you engage in enterprises beyond your capacity to pay, you are going to have to borrow. It is as simple as that. Engaging in enterprises beyond your ability to pay will get you into debt. This is a simple principle that every householder, every wage earner, has to observe. He may have to go to the bank if he wants to finance his house, but he realizes that he is going to have to pay it back. One is bound to ask oneself, Mr. Speaker, why Government should be different. Why should Government act in a different fashion? Within certain limits, of course, they have to, because Governments do have to have the latitude to borrow to deal with crises when they occur. Governments must have that freedom, and this is recognized by all citizens and taxpayers. Limits are difficult to define, and I am not sure that it is even possible to define them; but they should be watched.
When we examine the course of the spending by the Government over the past 10 or 15 years, we see increased indebtedness all the time. In about 1968-69, there was balance, but since then the indebtedness has been mounting. The figures appear in Government publications. In 1977-78, it took $5.56 million or 12.6 per cent of the budget just to service the then existing debt. Today, it takes over 20 per cent of the budget to service the debt. The deficit has risen from $5.5 million in 1977 to $18.5 million today.
The Government ignores the fundamental principles of how domestic housekeeping should be done. If we become too involved in expenditures that are beyond our ability to pay, then we are incapable of dealing with the budget. We must set limits.
I should like to give some figures from the Financial Times of February 28. An article on the front page describes the degree to which the country has increased the net federal debt. The article pointed out that in four years the Government will
have more than doubled the net federal debt of $68.6 billion as it was in 1980. The total debt accumulated since Confederation, from 1867 to 1980-is $69 billion. If we go on the way we are going, in four years the accumulated debt will be $152 billion. It will have trebled in that short period.
We are talking in sums that are incomprehensible to most people. When I spoke on second reading of the Bill I tried to bring home to people the magnitude of the borrowing that is proposed in the Bill. 1 have another idea which I think is within the grasp of most people. We all watch football and know that the size of the field is 110 yards in one direction and 65 yards in the other. If you covered that field with $1 bills, the total amount required would be $1 million. The bills might lap a little over the edges. But one million $1 bills would cover, more or less, the football field. If you had packets of one thousand $1 bills and stacked them up, the field would be covered four inches deep at a cost of $1 billion. If you covered it a foot deep, it would take $3 billion-one million times one thousand. The Government is asking for $19 billion which would mean that the football field would be covered to a depth of six feet, four inches. That is the magnitude of the request made by the Government in this Bill. The amount of the borrowing is conceivable, in those terms.
Hon. Members opposite are always asking Members on this side what we would cut to reduce expenditures. The Auditor General made a very good study of the expenditures, but of course we learn about them after they have taken place. Someone already mentioned the $1.7 billion spent to acquire a fleet of gas stations. This did not increase the amount of petroleum available to Canadians at all. The company that acquired Petrofina at the cost of $1.7 billion now pays $18,000 per day, and will pay that for eight months, to rent a vacant building in Calgary. That will come to four and a third million dollars for unoccupied space.
These are the things that ought to be cut, Mr. Speaker. I could cite thousands of other examples if you would allow me another 10 or 20 minutes. I see you are going to rise to recognize someone else, and I thank you for the courtesy of allowing me these ten minutes.
[ Translation]


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, since I last spoke to this Bill, I have listened carefully to what was said by my colleagues in the Official Opposition. I believe that the $19 billion are so important to Canadians that this should be debated in both official languages of our country, and that is why I intend to speak to the House in French today. Since I am from Southern Ontario, my French may leave something to be desired. However, with the co-operation of my colleagues, including the Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), the Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) and the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), I feel that I will be able to explain in the other official language and to all Canadians throughout the country, why we on the Opposition side are speaking
March 22, 1983

against and will be voting against this borrowing authority for $19 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment for a few moments on the Government's financial planning. Generally speaking, individuals and businesses draw up budgets for a period of one year, according to a logical and rational procedure. This includes estimating income and calculating fixed expenditures. The difference between those two figures, if it is positive, can be used to defray any unforeseen expenses. If there is no surplus, however, the business or the family must borrow additional funds to meet its financial requirements, bearing in mind that the debt must be paid back later on. That is the procedure followed by individuals, by families and by businesses because it is, after all, a sensible one.
What does the Liberal Government of Canada do, Mr. Speaker? It is asking us to give it a borrowing authority for $19 billion which is more than the total government expenditures at the time the Prime Minister came to power. The Government prefers not to tell us why it needs the money or what its estimated revenue and expenditures are. We are not entitled to that information, and the Government is simply asking us for the authority to borrow the money. We all know that the spineless Government backbenchers will approve the Minister's request without a second thought. Then we are told that this figure is merely an estimate of what the Government is going to spend, but it is not the real figure, Mr. Speaker. What we have here is a perfectly ridiculous situation. At the end of February, the Government gave us an estimate of its expenditures for the coming year, in the Main Estimates. These expenditures are to start at the end of March, and at the end of June, the House will have a chance to say whether the Government is authorized to spend that money. But between now and the end of June, Mr. Speaker, the Government will have spent one third of the total amount before the House has even given its approval. This absurd situation is possible because the Government can count on its spineless backbenchers.
Finally, the Government may be bringing down a so-called budget corresponding to the revenue side of the entire budget balance. It was first promised for the beginning of the year, and then sometime before the first of April, and now there is a possibility that it will be brought down some time in April, but who knows, we may have to wait until May or June. Maybe this budget will never be brought down, because we are still considering the income tax legislation arising from a budget that was brought down a year and a half ago.
Mr. Speaker, what is $19 billion? I would like to quote an article in the Globe and Mail, which gives some idea of what $19 billion exactly represents. I would like to read the following into the record, and I quote:
What is $19 billion? This is what it means. It was the total federal budget for 1973-74. That year, Government revenue was $19.3 billion and Government
Borrowing Authority
expenditures were $20.04 billion. It was the total national debt, the cumulative deficit from Confederation until 1974-75.
In fact, the steadily increasing deficits of the Liberal Government since the middle of the 70's have now reached the point where not the national debt, but the interest payments on that debt exceed the overall budget expenditures at the time Pierre Trudeau came to power.
That is what $19 billion means, Mr. Speaker. What does it all come down to? The Government, the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) simply admit their total incompetence. On November 12, 1981, just 15 months ago, they told us that the deficit for the current fiscal year ending on March 31 would amount to $10.5 billion. That was the estimated deficit. That is the amount the Government economists anticipated for this year.
Mr. Speaker, I notice that I am rapidly running out of time and I would appreciate it if the House would allow me one more minute to conclude my remarks.
Canadians who have to live on unemployment insurance or welfare have difficulty imagining what $1 billion represents, let alone $19 billion. Mr. Speaker, I for one have no idea what $1 billion represents. I will probably never have a million dollars or even one-tenth of a million. Therefore, one could say I am an amateur when it comes to discussing such a sum of money. But I want to say that, as a taxpayer, 1 am outraged to see the sums of money that the Government is ready to borrow. From the bottom of my heart, 1 will vote against this borrowing authority, Mr. Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague.

With regard to the Bill presently before the House, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) rose in his place on February 17 to ask for borrowing authority for some $19 billion, I was certain that a full budget would only be a few days away. No Minister of Finance, no matter how profligate that person might be, would want to borrow that amount of money without giving a full accounting, without an accounting that would only come in the form of a budget, or so I thought. The budget would be brought down, the Government's proposals for additional revenues would be detailed, the country would be reassured that fiscal responsibility was still a commodity which even this Government recognized; in fact, all normal procedures would be followed.
How hopeless to think this would actually take place. Now a month later we have no more precise idea of when the budget will be presented to the House than we had when the Minister of Finance first came before us requesting some $19 billion. The Minister seems to feel no obligation to share this information with the House in general or with the Canadian public. He feels no sense of responsibility to give a fiscal accounting of the Government's balance sheet.
One is forced to ask, therefore, is it because the Minister is unaware this must be done that he refuses to say when a

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
budget will be forthcoming? No, I think surely that has to be discounted. Is he afraid, then, that the bad news of his budget will send the economy into another tailspin? No, I think that has to be discounted as well because this resilient nation, having withstood so many shocks and blows from the present Government, can show once again it can absorb whatever even this Government has to offer.
What is the reason the Minister of Finance seeks to borrow another $19 billion? What is the reason he fails to put it in the context of a budget or fails to explain why he wants Parliament to offer him this blank cheque? The only reason, Sir, I can see why the Government procrastinates and dawdles and delays with regard to a budget is that it simply cannot decide on which way it wants to go. Stimulate the economy and increase the deficit say one half of the Cabinet members, and the other half say no, restrain expenditures and increase taxes.
The see-saw battle goes on. The Finance Minister meanwhile alters his forecast of a budgetary deficit daily. It mounts and mounts. The country, unfortunately, is allowed to drift into an ocean of fiscal uncertainty. How sad for the country, but how very predictable of this Liberal Government.
Eventually we will have a budget. Eventually we will know why the Government needs an additional $19 billion. Eventually we will learn which faction in the Cabinet has won the fiscal battle. Eventually the Government will learn it can no longer duck its responsibilities. In the meantime this borrowing Bill is a catalyst for the fears and concerns that animate the business community from one end of this country to the other. To many, this Bill is the signal of a return to higher taxes. They see it as more Government rapaciousness in the capital markets which means a scarcity of capital for the private sector. And that in turn will lead to an upward movement in interest rates. That is what causes fear.
Nothing strikes greater terror in the hearts of business people, farmers, home owners, and job holders than that this Government will once again resort to its interest rate policy which drove so many Canadians and so many businesses into bankruptcy. And so people are asking: is this what this borrowing Bill signals? Is this the overture to the budget objectives? Obviously Governments need money to pay for legitimate expenditures for social programs, job creation, research and development and other legitimate items.
But how frequently, Mr. Speaker, have we seen this Government almost deliberately exacerbate, drive up, those very expenditures by putting into place ill-conceived and ill-timed economic policies without any consideration of what the social costs will be? The November, 1980 budget with its infamous National Energy Program wreaked havoc on the petroleum industry in this country and threw thousands of people out of work. This occurred not only in the oil producing regions but, as well, in the manufacturing and secondary industry sectors, sectors that would have produced the equipment for megaprojects and small exploration projects alike.
When the National Energy Program was being dreamed up, did anyone on the Government benches consider for a moment that its NEP could conceivably throw thousands of Canadians out of jobs, that it could cause Unemployment Insurance payments to soar, that it would result in lost homes and lost hopes? Did anyone give that a moment's thought?
When the November, 1981 tax reform budget was brought before the House, did the then Minister of Finance pause to consider the turmoil and uncertainty he would be creating in the private sector, the damage he would be doing to the motor of this country, the private sector that truly generates the growth rate of Canada? Did he even pause to contemplate that those ill-considered measures would bring plans for expansion and development, whether in a corner grocery store or in a major industrial plant, to a crashing halt? In that climate of uncertainty and fear, interest rates soared, and record numbers of businesses and individuals were driven into bankruptcy. And, more important, countless others were driven out of jobs.
In the human debris and fall-out from these two ill-conceived budgets lies the tragic proof that this Government conceives its economic policies in total isolation from any consideration of the social costs that may ensue.
Thousands of Canadians have paid for these mistakes in lost jobs, lost homes and lost individual and family security. Unemployment Insurance and provincial welfare programs have been strained to the breaking point. Social agencies that deal with abused children, alcoholism and marriage breakdown report significant increases in these problems. These widespread social problems are the direct result of the wrong economic policies applied at the wrong time.


Mr. Breau:: Not so.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I ask the Hon. Member to take a look at it so he can see that that is what is resulting. If he says it is not happening in his area of New Brunswick, I can tell him I will go there and find out that many people are out of work as a result of these policies.
Misguided economic policies have produced a crisis for Canada's social programs. When the cost of these programs soars, as indeed it has, the Government comes before the House seeking greater borrowing authority, as it is doing now. This situation should never have happened. How much better, Sir, how much more humane, how much more sensible if the Government had seen the error of its way before it threw the country's economy into a tailspin at its recent attempts at budget making.
We pray that in the next budget it does not follow the same route.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member accept a question, if there is time left?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Herb Breau: Does the Hon. Member realize that when she says and others say to people that the causes of alcoholism,
March 22, 1983

drug problems and social problems are related to the economy-and I am very close to some of these problems in my constituency and elsewhere-it is mostly people who are the victims of economic circumstances who are alcoholics and drug addicts? Does the Hon. Member realize that she is offending these people? The facts show that problems of alcoholism and drug addiction have absolutely nothing to do with the economic state in one area. Quite the contrary, sometimes these problems exist where the economy is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is making an argument. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) does not seem to know what is going on in this country, and he does not seem to know the tragedy unemployment is bringing to hundreds of thousands of people across this country, and he does not seem to know how closely it is related. I tell him to speak to the social agencies and visit them. If he does not have time to do that, he should get out of this House and go and discover for himself-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, yet again I must rise to speak on this Bill, and this time I want to direct my words to Members opposite, or at least to those who are not at the same time members of the Cabinet, such as it is. Would it be presumptuous of me to remind them that they were elected not to represent the interests of the present Cabinet but those of their constituents and the Canadian people?
Would 1 be going too far back to basics if I were to observe that our country is not a representative democracy but a responsible democracy, and that as such it demands of its Members of Parliament not a blind vote but, rather, the full value of mind and conscience, for the exercise of which they will be judged at the next electoral opportunity?
We have before us a demand for an endorsed cheque. It is a demand for an endorsed cheque in the amount of $19 billion. For what purpose is it and what is the money to be spent on? These are not unreasonable questions for a prospective investor to ask, for that is what we are, including all Members on both sides of the House. Parliament is being asked to invest $19 billion of someone else's money and they are the people of our constituencies all across the country.
The Cabinet either cannot or will not tell us what its proposal is. The Cabinet, quite rightly, insists that any corporate borrower must issue a prospectus before it may do its borrowing. It and its provincial counterparts even insist upon a very rigid standard of disclosure for that prospectus. Yet the Cabinet has placed before us Parliamentarians, who have been charged with the ultimate responsibility for the protection of the public purse since the time of King Charles I, a demand for the provision of money with no questions asked.
Borrowing Authority
I am not speaking now as a Progressive Conservative or a Member of the Loyal Opposition; I am speaking as a Member of Parliament. I am speaking as one whose final responsibility is not to a given political Party or even ultimately to a given institution, but to the political system as a whole. In that capacity I am not only saying that this is a bad Bill and that it is one that is inherently dangerous in principle, I am saying that while all of us here realize that, many of us are trying to avoid facing it.
I would ask Members to bear with me since I will have to be somewhat partisan to back up the point I am about to make. Between the years 1968-69 and 1982-83, federal Government spending, calculated on a national accounts basis, rose by 624 per cent. During that same period, costs in the private sector, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, rose by 192 per cent. That is to say that during this period, federal Government spending rose three and one-quarter times the rate that the cost of living went up, despite the fact that this was the most inflationary period that most of us have ever known.
Since the Cabinet re-established itself in February of 1980, federal Government spending has risen by 68 per cent while the CPI has risen by 37 per cent and the GNP by 33 per cent.
In 1968, ours was a proud and stable country. In the period since that time, while the private sector and private citizenry alike struggled to maintain and recover that pride and stability and finally to find a base from which it might eventually be recovered, the Cabinet has been hellbent on a midnight ride of its own choosing, dragging us and the country helplessly behind it.
Canadians have always been so trusting that we have never seriously questioned this. I suppose that does not apply in this place because those people in the Cabinet were of us and were members of our group. This has not been challenged by others in the country, except perhaps by some members of what we probably thought was some extreme fringe. But we as Members were here to take care of that sort of thing for them.
We are now faced with a ruined economy for which the Government assures us it is not to blame. While the Government blames someone else, that responsibility varies from time to time depending on political considerations. While our traditions and parliamentary principles are in tatters, we are faced with a Government Bill which is demanding $19 billion for the Government's private and undisclosed purposes.
According to 1982 figures, federal Government borrowing already accounts for 51 per cent of all net new security issues placed in Canada. In layman's terms, that means that less than half the money that should be available for private sector expansion and job creation is left after the Government, following the policies of the Cabinet, has had its way. Of course, the Government has had its way because money has been no object to it since it is ours and not theirs. If the Government or a private sector borrower wished to borrow money, the Government would simply raise the price since the taxpayer apparently can afford anything.

March 22, 1983
Borrowing Authority
The Government now wants to borrow another $19 billion but will not tell us why. It did not have to ask for this money in one sum. It could have split the Bill in two and obtained our authority to borrow enough money to see it through to the end of the fiscal year, then brought down a budget and introduced another Bill to borrow for its remaining requirements. As well, it could have produced explanatory material along with this Bill as it stands. It could have brought in yet another of its celebrated mini budgets, of which we have seen so many since the fiasco of November, 1981.
Of course, several other Members have mentioned that a budget has been promised to be delivered on various dates. I understand that the budget will probably not be brought down until early May.
Since the Government could have taken any of these steps, why did it not do so? Is it that the sinister suggestions of some of the public at large are correct? Is it that the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) musings on yet another occasion were correct and that in his eyes we are just a bunch of nobodies? Perhaps so, but we are still the last and sovereign authority over the public's pocketbook. They, our electors, have assigned us that responsibility, and it is to them that we are finally accountable.
Parliament once fought long and hard, and bloodily I might add, to be the sovereign authority over the public purse. We do not do service to either our for bears or our successors if we surrender that privilege lightly now. Perhaps the Cabinet has lost so much control of the economic, political and every other situation with which it is faced that it has just lost its grip. Perhaps that is closer to the truth.
The point is that for whatever reason this Bill is being brought forward in this fashion, there is no justifying it if we are collectively to fulfil our moral responsibilities to our electors. Whatever the reason for introducing this Bill, even if it be simply incompetence and lack of control, it militates against our continued confidence as the appointed delegates of our constituencies in this Cabinet's management of the country's affairs.
There comes a point at which every person must consider the true interests of those to whom he is ultimately responsible. I would suggest to all of us here that this Bill must mark that point.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the context in which we enter this stage of debate on Bill C-143 is that the only sector of our economy that is not practising restraint and setting intelligent spending priorities is the federal Government. In that context we are being asked to make a great leap in faith. In the same context we are being treated daily to new and more senseless examples of the Government's free wheeling spending. The Government is oblivious to the strains being placed on the backs of Canada's taxpayers.
The Government has come before us today to ask for authority to borrow $14 billion for the taxation year 1983-84. Of that, $5 billion is being requested to see it through this current fiscal year. Under what terms are we being asked to
vote for this authority? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) asks us to trust the Government. He has said that the Government will not even allow us to continue debate so that the public may hear us, and will impose closure. He says, "Trust us". We are asked this on the basis of a sheet, a Bill, one page with a little bit of print, compared with the Bill on tax increases, Bill C-139, which was nearly two inches thick.
Just a few months ago, let me remind the House and those who share this concern about the financing of our nation, the Minister's predecessor in the Finance portfolio very emphatically told the House:
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 that it would be appropriate to ask the House for additional borrowing authority until I have laid out in some detail an update on both situations ... I will certainly be doing that before 1 would come back to the House for additional borrowing authority.
Where are the explanations? Now we are told, "Trust us. Wait for a budget, which may be late in April or may be now in May. In the meantime, we will close off any debate and discussion on the matter".
I will not go back to my constituents in the Waterloo riding and tell them that I voted for Government authority to borrow $19 billion when it would not give the country any idea as to how it planned to use it. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those in the Mennonite culture which I represent, the people of Germanic and Scottish ancestry in the Waterloo region, do not understand what it is to vote for something concerning which they are given no details.
I will not trust the Government with that authority when it has already spent over $1 million on newspaper ads to tell us just how close we are to energy security. I am reminded, as I speak in the House today, that nearly 7,000 homeowners in the Waterloo region have seen money spent by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to let them know that this same Government approved of the use of urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes. Certainly, those taxpayers have so little regard for the word of the Government, so little trust in the Government which is asking to borrow $19 billion, that many of them, I find day by day, will have nothing to do with the new Government-approved programs to remove urea formaldehyde foam insulation from their homes.
I refuse to go back and tell the post-secondary graduates of Conestoga College or the University of Waterloo or Wilfrid Laurier University that I voted to trust the Government which has overseen an economy which cannot provide thousands of these capable and trained young people with employment of any kind, much less in fields in which they have long studied. They have already trusted that the Government would be of some help, would find some context so that they could feel they were contributing to our Canadian society. However, what do they find? They have almost no hope of jobs. Make-work programs give them little sense of satisfaction and little hope
March 22, 1983

that they can build families and futures. What trust has the Government earned from the 14.2 per cent record unemployment in Waterloo region, as reported by Statistics Canada last month? These 22,000 people, out of an area work force of 152,000 cannot be expected to trust the spending habits of a Government which has overseen its record reliance on jobless benefits and welfare.
In the last 15 years, Government spending has risen at an unprecedented rate of 59 per cent, a sad commentary on those who support the Government for practising restraint. For every $4 it spends, the Government must now borrow $1, and the borrowed money must still be paid for. The cost of interest on the debt during the last fiscal year was forecast at $16.7 billion, the equivalent of one revenue dollar in three. Is it any wonder that our young Canadians look with concern to their future? Is there not some point at which responsible representatives must say, "I will no longer give carte blanche to a Government which has no compunction about mortgaging the future of my children and their children's children."? Yet the Government, in its hunger for more and more money to spend, refuses to listen to smart spending suggestions.
It has already agreed, in the person of the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), that this country's voluntary sector can create lasting jobs by spending far less of the taxpayer's money. The Government admits that it must spend an estimated $120,000, while the voluntary sector has already demonstrated, as the Secretary of State has admitted, that it can create the same job for just between $35,000 and $40,000. Even the proven capacity of the voluntary sector to train and retrain unemployed Canadians in new job skills remains virtually ignored, untapped, by the Government's own admission. Its answer is, "We can do it ourselves", and in terms of the future of the country, it states, "We will not stimulate either the private or the voluntary sector".
In this morning's Globe and Mail, under the heading "Ottawa, business warning to deliberate spending boost", in a column by Thomas Walkom, we see these comments:
There are two levels of objection to Government deficits. The usual economic criticism is that deficits soak up savings that otherwise might be used by private borrowers. This process, called crowding out, is said to force up interest rates. At the limit, this criticism blends into the monetarism of U.S. economist Milton Friedman, which holds that increased spending for lower taxes don't help the economy anyway and that governments should concentrate on the growth of the money supply.
The article continues:
The other level of objection to Government deficits is more fundamental. It is based on the view that nations, like corner stores, should balance their books and pay their debts. This is a view founded on a profound mistrust of government as an economic actor. It is virtually untouched by the ephemeral winds of economic boom and depression.
In conclusion, in opposing the Bill, let me say that we are faced with a Government which has abandoned the concept of a balanced budget, and we are faced with a Government which is not prepared to clean up its own act. Therefore, I and many others in this House cannot trust the Government with $19 billion for which it will give us no design as to how it will be spent.
Adjournment Debate


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, we often start by talking about the pleasure of speaking, but it is certainly not a pleasure to speak one more time on one more borrowing Bill. The Government, drunk with mismanagement, is asking for another $19 billion, $5 billion for this fiscal year, and another $14 billion for which there is not even a plan. There is no budget and no stated intention as to how that money is to be spent. What we have in front of us is simply a request, a request under the threat of closure.
The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Mosquito-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He's a real bug.


Arnold John Malone: -or Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), said to us a little while ago that following King Charles, the purpose of this Parliament was to control the King's purse. This Parliament has lost such control. Parliament does no longer control the finances of this country. We are under the threat of closure to borrow money and we are under closure to spend money.
I see that Your Honour is rising. May I call it six o'clock and continue tomorrow?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a large investment in the success of the experiment in democracy in Zimbabwe. If we take our minds back two years or more to the great Lancaster House Agreement, we will recall that Canada, along with many of the other nations of the world, wished the very best for that country, which had endured a great struggle for its independence, in its great experiment in democracy. For us in Canada it was an affront to our sense of representative Government to have a minority ruling the majority. So we invested in that great transition from a minority ruling the majority. We invested by sending one of our key representatives over there to monitor the election, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, our Commissioner of Human Rights. He came back with the report that as far as he could determine the elections had gone very well considering the relative upheavals ip the country. He was satisfied that the elections themselves were democratic. As the headlines of that day indicated, Mr Fairweather came back with an emotional appeal for quick aid to Zimbabwe. That aid was forthcoming. Something like $1.3 billion in aid was

March 22, 1983
Adjournment Debate
promised that country, part of which was given by Canada. Possibly some people felt it was not enough. We promised at least $60 million in aid at that time, but there were other kinds of aid.
For example, I have here a press clipping of the Ottawa Citizen, May 13, 1981, which I read in part:
The Zimbabwe government has turned to Ottawa's medical experts for advice in rehabilitating almost 5,000 of its war-mutilated soldiers. Dr. Sidney Dinsdale, head of psychiatry at the Royal Ottawa Hospital's new rehabilitation centre, will fly to Zimbabwe Friday to share with doctors his expertise in the handling of amputations and other disabling injuries.
That is the kind of outpouring which took place around the world to that country. Canada invested, in terms of CIDA, something like $50 million, and then in excess of another $10 million or $12 million in teacher aid, as well as other kinds of support.
At the same time we were hearing concerns that the country might turn to a one-party rule. It was precisely because of that concern that there was a sense of urgency on the part of western nations that aid should be forthcoming as quickly as possible, and that they should encourage the viability of the economy in that country and the viability of a multi-party system in that Government.
About a year ago I had lunch with a Member of Parliament from Zimbabwe. I found that he was in fact a Member of Parliament in exile and that he was travelling throughout the world pleading the cause of not only himself but of a colleague of his in that assembly, expressing a concern for many of his other compatriots, white and black, who were faced with the fear of oppression because the intelligence agency of that country was intimidating people around the country.
That stimulated my concern about Zimbabwe, and I had documented evidence that there was reason to be concerned. I began writing to our Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. MacEachen) expressing these concerns. His original correspondence indicated that my fears were somewhat on the alarmist side, that there was no substantiation to them, and that there was no real need of concern, but that, according to their reports, everything was going well.
As I persisted in my correspondence I became increasingly concerned that our officials in Zimbabwe were not as observant as they might have been. The latest press reports indicate, as they have indicated in the past week or ten days, that not only has there been oppression of the elected Members of Parliament in that country, but there seems to have been oppression of people throughout the countryside. We hear press reports of shallow graves throughout the area and that there has been harassment. We now have the Leader of the Opposition fleeing to England for security.
What is even more alarming is that the Ministers of the Crown in the ruling Party are calling for the annihilation of the Opposition Party. I am speaking of the Party, not the people in the Party. That gives cause, Mr. Speaker, to believe that they are moving to a one-Party state, and when I hear press reports confirming what I knew a year ago, that the
North Koreans are training an elitist guard in Zimbabwe, we have cause for concern.
My simple question to the Parliamentary Secretary is, can we put any kind of pressure on this Zimbabwe Government to make sure that the aid we are giving to that country will be aid for the citizens and not to help the Government continue its oppressive tactics on the population?


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to thank the Hon. Member for raising this issue. I would like to reassure him that we, as a Government, have conveyed his message and also the message we received from the press as to certain activities in Zimbabwe.
Last week we had a visitor, a Member of that Government, with whom we had a long conversation concerning the circumstances surrounding the events which happened over the past Christmas holiday. We understand that the Government subsequently sent police and military units into that region in order to counter such dissident activities. It appears that in the course of these operations, a considerable number of people in the area suffered injuries or lost their lives.
We were very concerned about these reports and we have drawn our concerns to the attention of the Zimbabwe authorities at senior levels. We conveyed the hope that peace and reconciliation would replace conflict. We have been assured by the Zimbabwe authorities that national reconciliation remains a primary objective. The Government of Zimbabwe has also informed us that a three-man team has been designated to carry out an inquiry and to receive briefs from the general public and non-governmental and church organizations. Although this is not a formal Commission of Inquiry, it has been established at the direction of Prime Minister Mugabe and is empowered to recommend remedial action. We shall, of course, follow the situation closely in view of our close ties with Zimbabwe. That is why we say that, as friends and supporters of an independent Zimbabwe, we share high hopes for the country and its people. All the funds we have committed up to now are currently committed to joint projects with the Zimbabwe Government, and we intend to honour these commitments. We are, however, following the situation very closely.


TRADE-EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ON BRANCH PLANTS-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS. (B) ROLE OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN PROHIBITING EXPORTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I asked questions of the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) about the restriction on some Canadian firms vis-a-vis their exports. I would like to pursue that for a few moments.
We stumbled across some documents from the 1960s which revealed that trade commissioners had said to the Government of that day, that up to 75 per cent of the branch plants operating in Canada were operating under some form of restrictions on their exports, thus losing Canadians literally hundreds of
March 22, 1983

thousands of jobs over the decade. Since that time I placed some ads in the classified columns of several newspapers and I have been soliciting information from ordinary citizens about the export practices of branch plants, or companies which are licensed by American or other foreign firms.
I asked specifically about a case with respect to a licence agreement between Nelson Industries Inc. of Wisconsin in the United States and Nelson Muffler Canada, Inc., which is established at Burks Fall, Ontario. I ask about this company because in the licencing agreement that I have here, Mr. Speaker, I find a number of clauses which really make me shiver as a Canadian patriot. I find, for example, on page 4, section 3, a clause entitled "Rights outside Territory". It says:
The rights granted to Licensee-
Which is of course the Canadian plant.
-under paragraph II shall not be construed to include any of the rights or licences outside of (Canada) except as may be arranged in writing between the parties hereto.
In other words, they cannot export anywhere outside Canada unless they have it in writing from the U.S. firm. This, as I said, was a licence agreement in mid-1982 between two firms which manufacture things such as mufflers and exhaust systems. I find it to be a real attack on Canadian sovereignty when a plant in Canada cannot export without the written consent of the head office in the U.S.
There is another clause which I am sure you, as a Canadian, will find scandalous, Mr. Speaker, the "trade prohibition clause". It says:
Without limiting the generality of any provisions in this Agreement restricting the grant of any right or privilege to a specified territory, Licensee-
Which is the Canadian plant.
-may not without prior written consent of Licensor-
That is the American office.
-sell, directly or indirectly, the Products for export to a place or person located within any nation, or to any territory or purchaser to which shipments may be prohibited by the United States Government without such consent.
It is understood that the Licensor's-
That is the American company.
-power to give consent to such sales is limited by the United States Government and that in some cases Licensor will be forbidden to give such consent.
That Clause says that in some cases, even if we did find a market elsewhere in the world for these exhaust systems or mufflers, and even if the U.S. company which granted a licence were to concur, it may not concur in some cases because it would be a country to which United States firms cannot export. I find that to be a real violation of our sovereignty because we are an independent state and in such a case American law could prohibit export of a Canadian product produced in a Canadian plant. I find that wrong.
One does not have much time in these proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but I want to refer the House to the 1972 study on foreign direct investment in Canada. It refers to the problems of branch plants and the problems of licencing arrangements. I think everyone here knows that we are talking about a licensee
Adjournment Debate
which manufactures. The report says on page 168 that a number of licencing arrangements were studied and it was found in 1972 that the export limitations of licenced plants was very, very high. Of the ones studied it was found that only 5 per cent had no export limitations at all. Only 5 per cent could export anywhere they wanted to in the world. It was found that 58 per cent were licenced to produce for Canada and Canada only, and that 18 per cent were licenced for Canada and the U.S. In other words, only 5 per cent could export wherever they wished to.
it is also pointed out in the report, Mr. Speaker, that these are arm's length licencing arrangements between supposed Canadian firms and lead offices in the United States, although I think we all know that in the specific case, it is almost like any other branch plant, Canadian in name only; in reality it is totally dictated to by the head office in the U.S.
The report also refers to licencing arrangements between parent companies and Canadian subsidiaries. It goes on to talk about all of the restrictions on trade, such as the limitation on plant size, the licence not giving them a mandate to export, and so on.
1 want the Government to tell us whether it will do something to make sure that Canadian subsidiaries, plants that are licensed, will act as Canadians and respect our sovereignty as Canadians. We want to increase Canadian jobs and create wealth and productivity in the nation.
I also want the Government to release the studies that have been referred to in the report, as well as a Cabinet document released in the summer of 1980 in which the then Minister of Industry called for action to break down some of the barriers in the branch-plant system when it comes to export. So far the Government has not made those documents public, but I think we need them in order to have a useful debate on this matter.
No other sovereign nation in the world would tolerate this kind of foreign domination, or the taking away of their nationhood. I do not know why we have not grown up and asserted ourselves as have our friends in the United States, in Japan or any country in Europe.
During an election campaign, in 1980 the Government promised to expand FIRA in order to make sure that all foreign expansion in this country was screened and would be of significant benefit to Canadians. The Government campaigned on that promise, but after three years it has not delivered. It knows that foreign ownership has cost us jobs and made us poor. This has been shown in many studies. I should like to know why the Government has failed to act, and I am sure all Canadians would like an answer to that question.
This report pointed out that 81 per cent of all foreign expansion in the 1960s was funded from Canadian sources and only 19 per cent was funded from foreign sources. In other words, we are financing foreign expansion in this country with our own money. It is about time we stopped that, showed that

March 22, 1983
Adjournment Debate
we are proud to be Canadians, and intend to promote growth in the country for and on behalf of Canadians.


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his concern. We on this side of the House are also very concerned about the problem the Hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the point raised by the Hon. Member is indeed a problem for the Department, that is, to find out whether companies are preventing foreign branch plants of those companies from exporting outside the country. We were very pleased to receive the information relating to the point raised by the Hon. Member, and the Minister of State (International Trade) (Mr. Regan) is already having a complete check done as a result of the question put by the Hon. Member.
It is of course a fact that it is often very difficult to know what the actual intentions of such companies are, and to judge to what extent artificial competition may be involved. I feel it is therefore important to get to the bottom of this question in order to ensure that the objectives of the Foreign Investment Review Act and FIRA are indeed being observed. We often hear many comments from people who disagree with the objectives of FIRA. The Hon. Member has just asked that not only the objectives but also the mechanisms of FIRA be expanded. There is some controversy on this point, but what we must bear in mind at this point in the debate is the need to ensure that when foreign companies allow branch plants to set up in Canada, such action is beneficial to Canadians and the Canadian market, and also that a real export market exists. In fact, the Act is very specific in that respect, Mr. Speaker. The Act says among other things, that normally in the first case, the Government would ask foreign controlled companies to, and I quote:
Make an effort to obtain a full international mandate in terms of innovation and market development, when they can thus increase their effectiveness by specializing in profitable activity.
Secondly, the Government asks branch plants to, and I quote:
Be active on all markets, both abroad and in Canada; to be prepared to develop new markets.
I think what the Hon. Member is asking is that we ensure that branch plants play a truly active role in Canada in creating jobs and seeking new markets by every possible means, and that they stop hiding behind a smokescreen of artificial competition which runs counter to Canadian interests, both with respect to the manpower aspect and international trade.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to say that our concern about artificial restrictions imposed on branch plants of foreign companies is justified. The Hon. Member has
provided my colleague, the Minister of State (International Trade) with a copy of an agreement according to which such restrictions were imposed. The Hon. Member has received the assurance that an exhaustive enquiry will be held, and the Minister will of course be communicating the results to the Hon. Member as soon as the enquiry is completed.


AIR CANADA-STATUS OF RCMP INQUIRY INTO TRANSFER OF HEADQUARTERS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) on March 7 last, but he chose to remain seated and let the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) answer the question. I asked the question very simply and in the public interest to find out about the status of the RCMP inquiry ordered by the Minister of Justice into the transfer of Air Canada's Montreal headquarters.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should say that, with a view to obtaining more information, I put a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on December 9, 1982 concerning the transfer of the head office following offers made by real estate developers, and that this deal was probably going to cost $10 million more than it should have. The Minister told me on December 9 that this amount of $10 million was pure fantasy. I also asked him that question because the Trizec Company was so sure to get the contract that it had advertised in The Gazette that it would have an important announcement to make the following Thursday. So, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to presume that interested parties kept a close watch on that deal. The same day, December 9, I asked the Minister whether he was aware of an RCMP inquiry into that contract. The Minister never did confirm that there was an inquiry, and he simply said that he was keeping the matter under close consideration, that there was nothing to worry about, and that the $10 million was pure fantasy.
Again on December 21, 1982, I asked a question to the Minister to find out whether he had asked for an inquiry into the Air Canada head office transaction because of the huge difference between the two proposals by Trizec and Gagnon and Archambault, whereas the day before, December 20, he had acknowledged in answer to questions of the Leader of the Opposition that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was indeed making an inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, since $10 million are involved and the public has a right to be kept informed, especially in view of the fact that the Government is now speaking about the need to borrow $19 billion, we are entitled to ask why Air Canada chose the second lowest bid which was $10 million higher than the lowest one.
I also wonder why the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) refused to tell me that an investigation had been undertaken. I still want to know why Air Canada deemed it preferable to rent its new headquarters at $140 a square foot rather than at
March 22, 1983

$85 a square foot, which represents a difference of $10 million. The Minister told me that he expected Air Canada to make a statement justifying the choice of Beaver Hall Place and that if I was not satisfied, he would add to this statement. Air Canada has given no explanation for its decision. Mr. Drabin-ski told the newspapers: We are not willing to discuss publicly the various bids submitted to us. The company does not want to speak about figures which are so far apart. Mr. Drabinski of Air Canada also refused to give any details in reply to our second question which asked for the rationale behind the choice of Beaver Hall Place at a clearly higher cost.
In view of the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think the public and myself are entitled to know why Air Canada will not publicly account for its choosing a building for its new headquarters which will cost the taxpayers $10 million more than it should and the reasons why the Minister refuses to tell us what is now being investigated. We shall continue to pry into this. The contract is obviously under investigation. This was admitted publicly. The Solicitor General refused point blank to rise in this House to reply to my question. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) stated that he would have nothing to say as long as the investigation has not been completed and he also refused to say whether the results of this inquiry would be made public. In my opinion, since Canadians must pay $10 million more than they should, they are entitled to know the reasons for the investigation and, even more important, its results. We are also entitled to know why Air Canada decided to transfer its headquarters and chose a bid which was $10 million higher than the lowest offer. These are all questions to which we would like a reply for the sake of the Canadian people. I believe that the Government should not wait any longer before giving us the information to which we are entitled.
Adjournment Debate
Mr. A! MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond on behalf of the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. MacGuigan) to the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
It is Department of Justice policy of long standing that unless someone is charged as a result of a police investigation the results of the investigation are not made a matter of public record. This policy is dictated by considerations of ordinary fair play. If a charge is preferred, the position is quite different. A person charged with an offence must be given an opportunity to defend himself before the courts and in accordance with the rules of law.
It is well known that in the course of investigating the commission of alleged offences peace officers receive innuendo and dubious allegations of wrong doing which fall far short of what the law requires to launch criminal proceedings. Is that kind of thing to be made public? How and where is the individual who is the subject of innuendo and allegations of the kind just mentioned to defend himself or herself? To make reports prepared by RCMP investigators public in the absence of the preferring of charges could amount to nothing but character assassination and the abuse of police power.
The unequivocal position of the Attorney General of Canada is that he has not the slightest intention of allowing RCMP reports to be used improperly and unfairly, to the possible detriment of anyone in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 23, 1983