1983-02-28

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 25, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Skelly (p. 22957).
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I placed on the record a few of the facts which call into question the Government's right to expect the taxpayers of Canada to grant borrowing authority in the amount of another $19 billion. I should like to add several more items to the sorry list that underscores the reasons the Government does not deserve the confidence of Canadians at this time and why, as spokespersons for these Canadians, we voice their frustrations and resentments.
In 1968, Canada's standard of living was the third highest in the western world, second only to Sweden and the United States. By 1980 we had fallen to eleventh place. Over the past few years our industrial productivity has been rising at the slowest rate of any major industrial nation. Borrowing costs in Canada are higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Our unemployment rate is the second highest of any industrialized nation, and the inflation rate is the third highest in the same category of nations.
Spending in 1982-83 alone increased by 20 per cent on a national accounts basis or by 19.6 per cent on a public accounts basis. Spending on the national accounts basis is now equal to 26 per cent of the Gross National Product. The net debt last year was $94 billion, and this year it is expected to be $122 billion. The Auditor General indicated that in his estimation the expenditures are understated by about $14.5 billion.
This Bill calls for an additional $19 billion of borrowing authority-$5 billion for the remainder of 1982-83 and $14 billion for the year 1983-84. Of course, we all expect that there will be additional borrowings. The amendment says that the $14 billion be not granted at this time but that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and
Economic Affairs. Surely this is a reasonable request and I think the Government should agree to it.
This Party has proposed an all-Party committee to study the Estimates and advise on reductions, but of course one could hardly expect the Government to accede to this request because it has already outlined its programs and very seldom do the discussions on Estimates have anything to do with changes that may be made. I think, however, there are two factors that should be carefully considered. First is the impact of this borrowing on our taxpayers. I am sure we would all agree that we have about reached the point where any further borrowings, any further deficit or any increase in taxation will have a most detrimental effect on our whole economy. Many Canadians are staggering under the load of taxation already and this will add further to that burden. Second is the immorality of mortgaging the future of our children, our children's children and generations yet unborn. I suggest that the Government has not established any credible reason why it should be asking the taxpayers for authority to borrow this amount now.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-143, which seeks $5 billion in supplementary borrowing authority for the current fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 and $14 billion in interim borrowing authority for the 1983-1984 fiscal year.
This is the largest borrowing bill in Canadian history ever to be introduced in the House of Commons. It was introduced without a formal forecast. What we had given to us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) were a few figures thrown out to justify his increased requirements, which in effect is treating Parliament in a shameful and degrading manner.
On February 17, 1983 the Minister stated that the projected budgetary deficit for the current fiscal year will rise to $27.2 billion, up from $23.6 billion since the October statement. However, since no figures were given to back up these numbers two questions arise. What will interest costs be and how much revenue will be collected from personal income taxes? Nobody seems to know, not even the Minister of Finance. He has refused to provide us with a forecast outlining the Government's financial requirements for fiscal 1983. All he seems to be saying is "Trust us. We need $14 billion for the beginning of next year just to get started. Do not ask us how much more we will need before next year ends."
How can there be any trust when one looks at the track record of this Government? For example, just two days after the Estimates were tabled, at least two Government spending

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
estimates were dashed by reality. Public Service growth, predicted in Tuesday's tabled Estimates at 1 per cent in the next fiscal year, will probably triple. The communications Telidon project, which was supposed to be phased out next year with funding of about $1.2 million, will now be extended for two more years at a cost of $23 million.
There is more. This same Finance Minister who seeks our blind trust announced on Wednesday, February 23 that this year's record federal deficit of $27.2 billion will rise to approximately $29 billion next year if the Government sticks to current plans. What plans? We on this side would be glad to see something realistic. The Minister said that the deficit will go even higher if budget measures expected in the next few months contain provisions to stimulate the economy.
The Minister is actually saying that the Estimates for 19831984 are not to be trusted, that they are not really estimates. In fact, they are not even good guesstimates. They are totally unrealistic and give no guidance whatsoever to Parliament and to the Canadian people.
I submit that our poor economic performance will continue to have a negative impact on the finances of the Government as the costs of social assistance rise and revenues stagnate or fall. Any recovery that does occur is likely to be very weak and, as such, will have only a very moderate impact on our economy.
In situations such as this, we are often asked on this side of the House what we would do, what we have to offer to improve our economy, and what we would do to bring about more employment opportunities. I have a suggestion that would be beneficial not only to Atlantic Canada but helpful to the entire nation.
On December 10, 1982 I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) whether he would consider electrification of the Maritimes railway system in order to halt the dangerous erosion of our present service. He immediately replied that, in his opinion, this was not a very worth-while project. In his words, the investment would be too great for the benefit to be harvested at this particular moment. In plain language, what he was trying to say and did not was that either the cost-to-benefit ratio is not adequate or the return on investment is not sufficient.
[DOT] (M15)
These are classic investment terms that can be manipulated to suit one's own purposes. It all depends on the ground rules, such as projected traffic increases and inclusion or not of spinoff benefits. I wonder if the Minister would tell the House what the return on investment is for the recently announced capital outlay for western railway improvements, for example, arising out of the Crowsnest Pass deal?
Why should all the railway improvements be made in the West and to a lesser degree here in central Canada? We are all Canadians. We will all be paying for western upgrading. Why should there not be a better apportionment of railway capital expenditures between the West and Atlantic Canada? The Minister of Transport and his bureaucrats are saying that the traffic, or its projected growth, does not warrant the
expenditure. This, of course, gets us into the old cliche of the chicken and the egg argument. New traffic growth cannot be built and attract new shipping unless there is something to encourage it like a fast freight system from Halifax to Montreal and through to Chicago.
I ask the Government in all seriousness: Why should all these essential capital projections which are in the national interest be subjected to a banker's cold, hard, calculating return on investment analysis? If this is the yardstick that is to be followed, we shall have abolish the CBC, the National Art Gallery, the National Arts Centre, the National Film Board and the National Research Council, to name but a few.
We do not have a viable rail transportation system in Atlantic Canada. This was a Confederation commitment. I say to the House that we need one now. It is my understanding that Canadian Pacific is ready to go with its rail electrification plan, starting with the Rogers Pass Tunnel. The follow-up sector will be Thunder Bay west. Canadian National's plans are to electrify the golden corridor, which is Quebec to Windsor, and this would include VIA's light, rapid and comfortable passenger service.
If this happens we are all dead in Atlantic Canada. We would be left holding the transportation bag. We will be stuck with the crumbling railway system, and one only needs to think of the recent derailments in Atlantic Canada if there is doubt about that. We will be using diesels on an antiquated roadbed. The diesels will wear out or become obsolete or too costly to repair. The only alternative left will be to abandon the rail system and depend on truck transportation.
Such an eventuality poses some interesting questions. What happens to our two great ice-free, all-season ports of Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick? Will the federal Government totally subsidize the increased shipping costs of all commodities to and from the Maritimes? For example, what will replace the locomotive repair and maintenance facility in Moncton? Assuming that we in Nova Scotia developed a petrochemical industry with our Sable Island gas feedstock, how will we transport the by-products of such an industry? We need a safe and efficient rail system to transport benzine, styrene, polyethylene, ammonia, urea and methanol if we are to take full advantage of our offshore possibilities.
If we do not have the proper infrastructure in place we will have to defer to Quebec once the Arctic pilot project comes onstream. I fear that Quebec, and Montreal in particular, is against any of these developments. We will be lucky if the PQ and M pipe line ever gets beyond Quebec City. It is not in Quebec's own best interest. This is all part of the transportation grand scheme to restrict Atlantic Canada. At the heart of it all is the railway and the ports of Halifax and Saint John. We must make a move now to electrify CN in the Atlantic. It will be too late once electrification starts in the West or along the golden corridor. CN should be immediately required to upgrade its rail system in Atlantic Canada, and electrification should start in the East where traffic is lighter so as not to interfere with the heavy grain traffic in the west. The ports of
February 28, 1983

Halifax and Saint John should be recognized by the Wheat Board as western grain export ports and be given substantial increases in grain export shipments.
CN should be starting now to build a spur line to handle the shipment of by-products from the Sable Island natural gas and petrochemical industries. More than any other part of Canada, Atlantic Canada needs the job opportunities that could result from a rail electrification program in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The economic betterment of our area should not be disappearing into the western sunset. We need and in fact demand a fair share of the opportunities that are provided in new advancements and technology such as railway electrification. Atlantic Canada must not be forgotten. Let us make an investment now in Atlantic Canada's economic future. To wait until there is an upturn in the economy would be the worst kind of business planning.
In closing, I say let us get on with the job. Let us put our unemployed to work on a make-work program which will really be helpful and bring long-term benefits to our nation. If we follow this course, we have nothing to lose and all across Canada have everything to gain.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is very notable that during the last number of days, and indeed one might even say weeks and months, the Government has failed to provide clear answers to any questions which have been raised in the House. As if that were not bad enough, most of the time the Government provides no answers at all.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Or false answers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is one of the very real problems evident in the operation of our parliamentary system. We either hear Government Ministers making obtuse remarks which do not come to the heart of the issue, or Ministers refuse to provide specific information. As well, we hear Ministers drawing red herrings across every issue raised, trying to diffuse the issues and duck what is being presented to them. We saw that in spades here in the last couple of weeks.
The present piece of legislation, Bill C-143, the Supplementary Borrowing Authority, is in exactly the same category. The Government refuses to provide the answers for the most fundamental of parliamentary procedures, the most basic issue with which we are ever asked to deal, concerning what the Government will do with the money which it is requesting authority from Parliament to borrow.
Just a few months ago the former Minister of Finance made it very clear that he would not ask for any further borrowing authority from the House until a budget had been provided to the House, until the means of raising and spending moneys had been spelled out to us in detail. That is what he said just a few months ago. Once again, the Liberal Government has gone back on its word. Not that that should be surprising; it happens all the time. However, here we have it in spades. We have it in extravagance. The Government, void of any honour, any
Borrowing Authority
integrity, any courage, has passed up another opportunity to introduce a budget which would at least try to address the financial mess in which Canada finds itself today, in which the economy has been plunged.
Therefore, we are faced with Bill C-143, a borrowing authority Bill which asks the House for authority to give the Government a staggering $19 billion in additional money to spend. However, there is no budget as was promised. Yes, the Estimates were tabled the other day, but they did not give us a detailed account for the $5 billion requested specifically for this fiscal year nor for the $14 billion which will be requested in the 1983-84 fiscal year. There are not even any forecasts as to the need for such increased expenditures.
It is almost impossible to believe, but nevertheless it happens that each time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has risen in the House to speak of the fiscal situation in this country, he has told us that the deficit is larger than it was the last time he spoke, and the financial requirements of the Government continue to grow. Now, that amount projected takes us to the edge of a precipice. There is absolutely no control, no management, no restriction coming from the Government benches.
[DOT] (M25)
Only as recently as last October the Minister of Finance announced, as the House will remember, and indeed announced with the reaction horror and staggering surprise from the country at large, that the federal deficit had risen to $23.6 billion. Last week he came back to tell us that the deficit was now $27.2 billion for the fiscal year ending in March, 1983. In less than four months the deficit had risen $3.6 billion, almost $4 billion; or, put another way, $1 billion for every month since October that the Minister of Finance has delayed bringing in a budget. His waffling and procrastination have resulted, in both financial and human terms, in unparalleled costs, reflected in one-and-one-half million Canadians out of work. The Gross National Product has fallen by 5 per cent during this past year. Bankruptcies among small businesses, among farmers and personal bankruptcies, are up 33 per cent in this past year. High interest rates have economically crippled businesses and individual Canadians. The waffling and procrastination which are hallmarks of this Liberal Government are no prescription for businesses and industries that are crying out to the Government to provide a climate of confidence and stability in the country.
What is needed by the business community is positive, factual information that would lessen the burden of their struggles. With some, those struggles are to expand their businesses. With others, it is merely to survive. Instead, the economic instability and the uncertainty remain; in fact, they grow worse. It confronts us with that uncertainty, that instability, right here today.
Bill C-143 is the largest borrowing Bill, the largest request for money ever to come before the Parliament of Canada. The Government wants authority to borrow $19 billion but it will

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
not tell us what it wants it for. The Estimates for the next fiscal year were tabled last week and they show the largest expenditure ever to be undertaken by a federal Government, an expenditure of $88.9 billion; but that will probably increase when all the Supplementary Estimates are in to $100 billion.
Just think of those figures. We are talking about a borrowing authority of $19 billion and projected expenditures that could go as high as $100 billion. In all of this, the Government refuses to explain to the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, how they are going to raise and spend those moneys. At the beginning of parliamentary history, the nobles held King John accountable to tell them how he was going to spend the moneys of the realm. If he had not done so they would probably have said "Off with his head," and perhaps that is the only way we can bring this Government to be accountable for the moneys that they control now and about which they refuse to explain to the Canadian people, defying parliamentary tradition and denying Parliament the most basic information for which Parliament exists. What that is doing is downgrading, humiliating and demeaning this institution.
It also creates another very worrisome situation, one which I am sure all Hon. Members are running into. The business community hears the news that the Government is after another $19 billion is spending authority and that its estimated expenditures for the year ahead will probably amount to $100 billion; and the signals that go out are inflationary signals. The business community is asking where the Government is going to go for this borrowing and whether it will create a logjam in the capital market.
The concern they express to me and I am sure to most Members on this side, whether they do to Liberal Members or not, is that they are afraid that the battle for scarce capital is going to be reactivated, that that battle will once again be fought unfairly, with priority being given to the public sector requirement while the private sector is left to scramble for what is left.
What that means is that that scarcity of capital will have the inevitable result of pushing rates higher. That is the fear of the business community, whether small business or large business. That is what is being experienced in every part of the country. The instability and uncertainty that has been generated by this borrowing authority is that once again on the horizon we see high interest rates looming because of the way the Government is trying to enact fiscal policies in this country, trying to transact them in a way that is deceptive to this House and to the business community at large.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-143 which is before us at this time is the fourth borrowing authority that this Government has introduced in the last eight months. On June 8, 1982 Bill C-111 granted the Government $6.6 billion. In June, 1982 Bill C-125 gave the Government an additional $7 billion; and in November, 1982 Bill C-128 gave it an extra $4 billion. The legislation before us today will grant
the Government another $19 billion. For what? Of that amount, $14 billion is completely unaccounted for; $14 billion for a budget which we have not yet seen in this House of Commons.
Like previous speakers on this legislation, I deplore the fact that we are being asked to authorize great sums of money without any direction from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) or the Cabinet as a whole as to where the money is going. The main reason for having a Parliament throughout the history of England and of this country is that the taxpayers, the citizens of the country, have a right to say what taxes are levied, what expenditures it is allowed to make. For us to pass this Bill without that rationalization and without any explanation by the Government would be defeating the very purpose for which a Parliament is set up.
We have had three budgets in the last 14 months. The November, 1981 budget, although labelled as a soak-the-rich budget, did anything but that. It was only a mechanism for shuffling the loopholes; close one loophole and open others.
The taxes of those earning the most in Canada were actually reduced as a result of the measures in the November, 1981 budget, and significantly so. Those in the top tax brackets of this country were told that their federal taxes would be reduced from 43 to 34 per cent. The decrease in their federal tax affects what happens provincially and this becomes important in terms of what they actually pay. Therefore, they pay significantly less to the coffers both of the federal and provincial Governments.
In June, 1982 the then Minister of Finance introduced a second budget. That budget can basically be called the six and five budget. The main purpose of that budget was to impose six and five increases on salaries of federal workers, old age pensions, Family Allowances and the pensions of retired public servants. As is so often the case, the Government failed to follow through on its six and five legislation when it came to its friends. This Government has one set of priorities, rules and laws for the average Canadian, but the political appointees, their friends, will get more than six and five per cent increases.
I wish to quote from an article in the Saturday, February 26, Globe and Mail entitled "Some federal agencies manipulate 6 and 5":
Members of the board of the National Energy Board will make an average of $72,668 in the year ended March 31, 1984, up 10.8 per cent from the fiscal 1983 level. In fiscal 1983, they received an average 18.6 per cent raise, bumping up their income over two years by about $17,400.
That is not six and five. We have six and five for janitors in the Government service and for old age pensions, but not for Liberal appointees to the National Energy Board. Referring to the Atomic Energy Control Board the article states:
Part of this budget increase will go to fund a 10.7 per cent rise in average fiscal 1984 management salaries, to $59,340. In the current year, salaries rose 13.8 per cent.
It states that the Northern Pipeline Agency will give its managers an 11.6 per cent raise, to $71,915. The article also refers to other Government agencies.
February 28, 1983

My point is that we authorized Government funds based on a budget in June, 1982 which said that six and five would be the law of the land. That law is not for all Canadians. Some Canadians who are being paid by the Liberal Government are receiving increases much in excess of the six and five program, and for that this Government must be accountable.
The third budget, presented by the Minister of Finance in October, 1982, can basically be called the NEED budget. The only significant program in that budget was the establishment of the NEED program, presumably for those who have exhausted their UIC benefits. Those people were to be provided with employment. By the Government's own figures, 3,000 to 5,000 jobs were created. That is so insignificant in the face of our present unemployment that it is a laugh. The budget has created almost no jobs. The only jobs created are for the ads and brochures put out across this country by the Government. The jobs for those who lost their UIC benefits or have never received them because they have not had a job are not there. This program is not creating jobs at a very fast pace for these Canadians.
And so, Mr. Speaker, we come to the next budget, the budget which we have been told will be introduced in April of this year. We are told that that particular budget will deal with the problem of job creation. These are the hints, the leaks and the indications which we are given. But where is that money going? To what use would that money be put and who would receive that money? I endorse the motion of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) who said that this Bill should not be passed, that the subject matter of this Bill should be sent to committee for study. Surely to God, Mr. Speaker, we should not pass a Bill which gives the Government $19 billion more without any indication that the Government knows where the money is going. This Government has no economic plan and no knowledge of where it is going.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Government is like the chicken which had its head chopped off and still jumps around the coop. This Government is dead but has not the decency to die.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I echo the thoughts of other Hon. Members who have participated in this debate on Bill C-143, a massive Government borrowing Bill which asks the Parliament of Canada, without any plan, design or financial statement, let alone budget, to give to it $19 billion. This Bill, presented without any plan as to what is going to happen to that money, is in my humble opinion a direct insult to this institution and an affront to the Canadian people, an affront to the Canadian taxpayer who will eventually have to pay back this money through whatever taxes the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) imposes whenever he brings in another budget. You do not borrow $19 billion without interest. There is no more free lunch. Canadian taxpayers of the future are going to have to pay this money back. It is completely unacceptable to give the blank cheque which is asked for here by the present Government.
Borrowing Authority
Other Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, have tried to analyse the implications of both the Estimates and spending plans as well as the $19 billion asked for in this Bill. I share the view of most Hon. Members that, frankly, most Canadians, even Hon. Members of this Parliament, just cannot comprehend what $1 billion is. Many years ago C. D. Howe said "What's a million?" Now the question is, "What's a billion?"
I read with interest an article in Saturday Night of February, 1983, where Dian Cohen was quoted as she tried to reduce "billions" to a comprehensible figure. She said, and I quote:
"The big race has begun. The object of the exercise is for the government of Canada ... to spend its way through $76-billion before midnight March 31, 1983. That means spending $200-million a day every day."
That is a tremendous amount of money in terms of the mismanagement of this Government in the last period of 15 years, really since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been in charge. Government spending has been out of control. Spending has gone from $1,837 to $8,000 plus per taxpayer in that 15-year period. Per capita spending has gone from $595 per Canadian to $3,281 per Canadians; interest on the debt to the taxpayer from $215 to $1,600 plus in 1982-83; per capita, from $70 to $682. And it goes on and on.
In a most interesting column, Mr. Don McGillivray in The Gazette on February 22, 1983 tried to define "What's a billion?" He prefaced his remarks by saying that if you had to spend $100 an hour, and you spent that sum for a 16-hour day, taking, 1 believe, Sundays off, you were into the situation that even at that pace, with two weeks' annual vacation, you would be spending only $480,000 a year. On that basis, how long would it take to spend a billion? The answer is, and I quote from the article:
The answer is that it would take about 2,083 years to spend $1 billion. In other words, you would have had to start before the birth of Christ, when the Roman Empire was just beginning under Augustus.
You would have spent about half your billion dollars by the time William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066. When Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492 you would be about three-quarters done. By the time the United States declared independence from Britain in 1776, you would have only about one sixth of the billion left to spend.
Canada's Confederation in 1867 would find you with less than 10 per cent of the money still on hand.
That is just for one billion, Mr. Speaker. He has some other interesting cogitations as to spending an $80 billion or $90 billion budget which, in effect, is close to our estimated budget, but I have no time in this ten-minute abbreviated form of debate to delve into that. We are talking in Bill C-143 of $19 billion. As the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), among others, has said, this is the largest borrowing Bill ever asked by any Government and is just another reflection of the Government's arrogance toward the Canadian people. If it takes that length of time to spend $1 billion, a little over 2,000 years, you are almost back in the days of the caveman, 38,000 years ago, with the $19 billion.
I have tried quickly to give some human dimension to the spending of this Government. All too quickly, with this ten-minute rule, I have tried to put this Government's massive spending into some comprehensible perspective, even though

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
this borrowing Bill for $19 billion is completely without precedent for unknown expenditures in programs still not defined. Sadly, however, there is more than economic bankruptcy in the Government's spending plans, and if this were private industry we would be bankrupt. We never could get the loan from a bank unless we could project what the revenues were and what we were going to do with the money. There is not only economic bankruptcy here, there is a moral bankruptcy in the conduct of this Government. I say sadly, Mr. Speaker, that when a man of principle perverts principle to protect his person, he flies in the face of biblical admonition and is as blind as the emperor who had no clothes. The mightier the man, the more profound the insult. When men of personal honour are blind to public wrong, that does not remove the mote of morality which must govern public affairs. It just again shows that our temporal leaders have feet of clay and do harm to the system if they stay. Who cares if the Minister can balance the books if he cannot be believed? Public trust and the parliamentary system are more important than any one person, and it is indeed sad to see the perverted defence of one diminish the other. A resignation does not confirm the self-inflicted insinuation of personal wrongdoing, but it does admit a public duty higher than self. Why else do we have guidelines?
Ego and purity of spirit can be no substitute for a sense of public responsibility in our form of democratic Government. Lord Carrington did not fire a shot, Sharon did not personally open the gates of the refugees, but both had a public duty to be responsible for their ministerial acts or omissions. And it should be so here. There is no smear about a conflict of interest, no innuendo about wrong, but a very definite statement that through ignorance, inadvertence, or by design, the Government's own conflict of interest guidelines were broken.
If the guidelines have any meaning at all, and the Government has any credibility, something has to give. By the very nature of conflict of interest guidelines and maintaining public trust in Government, there is not only damage done, but there is an insult to that public trust if nothing happens. If a Government is going to ignore its own guidelines and thus has no credibility with its own defined standard of morality, how can the public believe it on more mundane matters of Government like tax policy, budgets and job creation? That is why the Gillespie matter is so acute. It strikes at the very foundation of Government and no number of billions, borrowed or otherwise, will change that fact.
To restore confidence to the parliamentary system, which is far more important than transitory parliamentary kudos in debate, the Minister has to resign, thereby admitting the public wrong and removing the present private doubt about the Minister's integrity and character. Ironically, and for some sadly, it has been the Government's reaction to the issue which has created doubts in the minds of many where before no doubt existed. The Opposition did not create the "Mickey" connection and only the Government can correct it. A public move may restore personal respect but no move at all creates a
cancer of disbelief which will continue to sicken the system and stigmatize the Minister. If the Government fails to move, even more Canadians will believe that the only pervading guideline of this Government is not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you.
SO)
That sad standard, Mr. Speaker, makes the Minister's resignation imperative and makes the issue even more important than the billions asked for in a blank cheque through Bill C-143.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to Bill C-143, the borrowing Bill in the amount of $19 billion.
Ten minutes is a short time to speak. To start, I should like to give a different perspective on how much $19 billion really is to most Canadians. I have worked it out this way, Mr. Speaker, and this may make things a little more clear. If you, sir, gave your wife $1 million and told her to spend $1,000 every day and come back when it was all gone, she would return in approximately three years.


Mr. Blackburn:: She would never come back!


David Kilgour: If you gave her $1 billion and told her to spend $1,000 a day she would return a good deal older and broke in about 2,740 years. So by my arithmetic, spending $19 billion at $1,000 a day would take her 52,060 years.


An Hon. Member:: You don't know my wife!


David Kilgour: That represents a lot of shopping and a lot of years to finance part of one year's federal deficit. In that sense, the $163 billion now in total federal Government debts is an invisible mortgage on our future, on our children and, as someone said, on our grandchildren.
At the moment it is especially important because it vastly reduces the Government's ability to deal with the acute problem of unemployment. As the economist Richard Lipsey pointed out, "you can expect a deficit in a recession and to balance a budget every year is a recipe for disaster." He went on to point out, however, that it is not the existence of the deficit but the fear that the Government has lost control of spending that is the issue. He added that the goal should be to balance the budget over the course of the business cycle, not to balance it every year.
I see that there are seven Liberals present, Mr. Speaker, so through you may I speak to the approximately two million unemployed Canadians about why we have gone so wrong and how we can get things back on track.
The City of Edmonton is supposed to be a mecca of good employment prospects, but I learned last week that 52,000 people are drawing Unemployment Insurance benefits while there are only 1,000 jobs available at the four Manpower offices. I do not know what it is like in Toronto, Montreal, Halifax or Ottawa. I can only shudder when I think of that. Most people think that Edmonton is doing well economically.
February 28, 1983

Why is it that Canada is doing so much worse than other countries? When I last checked the unemployment rate in West Germany it was 8 per cent, in Japan it was 2 per cent and in Switzerland it was .4 per cent. According to Euromoney, last year we were in 55th place out of 81 countries in terms of economic performance and 24th out of 24 OECD countries.
One of the reasons for this, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government has soured the entrepreneurial atmosphere in the country. More investment money flowed out of Canada in 1981 than ever before in our history. Some SI0.3 billion of direct investment left Canada, about half of it due to Canadians taking their money out of the country and the other half due to foreigners taking their money out. Those billions of dollars represent how many lost jobs?
As the billions fled the country, the Bank of Canada resolved to try to keep interest rates above those in the United States on the theory that this would attract foreign money to this country. They tried to keep the dollar at about 80 cents U.S. How many bankruptcies were caused by sky-high interest rates in this country in the last 18 months? How many houses and apartment buildings were not built because of the interest rate policy? In my view, Mr. Speaker, the interest rates we have experienced have killed thousands and thousands of jobs and businesses in the country.
Tax levels are now a major drag on our economic growth. In British Columbia the average family earned $29,201 in 1982 and paid 41 per cent of $12,114 in taxes, made up of $4,055 for income tax, $1,755 for social security, pension, medical and hospital taxes, $1,683 for sales taxes and $1,218 for property taxes and so on. The average Canadian now spends more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined. The 1981 budget did not help the situation by increasing taxes by about $1.6 billion. That is not the way to lift the economy out of the pits.
The national energy policy, which was primarily designed to serve political and not economic objectives, helped push Canada into a recession. Megaprojects such as the Alsands and countless smaller projects died. The program brought in new taxes. As an example, the petrochemical industry in Alberta had ten or eleven natural gas based projects planned, but now all have been postponed, retarded or cancelled because of the new natural gas taxes imposed in the National Energy Program. Today one of the existing plants is building an expansion facility in New Zealand while Alberta is practically bursting with natural gas.
The Government is perceived by many foreigners to be hostile to overseas investment because of FIRA. Just the other day I was on a plane with a person active in the office equipment business. He told me that he wanted to start doing business in Canada and would create 125 new jobs. It cost him $15,000 in legal fees and took three months to get through FIRA. It took only two weeks, however, to get started in West Germany and about the same in Australia and the United Kingdom. He persevered, but how many investors have not
Borrowing Authority
persevered to create new jobs because of the obstacles put up by FIRA?
One of the recent budgets reduced the first-year capital cost allowance at a time when all companies are short of cash flow, especially small businesses. Who knows how many small businesses did not expand or laid people off. It is like garroting a golden goose, small business being the goose that creates most of our new jobs.
The Government has soured our relationships with our closest trading partner through the NEP and FIRA. Last year 50 bills before the U.S. Congress directly or indirectly involved trade retaliation against this country. The problem is how to get out of this situation. It is obvious that the Government has cut the economy with a thousand cuts and is not going to get us out of it.
In closing, I should like to refer to Professor Lipsey again, Mr. Speaker. Last summer he said that Canada should rejoin the international business community, restore confidence both domestically and internationally, and that economic nationalism is something that we cannot afford. 1 heartily agree with him, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, let me enter this debate by asking you a hypothetical question. Let us suppose that I could be instantaneously transported from my place here in the House of Commons to Ryckman's Corners at No. 53 Highway on the Mountain, or along Wilson Street in Ancaster, or to market Square in Dundas, or to the Village Fish'N'Chips Coffee Shop in Waterdown, or to the Carlysle General Store, or to the Freelton Post Office, or to the main streets and intersections of Binbrook or Sheffield or Rockton or Mount Hope, or any one of the 50 communities I represent in Hamilton-Wentworth. Let us suppose I could speak right now to anyone in my riding, or I could talk to my parents out in Vancouver, and say: "I am at this very moment representing you in the House of Commons on a Bill which authorizes the Government of Canada to borrow 19 billion more dollars to meet its spending requirements".
I do not have to imagine what responses my constituents would give to that statement. At the very least they would be exceedingly unparliamentary. Let us suppose that their answers would run along the lines of: "What? In Heaven's name, why do they need another $19 billion? Has this Government not spent enough of our money? Why do they need another $19 billion for this"-expletive deleted-"Government? Don't let them get away with it!"
I am speaking today to denounce in the strongest possible terms the granting of an unprecedented amount of money to pay unspecified bills for programs which are not yet clearly identified. The $19 billion which the Government seeks to borrow is an astonishing admission that this Liberal administration is bankrupt. It is bankrupt in terms of revenue. It is bankrupt in terms of ideas and policies. It is bankrupt in terms of moral authority to impose this kind of burden on the Canadian taxpayer.

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
This Government can only borrow and borrow and borrow, to spend and spend and spend even more. Ottawa's big spenders have determined that it will take $89 billion-that is "b" as in "boondoggle"- to run this country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That is just a preliminary estimate.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: As my colleague points out, that is just a preliminary estimate. Have you any idea, Mr. Speaker, what $89 billion means in terms that we laymen can understand? Breaking it down into $1 bills, let me cite a fascinating analysis which appeared in the Toronto Star by Jim Emmerson on how far $89 billion really can go. Given that folks have troubles with Air Canada's seat sales these days, why not own your own Boeing 747 jumbo jet? Boeing in Seattle says that it will fit you out with a sporty model that Air Canada flies for around $94 billion. That means Canada's $89 billion budget could buy an armada of 950 Boeing jumbo jets, sporty configuration.


An Hon. Member:: That is not enough for the Cabinet.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: No, they do not have that many Cabinet Ministers yet. One of my colleagues says that that is not enough for the Cabinet. They only have 40 or 50 Ministers over there, so they would only need 40 or 50 Boeing jumbo jets. If you are a white-knuckle flyer, how about ground transportation by Rolls-Royce? How about a cozy little Rolls-Royce Corniche at a measly $230,000 a copy? The $89 billion spending plan of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would get you roughly 356,000 Rolls-Royces. The list goes on. Mr. Speaker, you can make up your own examples of how far an $89 billion spending budget might go.
Borrow, spend; borrow, spend; borrow, spend: that is the B-S principle, and we Canadians have had enough B-S from this Government without having to approve this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Right Hon. Member for Mount Royal, has a lot in common with Christopher Columbus. When Columbus left, he did not know where he was going. On his way he faced mutiny in the ranks. When he got to his destination, he thought that he was somewhere else. When he returned, he did not know where he had been. The entire voyage was financed through borrowed money. The similarity ends there, for that voyage was a commercial success. The Canadian ship of state is a vessel which resembles the Titanic far more closely than it resembles the Santa Maria.
This $19 billion represents a 9.6 per cent increase for Government spending, proving that the Government cannot obey its own six and five guidelines. This Government of six and five is coming before us with a borrowing request for $19 billion-$5 billion this year, $2 billion to carry over to next year, plus another $14 billion,-that is $16 billion for next year. This is absolutely the largest borrowing request in the history of this Parliament. The Government will probably require another $19 billion after the $16 billion is used up to carry it through the balance of the year. It has asked for a
total of $26 billion to date, which clearly shows that this is a Government out of control.
If we are talking about the morality of obeying its own six and five guidelines, I think the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said it for me and for the rest of Canadians when he said, as reported on page 22963 of Hansard:
There is certainly no leadership over there and certainly no morality, judging by the performance of the front bench opposite today and on previous occasions.
He was referring to the last week or ten days of distinct immorality which has been going on in the Liberal Government. He continued:
People expect moral and honest leadership from a Government, not the kind of sleazy leadership we are getting from that Minister-
He meant the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray).
-and other Ministers. They ask the old age pensioners and families with small children to exercise restraint while they spend money as if it were going out of style.
There is another aspect of this continuing problem of morality with which Parliament is seized these days that I would like to address briefly. At present there are no up-to-date forecasts to show that the Government needs $5 billion for this year in new borrowing authority. This is in spite of the promises made last October by the present Minister of Finance that there would be a new budget before more authority was sought. He 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.
That speaks for itself. I realize that my ten minutes are coming to a close; I will wrap it up in 30 seconds. I simply want to say that anyone on a fixed income, anyone who is unemployed, or anyone who runs a family budget, will understand why my colleagues and I on this side of the House in the Progressive Conservative Party will oppose with all our might this outrageous borrowing Bill for an extra $19 billion boondoggle.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuing today consideration of the amendment to the borrowing authority Bill proposed by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), which essentially was designed to refer the question of an extended borrowing authority to committee. We think that this is a very rational approach and consistent with parliamentary practice, since it is not very often that the House gets asked for the right to borrow some $19 billion without the presentation of any estimates, a budget or a statement concerning for what the extended borrowing authority will be used.
When I was doing my constituency tour, as I do several times during the year in order to visit the 90-some communities in my riding, the topic last October before this session resumed was that of the deficit. I tried to deal with Government expenditures and our unemployment problem. Through discussion we concluded that the extra expenditures the
February 28, 1983

Government would have to put out by way of Unemployment Insurance and social security measures in picking up living expenses of those people whose Unemployment Insurance benefits had run out, would likely result in a deficit of around $28 billion to $30 billion at the end of the fiscal year on March 31.
In the Finance Minister's statement made two weeks after Parliament resumed, he estimated the deficit would be somewhat less than $28 billion. But with the Estimates we now have we find the deficit will be in that ball park.
The principle generally conceded to be in effect when it comes to managing money in the parliamentary system has always been that, first, the Government will lay down a Speech from the Throne, followed by a budget containing the economic forecast for the country as well as the expenditures and methods by which the Government will raise the required funds, either through taxation or other means. Then as the parliamentary session proceeds we get to the estimates of each department. Committees examine them. However, that procedure is being by-passed with the kind of borrowing authority that is being asked for today. Something like $5 billion is being asked for today to complete this fiscal year. But a new precedent is being set by the Government in asking for an additional $14 billion for the fiscal year to start April 1. This is almost as much as the accumulated borrowing authority requested for last year in the first six months. We were asked in June, 1982 for $6.6 billion, in July, 1982 for $7 billion, and in November, 1982 for an additional $4 billion for a total of $17.6 billion. Today we are being asked for an additional $5 billion to finish out the year.
What the Government appears to be doing is arranging to borrow for one whole year's expenditures prior to the beginning of a year. We are not guaranteed $17 billion will carry the Government through the year. This is simply an interim payment, so to speak. The Government may, in fact, be back before Parliament three or four times for additional borrowing as it did during this fiscal year.
It is right for this Parliament to stand on its ancient traditions so as to find out on what these moneys will be expended. We are right to hold up passage of this Bill until it is referred to a committee, as is the intent of this amendment with which we are dealing at the moment. Questions can be asked in committee and hopefully explanations will be given. Without that kind of question and answer session we get into a great many expenditures that are unplanned, are not monitored by the Parliament of the country, and do not have the sanction of this Parliament.
I have one example I wish to outline. It is a very small amount of money in comparison to $17 billion, $28 billion or even the cumulative budget of somewhere between $150 billion to $160 billion. Nevertheless, this example of mine outlines a principle which is being ignored. The matter came up in the House last week. I questioned the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) about the advertising he was doing in Quebec concerning the Crow proposal. I attempted to point out that the expenditures of those full-page ads had not received any authority from this House. The suggestion that advertising
Borrowing Authority
would be done to explain the Goverment's position on the Crow rate has never been presented in any of the Estimates. It was not mentioned in the budget nor directly in the Speech from the Throne. What is the Minister doing spending money on advertising the Crow rate proposal? Through his own admission, we found that he was prepared to spend $350,000. As reported in Hansard for February 22, 1983, he said:
-and we are estimating that the total ad program will probably cost around $350,000.
When I asked him where he was getting the money, he replied:
Madam Speaker, the funds we are using are funds from my Department and several other departments that are available for communications.
The Minister's reasoning for this advertising was that some of the provinces, specifically the Province of Quebec, were doing so.
I decided to check to see whether the parliamentary process in the Provinces had completely fallen down also. I phoned the Ministry of Agriculture for the Province of Quebec and I found out that indeed the Province of Quebec had allocated some funds to explain the Gilson proposal. Both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Transport in the Province in Quebec had each allocated $5,000 for advertising. Some of those funds had been made available to a coalition set up by the various farm groups that will be affected by the Crow proposal. They had used some of that money for advertising. As far as they knew the total advertising expenditure was $6,103. It was to advertise meetings on the subject.


Mr. Miller:: A pittance compared to the federal Government's amount.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The federal Government needs $350,000 to counteract provincial advertising. The Minister of Agriculture told me that movies, slide shows and all kinds of media hype were being produced by the Provinces. I checked that out as well and found that the Province of Quebec has a slide tape show to explain the Gilson proposal, copies of which are distributed to agricultural experts in various regions of the Province. The Province spent $1,000 on those. These slide tape shows are now being updated, and the Province may spend as much as an additional $5,000 from the authorization fund of the Department of Transport. Thirteen copies are to be produced. If any Hon. Member is interested, a copy will be available at the Buckingham office, which is the closest one to Ottawa.
Parliamentary principles were adhered to in the Province of Quebec. The expenditure was put forward in that Province's Estimates and the funds were expended under the Estimates as passed.
However, in contrast to that, $350,000 is being expended by the federal Government to explain a policy which has never been formally introduced in this House nor has it ever been presented in the form of a Bill. It is a policy which has no authority to have money expended on it to explain it to the people of Canada. There is the difference. My example is only a small one but in the ten minutes allocated to me today I

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
wanted to explain that point to the House and to the people of Canada.


Mr. Norman Kelly (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in the debate this morning. However, the remarks made by the last two speakers from the Official Opposition have prompted me to rise and offer my reflections on what they said and what has been said on this subject in the House to date. I do not recall their constituencies but the two Members who participated and motivated me to speak this morning are Mr. Nowlan from Annapolis Valley-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is not the usual practice in the House to refer to Hon. Members by their surnames.


Norman Kelly: I realize that, Mr. Speaker. I am mentioning their surnames so that I may get the correct constituency from you and use it in my remarks. The second Member who spoke and attracted my attention this morning is the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott).
I believe that the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) is approaching this debate from the proper perspective when he says that we should look at it in its human dimension. I think he is quite right. While we are concerned with money in this debate, we are in the final analysis really talking about people, and I was delighted to hear him approach this debate from that perspective.
Following those remarks, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth rose to make a speech. In his remarks he suggested that, if one were to visit his riding or any riding in Canada to talk to the average Canadians in restaurants, senior citizen homes or anywhere else and ask them, on the basis of this human perspective, how they felt about the Government spending $19 billion, their reaction would be one of almost total outrage. 1 would suggest that the first speaker had the right attitude but that the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth asked the wrong question based on that attitude.
I believe that if we want to get a human perspective on this issue, people should not be asked whether they would like to spend that amount of money. I think the answer to that question would obviously be no, people would not like to have to spend $19 billion, $19,000 or $1,900. Nobody likes to have to spend money. I suggest that the question the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth should have asked in this hypothetical situation is "do you like to receive services." He could have asked the senior citizen if he wants his pension and to live comfortably in the senior citizen building. He could have asked the person who is sick if he wants to receive medicare. He could have asked those who are unemployed if they want to receive Unemployment Insurance benefits or welfare. He could have asked the students if they want to continue to enjoy the university and college courses they are taking now and the ones they will take in the future. He should have asked the businessmen if they want to continue to have their business grants and tax write-offs. Those on the right wing of the spectrum could have been asked if they want the defence forces built up and those on the left wing could have been
asked if they want their social services maintained and enriched.
I submit that those questions reflect the human perspective of the issue. Those are the questions that the Member for Hamilton-Wentworth should have been asking the average Canadian in restaurants, senior citizen homes and factories. If they were asked about receiving $19 billion in terms of those questions, instead of asking them if they want to spend the money, I think their response would have been yes, they want those services.
The Official Opposition does not want us to spend $19 billion; obviously, those Members want us to spend less. However, I believe that none of them has suggested how much less they would spend. If they are interested in making a noticeable dent in this borrowing Bill, they would want to spend $2 billion to $5 billion less. If they find out borrowing Bill morally, intellectually and economically offensive and believe less should be spent, where would they cut costs? If they wanted to save up to $5 billion, where would they cut spending?
Some Members opposite, such as the Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), enjoy rising to criticize Government spending. When they are asked where they would make these spending cuts, they invariably say we should cut advertising expenditures because that is a waste of money. 1 tend to agree that advertising may be a waste of money, but its reduction does not constitute a very significant cut in the budget. If they are really concerned about cutting money, it is necessary to cut billions of dollars from the budget. When they move beyond the small amounts in Government advertising and other areas, where will the large expenditures be reduced?
We suggested that these reductions could be made by changing the character of the post office, which costs taxpayers $500 million a year. We thought we could save the taxpayers that money but the Opposition's response was no. We said that we could save money by reducing the increase in civil servants' salaries. The Opposition opposed that. We tried to save hundreds of millions of dollars by restructuring and realigning the railway system, but the Opposition vehemently opposed that.
I would listen more attentively to their arguments in this debate if they would tell me with some insight and honesty- the same honesty they asked of us-where they would make their spending cuts. I am afraid to wait for those answers for it would be like waiting for Godot, because they would never come. That is the unfortunate character of this debate. The Opposition can criticize us while posing no alternatives. They have nothing substantial or of real value to suggest.
I agree with Members opposite that there should be morality in the debates of the House. There should be honesty in arguments presented to the House that are designed to influence public opinion. I do not believe that that morality and honesty is present in the arguments made by the Opposition, certainly not from what I have heard today. If the Opposition is honest and moral in its belief that we should not spend $19
February 28, 1983

billion on the people of this country, I would ask them where they would make cuts. Let them be honest and moral with the people and tell us where they stand, if they know.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, in a few moments 1 will deal with a couple of areas where we might seriously consider making spending cuts.
First, I would like to say that we are dealing with Bill C-143, which is asking permission of the Flouse to borrow $5 billion in addition to the $14 billion of which we have been notified. The Minister has no right to expect Members of the House to support legislation which asks for $5 billion and $14 billion until such time as the Government has given us a complete financial statement. Actually, this Bill grants a total of $19 billion in borrowing authority which has previously accumulated from Bill C-l 11, C-125 and C-128.
This is the largest borrowing Bill in Canadian history. The Government has passed Bills limiting Family Allowances, pensions and Old Age Security and today is attempting to pass legislation which would allow it to borrow $5 billion. The Government has restricted the least obvious sectors of the economy while allowing the major culprits to go literally untouched through advertising budgets and the like, through Crown corporations, directly or indirectly, and through direct patronage. Those are the areas where the Government would do well to make some serious cuts.
I should like to state a few facts dealing with the runaway deficit, unacceptable Government waste, and its dangerous implications concerning Canadian taxpayers. I would like to review the lack of Government priorities in the Nova Scotia Coalgate affair. On September 26 of 1975, Alastair Gillespie was appointed Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. While Minister, Gillespie learned about the success of coal liquefaction. He learned about these projects in South Africa and, as he told Canadian Press, "I knew about this, of course, because of my previous responsibilities as Energy Minister, and when I was down there"-referring to a visit in 1979-"I spoke to them. I flew over the plants and 1 became intrigued". On March 30, 1977 the Canada-Nova Scotia Oil Substitution and Conservation Agreement was authorized by Order in Council 1977-7/913.
On June 4, 1979 Gillespie resigned as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and later in the same year he again visited South Africa to study the coal liquefaction project so as to examine, now that he had entered the private sector, how he might use his power and influence in the Government of Canada to turn a small amount of money into a literal fortune.
On October 29, 1980 a memorandum of understanding was signed between Alastair Gillespie and Associates and five corporate partners, including two Crown corporations, Petro-Canada Explorations Incorporated, which would report to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which would report to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion.
Borrowing Authority
Continuing on, the corporate partners each committed $300,000; Gillespie, the developer, committed only $25,000. The memo also provided;
The developer will, commencing on October 29, 1980, be remunerated by an annual retainer, initially fixed at $30,000 and on a per diem basis, initially fixed at $600, for Gillespie's time plus out-of-pocket expenses.
The memo stipulated that if Gillespie chose to sell his interest, he was to be paid $25,000 by the corporate partners for his investment of $25,000; and if the corporate partners chose to buy Gillespie out, he was to be paid up to $750,000. This is where the Government could save some money, through better control of Crown corporations as they disburse taxpayers' dollars.
Then on December 16, 1980 Alastair Gillespie and Associates was incorporated in the Province of Ontario, and on April 4, 1981, in Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who is from Nova Scotia, announced the formation of a consortium and "a study project that will investigate the feasibility of producing liquid fuels from Nova Scotia coal". The press release identified Alastair Gillespie as the head of the consortium's executive board. Then to put the icing on the cake, on April 8, 1981, in a news story following the April 4 announcement, the Port Hawkesbury Scotia Sun quoted the Deputy Prime Minister as saying:
Things always come out right in the end. Gillespie is now one of the beneficiaries of his own foresighted policies.
The story has a happy ending for Mr. Gillespie. He could make as much as $750,000 from his $25,000 investment if the project goes ahead and the partners buy his share.
I should like to once again quote the Deputy Prime Minister. He said:
Things always come out right in the end.
However, the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be ignoring a number of facts. First, Alastair Gillespie as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources originally sponsored the initiative to investigate the prospect of coal liquefaction. He researched the project in South Africa as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and returned shortly after his retirement.
Second, the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), approved funding of the feasibility study into Gillespie's plan to turn Cape Breton coal into liquid fuels for transportation.
Third, Mr. Cohen, the Deputy Minister to the Minister of Finance, also took part in the discussions before June of 1981.
The fourth point is again in relation to the Deputy Prime Minister himself, who was involved with the project six months before then. He announced the plans with Nova Scotia Premier John Buchanan and Gillespie in April of 1981.
These actions were obviously breaches of conduct and any such deal providing a former Minister with benefits of up to $750,000 would certainly create the appearance of wrongdoing. This House and the Canadian people demand some honest answers from the Government, and if they are not forthcoming the Ministers involved must resign.

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
By way of conclusion I should like to add that this latest example of Government favouritism comes on the wake of yet another former Minister currently reaping the rewards from his past association with the Government. Donald Macdonald will be receiving $800 a day to research and analyze the problems in our economic structure.


Mr. Chenier:: What does this have to do with the Bill?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We are talking about borrowing.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: After what we have seen in this House in the last three weeks, we do not have to look far to realize who must accept the ultimate responsibility for economic ineptitude. It is not the fault of the pensioners, the elderly or the unemployed; today's economic difficulties are the result of Liberal mismanagement. This conclusion may be reached without paying $800 a day.
Obviously, while the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister are resigning, we might ask the current Government to do the people of Canada a favour and oblige the majority by also resigning in order that we might restore confidence to our system of Government here in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today, the Government is asking Parliament for the authority to borrow up to $19 billion, the largest amount ever requested in Canadian history. The Government says, "No questions asked, just give us the money".
In the year 1968 B.P., which translates as, "Before Pierre", it cost the Government $500 per Canadian to run the country; but it now costs $3,750, and each Canadian's share of that debt is $8,000. Perhaps I could point that out to the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly). That is a legacy of debt which will be perpetrated even unto our grandchildren.
However, the Government must surely realize by now that almost everyone in Canada is asking a lot of questions. Of course, the most important is the question, "Why?" Is this borrowing in any way stimulative to our stagnant economy? Of course, the answer is an emphatic "no". Why has the Government put this nation some $27 billion into debt? Does the Government need an extra $19 billion? Again, the answer is, "no". Why, when we were promised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in October that he would look into all the financial repercussions and give us a full accounting, was that accounting not forthcoming? Why did the Minister promise, with his coalgate smile, "We will give you the answers"? Everyone now knows about Coalgate and Canadians are not smiling.
The Government's arrogant reply to all of our questions has been, "It is none of your business". However, it is our business. Where did the $27 billion go? Donald McGillivray of the Southam Press has pointed out that it would take a dedicated consumer more than 2,000 years to get rid of that sum, spending at the rate of $100 an hour, 16 hours a day and six days a week. Even my wife could not keep up to that record. It is a legacy of debt to our children. However, the converse is
also true, and that is that if one owes $1 billion, it would take just as long to repay it on the same schedule. That is the legacy that the Government has left to our children, yet the Government says that it is none of our business, just like Bill C-139 was none of our business.
The Government says, "Let us hurriedly pass the Bill". It wants to vote tomorrow. Let us consider Bill C-139 which Hon. Members had the pleasure, or not, to hear me address, depending on whether or not the manner in which I was speaking a week or so ago was appreciated. Government staff required 389 days to write the document, which embraces changes in the income tax law introduced in the budget and financial statements issued in November and December of 1981 and June and October of 1982. It goes back as far as 15 months. No wonder we have to borrow $19 billion, we have no idea where we are going, no planning. It represents the work of two Finance Ministers. One has been kicked back to try to do a job in foreign affairs, having been relegated downwards after making such a mess of our financial affairs. His successor, the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), sat for seven days on that front bench and allowed the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to stand up and admit to this House that it had been misled, before himself coming out of the woodwork. And this is the man we are to entrust with $19 billion? This is the man Canadians are supposed to trust to come up with an honest budget? Ludicrous, Mr. Speaker, totally ludicrous!
It is not our business, the Government says, to question this $19 billion. Well, it is my business, it is the business of my colleagues and it is the business of all Canadians. Business is the key word here. Because of the utterly disastrous economic policies of this Government, hundreds of Canadian firms, large and small, have either gone out of business or are on the verge of bankruptcy. This situation is in itself a national tragedy and has spawned yet another, the unemployment of a staggering proportion of our people. If we allow this Government the funds to continue its economic mismanagement, if we approve the borrowing-and we would have to be crazy to do so-of an additional $19 billion with no questions asked because it is none of our business, the results will be no business, no employment, no future. We on this side say no deal, Mr. Speaker; no deal whatsoever to a socialist Prime Minister who has absolutely infiltrated a fine, old, stable, political party and taken it to the brink of bankruptcy and total state control.


An Hon. Member:: Morally bankrupt.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Canada is bankrupt. It is bankrupt of morals-thank you-and bankrupt of leadership. In the world of private business, such bankruptcy at all levels would never be condoned and certainly would never be prolonged.
If private business were to be restored to a competitive position in the marketplace, the shareholders would demand an exhaustive and detailed accounting, which we of course are not getting, of all the company's activities to determine what were
February 28, 1983

the problem areas and where corrections could be made. Unfortunately, this is not within the realm of the thinking of the Liberal Members. If additional funds were required to achieve such restoration, the shareholders would certainly demand a detailed presentation of exactly how the money would be spent and to what end. If the executive officers refused to comply on both counts and did not then have the decency or honour to resign, they would, of course, be fired. But that does not apply to the Members opposite. The Finance Minister said that he was a man of honour, that he has a wife and children and will not resign. If he really is that man of honour and wants to spend more time with his family, be our guest and put the honour back into this House by resigning.
The Auditor General in his recent report to Parliament underscored this rejection when he spoke of Crown-owned corporations, terming them "sub-governments". He said that the accountability of such corporations is a matter of consequence both for Members of Parliament and for taxpayers. His words were, and I quote:
The citizens of Canada have a right to consider themselves the principal shareholders of these organizations; Parliamentarians speak for them. Crown-owned corporations must be held accountable through Parliament.
Where is this accountability, I ask the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly), for this sub-government which in the last fiscal year was given $6.5 billion in tax dollars, 9 per cent of the total budget? I ask the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre to listen and I will give him some ideas where Government spending can be cut. Take a little heed.
Who is accountable for the process whereby Petro-Canada invested $1.7 billion to purchase Petrofina? Why was $50 million spent on photocopying, $25.5 million on the Unity Office and somewhere between $50 million and $100 million on advertising, $26 million on metric, $441 million on the bilingual program, totally non-productive? Where was the accountability for the $540 million VIA Rail cost Canadians last year? Who was held accountable for the fact that CN Marine has gone through $535 million since 1979? Who provided $25 million up front for the purchase of a ferry whose total cost and delivery date is unknown? Does that answer any of his questions?
Will there be any accountability for the operations of the new Canada Investment Corporation which is pork-barreled by some more Liberals? It took no fewer than 17 Orders in Council to oversee and administer this profligate spending of untold billions-mismanagement. That is why $19 billion more is needed.
This distinct avoidance of Government accountability is not confined to Crown corporations alone. Has anyone been fired or has anyone resigned, is there any honour over there, over the incentive payment from DREE of $2.7 million to a company just days before it went bankrupt? Has anyone been fired or has anyone resigned over the loss of $22 million spent on a rural development in Haiti, including a fraudulent payment of
Borrowing Authority
more than $100,000? Yet foreign aid, through caustic, cancerous, callous and totally calamitous CIDA, is being raised to over $1 billion, an increase of $150 million. No one has been fired.
Has anyone been fired in connection with the purchase and then sale of Consolidated Computer, Inc.? Of course not. What about letters of comfort to Chrysler, Massey-Ferguson, Maislin, de Havilland, and Canadair with its debt of $1.5 billion? What about former Finance Minister Macdonald, or Judd Buchanan, or permission to build housing in Alberta or CMHC over the six and five guidelines, an untold litany of horror?
I can see that my time is just about up, but what a beautiful subject. Would that I had another 20 minutes. This Government wants the authority to borrow $19 billion. Why? Where is the trust? Where is the accountability? Where is the responsibility? I know that the Government does not have to come to this Parliament for authority to borrow $19 billion. It has the money; it could save $19 billion or ten times that if it would cut out the waste that I have partially described. Those who operate a business, whether in the private or public sectors, must be responsible and accountable. Until this Government acts accordingly I would urge every Member with any gumption not to give permission to borrow that amount. Deny it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate on the borrowing Bill not from a totally negative point of view, even though the figure of $19 billion in added borrowing boggles the imagination and the projected current account debt of $30 billion seems to be almost insurmountable. However, most economists agree that if this country ever does get back to the productivity levels of 1975 to 1979, a $30 billion current account debt could be liquidated over a period of about four years. I, in that case, am not so terribly horrified at the size of the debt; what disturbs me are the purposes for which the Government is asking for the money.
As we all know, we are in the depths of a very, very severe recession, and with Government revenues obviously down any Government, whether it is a Conservative Government, an NDP Government or a Liberal Government, is going to have to borrow money if it is to maintain a certain basic minimum standard of living in the country, particularly for those hardest hit by that recession.
As we all know, revenues are way down in the corporate sector, as far as corporate taxation and personal income tax are concerned, and there is a real crisis looming on the horizon concerning revenues from energy, particularly petroleum and its by-products. This, of course, will not only adversely affect Canada, but may very well exacerbate the recession worldwide.
As we all know, for the past two or three years most Governments have geared revenues to increased taxes from petroleum and petroleum by-products. Now we see they are going to have to sharpen their pencils and begin to renegotiate downward those levels of revenue. We are really just talking about the tip of the iceberg when we talk about $19 billion through this

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
borrowing Bill and a $30 billion current account debt. With respect to the way the Government is spending the money, and this is the crux of my argument, I fear that a large proportion of that money is being thrown away at sunset industries and sunset economies within our larger national community.
The recession is serious, the problem of sufficient revenue is serious, but what is even more serious-and this is something which the Government is not addressing-is the tremendous high-technology change through which the industrialized world has been going for the past 15 years. The recession has brought this high-tech revolution into focus. Let me give a few examples.
If one compares and contrasts the City of Detroit with the City of Houston, Texas, one will get a very clear idea of just where the hell we are going or not going in this part of the world. Detroit has massive unemployment, decay in the inner core, business failures, old industries drying up and going bankrupt, and Government infusing massive amounts of capital to keep sunset industries, such as the auto industry, going.
If you look at Houston, Texas, you find high technology booming. Houston has not experienced the recession. There are different kinds of city planning, a multitude of institutions teaching high technology and the computer, the microchip industry, is part of the planning process.
Japan saw the writing on the wall in 1975. This may come as a surprise to Members on both sides of this House, but in 1975, through long-term economic planning, which this Government and the Conservatives are opposed to, Japan realized that the auto-making industry was a sunset industry, that the steel-processing industry was a sunset industry and shipbuilding was a sunset industry. They have gradually been disengaging themselves from those three second-wave sunset industries. As we know, they are going to the new "Japans". Auto-making is going to Taiwan and South Korea, shipbuilding is going to Spain and steel processing is going to Brazil.
What are we doing? Because of pressure from our constituents, particularly in industrial ridings, we are throwing hundreds of millions, indeed a couple of billion dollars into make-work and stopgap make-work programs. This is motivated basically from a humane attitude on the part of the Government, but it is a total waste of money.
All we are doing through ILAP, for example, is trying to assist workers whose Unemployment Insurance benefits have run out until they can requalify for benefits which would carry them through another 50 or 52 weeks. On one hand the Government is proposing $5.2 billion in assistance for research and development. We should be talking of the total amount, or at least $2 billion, to train and retrain the unemployed and those who will be unemployed as a result of high technology, robotronics, microprocessing, whatever you want to call it, so that they will at least have a chance to find meaningful work when the recession is over.
I am absolutely disgusted at big business and the private sector of this country which refuse to plan ahead. They go
from one quarter to the second quarter to the third quarter and then contrast performance with the first, second and third quarters of the previous year. They are myopic. They do not plan ahead in co-operation with Government or vice versa, as they do in Japan and Sweden, as they are now beginning to do in France and have been doing in West Germany.
There are only three countries left in the industrialized world which refuse to plan; the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. All three are going down the tube. It apparently does not matter what Party is in power. We have the Conservatives raving about Reagonomics and what a great benefit it is, the supply side approach, yet the United States actually is not entering the third-wave sunrise industrialism of the eighties. They will not plan or look ahead. They throw billions of dollars into food stamps and into Unemployment Insurance, as we are, just to maintain sunset industries and sunset jobs.
We need an incomes policy in this country to do away with Unemployment Insurance and welfare and all the bloody red tape that goes with it. We need a decent, basic minimum income for everyone, and then a full-fledged, widespread high-tech training program for those who are capable of taking advantage of it.
If we are going to be stuck with 10 per cent unemployable people in this country, as I fear we are, we have to accept that in a humane and open way and learn to live with it. However, for the other 90 per cent who have a chance of getting employment, we must make every effort to spend money. If we have to borrow it, let us put it up front in a positive, creative way, not throw it into dying industries and jobs. That is really the nub of the problem.
My time is almost up. I impress upon the Government, for heaven's sake think ahead; think in terms of modern high technology. Think in terms of what Alvin Toffler calls "The Third Wave", what John Naisbitt in his book "Megatrends" calls the informational society. Those who have the information are the people who will have the jobs. Those who can run the computers and the robots will also have the jobs. The remainder, I am afraid, will be in dire straits unless the Government and the private sector get together with their act.


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-LIoydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise shortly before the luncheon break to take part in the debate on Bill C-143. Many Canadians do not understand and certainly those on this side have a great deal of difficulty understanding why a Government would have to borrow $19 billion when the end of the fiscal year is fast approaching. It needs an additional $5 billion to get through this year, and $14 billion to carry us through until the summer, maybe July.
My colleagues in this Party have mentioned the total disregard which this Government has had and is continuing to have for accountability to the public of Canada. We have a request for $19 billion without any back-up, numbers, explanation, or plan which tells the people of Canada that we are going to do better. The Government has become so callous, so
February 28, 1983

unconcerned about what Canadians think about how it controls money which really belongs to individual Canadians, that it does not believe it is necessary to put forward a plan.
This Government is continuing to create Crown corporations. When you see that Crown corporations now employ more people than Government Departments, you begin to wonder about accountability. Crown corporations are now involved in just about every facet of the lives of individual Canadians. In the eyes of Canadians, some Crown corporations perform admirably, others abysmally.
One Crown corporation which is of great interest to the people in my area is the CNR. Everyone considers it to be independent when it comes to Financing.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board has put on hold the discount program offered by Air Canada. This decision, which came in reaction to other administrative decisions, is very disappointing. Our neighbours to the South have demonstrated how nonchalant they are about Canadian-American relations, as they did earlier on the acid rain issue. We must protest this decision to demonstrate the importance of our relations to our friends in the South and to show that we want to put an end to outdated paternalistic attitudes. I therefore suggest that first of all, Canadians change their plans for 1983-84 and avoid the Southern United States as a winter holiday destination. Second, Canadians planning to visit the beaches in the Eastern United States next summer could visit Canada instead. Third, all Canadians concerned about or by this decision should demonstrate their disapproval by writing to the United States Embassy, 100 Wellington Street in Ottawa, and finally, people should call the U.S. Embassy today or tomorrow (613) 2385335 to voice their complaints.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, Canada's laws with respect to the lead tolerance levels in our environment are detrimental to the mental health and well-being of young children who will be our leaders of tomorrow. The available evidence indicates that even low levels of lead exposure can cause irreversible damage to children, since their under-developed brains are particularly vulnerable to these effects. A wide variety of neurological and psychological abnormalities have been reported in recent studies of children exposed to lead. They have included hyperactivity, disturbance of attentional and language functions, and a significantly decreased I.Q. performance.
Leaded gasoline mostly accounts for lead pollution. More than 90 per cent of air-borne lead comes from that source. Yet the regulations brought in by the Liberal Government allow three times more lead in motor gasoline than is allowable in the U.S. In view of the total inaction, and complacency with the status quo on the part of the Liberal Government, let me ask the Liberal policymakers if they have ever considered, in their short-term policies, the future cost of hospitalization, special education for brain-impaired children, lost productivity of adult wage earners and, more significantly, the loss of human potential. It is imperative, Madam Speaker, that we stop the Government's destructive measures which harm our young people, our greatest asset, before they are turned into our greatest liability.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, in 1946 the Government of Canada arranged for the admission of a group of 4,527 Polish war veterans into Canada. These are men who fought side by side with Canadians to keep freedom alive. In 1961 the War Veterans Allowance Act of 1952 was amended and these same Polish veterans were granted the right to be recipients of a War Veterans Allowance.
In 1976 Bill C-92 was introduced, that is, the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, to provide compensation to former prisoners of war and escapees. Despite Paragraph 3, which stated that "A prisoner of another power is entitled, on application to the Commission, to compensation", the Polish veterans who qualified as prisoners of war and escapees were eliminated from the benefit because the Act stipulated that domicile in Canada at the time of enlistment was the determining factor in order to receive benefits under the Act.
Since these Poles form a special group of veterans, diverse from others in that they have only one allegiance, Canada, I respectfully suggest that we amend the relevant sections of the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act in order to

February 28, 1983
allow a small number, less than 170 qualifying members from this group of 4,527 Polish war veterans, to be eligible for compensation as former prisoners of war and escapees.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I wish to take the few moments allowed to me under Standing Order 21 to bring again to the attention of the Cabinet a very complex and damaging proposal which is contained in the tax measure which is before the House. The details of the amendments in Bill C-139, specifically Clauses 38, 123 and 125, which work in conjunction with the National Energy Board Act and the Petroleum Administration Act will cause serious harm to the Canadian air transport industry. The Government tried before to assess basically the same inequitable levies on this industry in 1981 and found that they were in breach of Canada's bilateral air agreements. At that time it had to retreat and refund the levies already collected.
This new version of that tax will also, in my opinion, breach those same agreements, and putting it in place will subject the Government to the same charges. It seems to me that the various Ministers and their Departments, for indeed there are more than one involved, would be well advised to withdraw these clauses and not hold up the balance of the legislation. This is a move which I have advocated previously, and will again, until I obtain some assurance that action will be taken.



ABORIGINAL RIGHTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, the aboriginal peoples of Canada are very concerned about the outcome of the March First Ministers' conference and the further definition of their rights.
Indian leaders worry that the future of their people lies in the hands of provincial Governments, most of which are either indifferent or hostile to those rights. At the same time the federal Government has maintained a distressing silence on the subject. It has not yet indicated its constitutional position, and Indian leaders are left with the question, "Is the Government for us or against us?" How can Indian people believe that the conference is an open process when the federal Government refuses to state its intentions? The people of Canada will not be served by a constitutional process run like a crooked poker game with a marked deck, hidden aces, pre-arranged signals among some of the players, and the aboriginal peoples as the intended marks.
Let the process be open. The Indians people have laid their cards on the table. Let the federal Government declare its position. To begin with, the federal Government should recognize the fundamental nature of aboriginal rights and should support a clause which would require the aboriginal peoples' consent before any change is made to those rights. It should support the removal of the word "existing", which at present limits and qualifies those rights, and it should commit itself to an ongoing-


Madam Speaker:: Order.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I have a situation I would like to bring to your attention where I believe a serious misjudgment has been made. Judge Glen Marshman recently dismissed a drug possession charge in the City of London, Ontario, ruling that the police violated the suspect's constitutional rights when they searched him and found 100 grams of marijuana. The narcotics were discovered when the accused was stopped for a traffic violation. The officer concerned should be congratulated for his alertness, his efficiency, and his on-the-job attentiveness. I believe a decision such as this demoralizes our police force and demeans our courts.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis), in protesting a matter which is currently before us. Both the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) have recently given some constructive attention to the problems and potential of Canada's marine industry. Perhaps now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) might be persuaded to do likewise by finally eliminating the palpably counterproductive Transportation Fuel Compensation Recovery Charge.
As its rather cumbersome name implies, this 1980 budgetary measure permitted the Government to collect from Canadian shipowners the difference between the domestic price of oil and the world price. In particular, bunkers purchased west of the Ottawa Valley line are treated not as a factor of production but rather as a petroleum export, while east of the Ottawa valley, domestic carriers must remit the equivalent of the subsidy under the Oil Import Compensation Program.
February 28, 1983

No other Canadian industry is required to pay such a surcharge on energy used as a factor in the production of goods and services. Moreover, Canadian shipowners and the federal Government itself have incurred significant extra overhead in, respectively paying and administering this charge. The revenue arising from the charge since its introduction, $6.1 million in 1981 and a mere $2.5 million in 1982, can hardly justify these costs or the demonstrable erosion of the domestic carriers' competitive position.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, those ever loving Tories have spent the past week or two attacking the Government for patronage. They should know all about patronage. For starters, listen to the immortal words of the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), the entire Quebec wing of the Tory Party. In 1979 the Montreal Gazette reported him as saying that Quebec Conservative lawyers, engineers, consultants, contractors, architects and accountants would even get preferential treatment under the administration of which he was a part.
In the same period when he was Minister of Supply and Services, The Globe and Mail quoted him as saying that loyal Party backers in Quebec could look forward to being on the receiving end of Government work and service contracts.
How about the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) the old kneecapper, old knielcapsen himself? Toward the end of August The Globe and Mail reported that Senator Flynn, in his capacity as Justice Minister, sought the Hon. Member's recommendation on the appointment of a special prosecutor in a legal case. The Hon. Member for Yukon said that he was being consulted in his role as Minister responsible for patronage in the Yukon.
What standards of morality, what ethical guidelines-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.



METRIC CONVERSION


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, the metric program will go down in history as one of the most expensive, least loved, most confusing and least consistent ever put together. Time and time again I have received letters from constituents pointing out the inconsistencies in the enforcement of metric rules.
One of my constituents was recently in receipt of an invitation to quote from the Department of Supply and Services. On this document there were several interesting examples of metric confusion.
In the specifications for a boat required by the Department of Supply and Services it was mentioned that the cruising speed for the vessel should be a minimum of 24 miles per hour. In the same paragraph it was stated that the boat would be used within a 48 kilometre range of Parry Sound. Fuel consumption was stated in imperial measurement, as was weight, beam, and size of the cabin. Yet the length of the boat was to be 5.6 metres.
When the Government turns out tenders like this, how can it be that it is considering prosecuting merchants selling floor coverings in imperial units? What gives it the right to prosecute people who sell gasoline by the gallon? Perhaps the Minister should check out the situation in his own backyard before intervening in the affairs of ordinary Canadians who are, after all, only giving their customers a freedom of choice and the freedom to measure.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, it is almost three years since the Archbishop of San Salvador, His Grace, Oscar Romero, was murdered in a church in that city. Since that time that little country has suffered a great deal more violence from both sides, in a war that continues. In March a group of the subcommittee on Latin America protested against the elections that were taking place at that time. In the month of December several other Members of Parliament and myself visited the present Archbishop who again asked for negotiations to seek dialogue.
Yesterday it was announced that Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Defence in the United States, is attempting to find $60 million more to put into the war in El Salvador. I believe that this is a horrendous thing and I would ask the Government of Canada to protest it in every way possible. The U.S. Secretary of Defence has said that if he cannot get it through the ordinary means of Congress he will go to a special fund to provide military assistance to foreign countries. Some of the countries that have received that special assistance are Vietnam, Cambodia, and El Salvador in 1981.
The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, will visit that country this coming week. I can only hope that the situation will be such that peace can be found, that negotiations will take place, and that war will not continue.

February 28, 1983
Oral Questions HOUSING



ACHIEVEMENTS OF CANADIAN HOME OWNERSHIP STIMULATION PLAN

Norman Kelly: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Plan, which was announced in the June, 1982, budget to provide stimulus to the recession-damaged housing industry, is now beginning to wind down. Monday, February 28, is the deadline for some grant applications. This program, which has paid out almost $500,000 in grants of $3,000 each to 166,000 first-time home buyers, has proved extraordinarily useful to Canadians.
Now that Government policies have resulted in reduced inflation and, therefore, have reduced interest rates, this kind of direct simulus can be phased out. In view of the importance of the housing industry to our economy, we should continue to monitor the situation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I will put my question to the Minister of Finance.
After a weekend of consultation and observation, the Minister of Finance will know that the majority of Canadians believe that he and Mr. Gillespie are in violation of the conflict of interest guidelines and, quite possibly, the Deputy Prime Minister is as well.
Given that there is also evidence pointing to a budget leak in October, 1980, it is crucially important to our system of government that the Government either admit wrong doing through obtaining the resignation of the appropriate Minister or Ministers, or table and make available all relevant records to give confidence that the total picture is known and that a cover-up is not in place.
Will the Minister of Finance commit to the House that he or the appropriate Minister will table the missing information, not so far provided, such as the Treasury Board minutes of the relevant April, 1981, meeting, as well as the September, 1981, meeting, or at least the submission regarding the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project to the Treasury Board?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that that question should be answered by the Minister of Finance. I know there was a reference to a budget leak, but the question did not concern the budget leak.
Ministers are usually the best judges of what is within the realm of their responsibility, however, but I just give this caution.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, last week the Prime Minister made it clear that it is not the practice in our constitutional system for records of Cabinet meetings to be tabled. I think this point should be reiterated.
I reject completely the assertion of the Hon. Member that there is a consensus on the part of the Canadian people that the guidelines were broken. With respect to the evidence before us, I think it makes it clear that there has not been any budget leak.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, this question of keeping Cabinet documents secret protects Ministers and bureaucrats. The parliamentary responsibility of Ministers, and agreement to observe conflict of interest guidelines, protect parliamentary democracy, which is far more important.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the violation of these minimal conflict of interest guidelines, a possible budget leak-and indeed the circumstantial evidence points to a budget leak-the clear intent to avoid responsibility and to cover up the situation, have severely damaged our parliamentary system. A complete and thorough airing of the situation is absolutely fundamental to commence repairing that damage.
Will the appropriate Minister-and I do not know who that might be-commit here and now to the House that the Government will permit, and indeed encourage, an inquiry by a committee of this House? Refusal of a request to allow a committee of this House, in fact, to encourage a committee of this House to investigate the situation, will simply be confirmation of an interest in trying to cover up this clear breach of ministerial responsibility and these very simple and unonerous conflict of interest guidelines.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this matter has been the subject of questions and answers in Question Period for close to two weeks. It was the subject of a special day long debate created at the initiative of the Government, a debate which not only allowed speeches to be made on the subject but also questions and answers, as provided under our new rules.
We have had a very full opportunity to go into this matter in a body more important than a committee, and that is the House of Commons itself. This is especially so since the Government tabled a full range of documents pertaining to this matter.
If we do not agree to the Hon. Member's suggestion, it is confirmation of nothing more than that we do not want to
February 28, 1983

agree with him that the whole House should be tied up, diverting attention from the Tory leadership crisis, rather than dealing with essential issues of economic recovery.


REQUEST THAT PROJECT FILES BE TABLED
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, this final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as Minister of Finance. I hope he will answer and not let the "Gray" Minister run interference for him.
[DOT] (U20)
The extend and timing of this knowledge and the contents of the 1980 budget are clear indication that there was prior knowledge, or at least very substantial clues, hints or suggestions that in fact the contents of the budget were known by perhaps many people-Mr. Gillespie, Devco and Petro-Canada, two Crown corporations in particular. Would the Minister of Finance, in order to clear up this important situation-and he must recognize the absolute vital necessity that the secrecy of a budget be beyond reproach-commit now to have tabled before the House by the appropriate Minister the complete files from the Cape Beton Development Corporation and Petro-Canada dealing with the Scotia Coal Synfuels Project, that is, the files going back to May 27, 1980 and thereon? Would he commit to the House to making that disclosure, or will he continue to cover up?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I think the tone of questioning of the Hon. Member clearly indicates that his mind is really made up, whatever the facts are. I would like to point out to him that there is not a shred of evidence of a budget leak in this case.
As far as his question is concerned, I would like to tell him that I will refer the matter to the Minister of Energy and ask him to assess whether there are any further files or documents which could be made available. The Minister stood up in the House and said that he was making available every single sheet of paper which could be made available, in the spirit of the Information Act. 1 will transmit the request of the Hon. Member to the Minister of Energy.
As far as the budget is concerned, and the talk of a budget leak, I remind the Hon. Member what the budget actually stated in October of 1980. The only reference to anything having to do, by far or closely, with this issue read as follows:
New funds will also be made available to find ways in which the large reserves of Cape Breton coal can be used to enhance energy security in the Maritimes.


Harvie Andre: What about Walsh's memo?


Marc Lalonde: That is the extent of any reference to coal in the whole budget-big leak! As far as the NEP is concerned, which was another document tabled at the same time as the budget, there is one sentence in the NEP.
This is what it had to say about coal liquefaction:
Oral Questions
"Alternative means to use coal in the production of liquid fuels will also be actively pursued".
How can my friend seriously stand up in the House and make the kind of allegation and the kind of charges that he is making, unless he is indulging in his usual character assassination?


Harvie Andre: The next day the deal was signed.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. All of us know, of course, that the strength of this parliamentary institution rests upon nothing else than the integrity and honesty of every person who serves in it. There can be no question as to the public perception of the Minister's conduct in the Synfuels affair. People think that he is guilty; guilty or not, the Minister cannot be trusted.
May I ask the Minister a question in connection with his responsibility as Minister of Finance? Does he not feel that his reputation is tarnished and that it will be very difficult for him to come before the House and before the country with a buget designed to do nothing else but restore confidence in the Canadian economy and in Canada, confidence in the Government and in Canadians themselves? Does he not feel that, as a result of this affair, his reputation is so seriously tarnished that he is no longer in a position to do the job which he was appointed to do by the Prime Minister?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would have to say yes, anybody's reputation would be tarnished by the type of disgusting allegations, like the one just made by my hon. friend, and the ones which have been made by some people across the aisle. That indeed creates a problem, but it would be very wrong on my part to accept that kind of allegation and the argument raised by the Hon. Member. I can tell him that, as far as my functions are concerned, I have received many, many messages of support from people at large and from people in the business community in particular, saying, "Don't let those guys get you down because they are wrong".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Frank Oberle: The Minister in his defence speaks of his personal sacrifices in terms of finances and his family, sacrifices which most of us make when we come to this institution. Does the Minister not now feel that one more sacrifice is required of him by his country, and indeed by his Party-to put the interests of Canada ahead of the interests of Marc Lalonde, that sacrifice being to resign-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 28, 1983
Oral Questions


Frank Oberle: -and by resigning to repair the damage which has been done to this institution, and as a happy coincidence maybe he could restore his own financial health which he said he sacrificed to his Party?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not think this kind of question even deserves an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER'S AWARENESS OF ALASTAIR GILLESPIE'S INVOLVEMENT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. On Friday the Minister of Finance said that he would inquire of the Deputy Prime Minister the exact time at which the Deputy Prime Minister first became aware of Mr. Gillespie's involvement in the Cape Breton coal project. Also the Prime Minister, in reply to my question, said that he would table documents on the telephone bills, although he hid behind executive privilege with respect to Cabinet minutes.
Is the Minister of Finance now in a position to tell the House when the Deputy Prime Minister first became aware of Mr. Gillespie's involvement in the Cape Breton Synfuels Project and when the telephone bills will be tabled in the House?


Madam Speaker:: I do not believe the Minister of Finance should answer that question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not have with me the information sought by my hon. friend. With respect to the second part of his question, certainly that will be responded to in the terms the Prime Minister used in his answer last week.


ALLEGATION OF 1980 BUDGET LEAK
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I wish to put my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance with respect to the budget leak in a similar manner as did my Leader on Friday. Can the Minister help the House on this allegation of a budget leak by telling us whether he has inquired of the Deputy Prime Minister with respect to the Deputy Prime Minister's involvement in the Cape Breton coal project, as promised, and would the Minister of Finance not agree that there is in fact a little more than what he said about no shred of evidence, since there is circumstantial evidence with respect to this matter and the Deputy Prime Minister's involvement as a friend of his riding announcing the project, putting it in the budget and so on? Would the Minister of Finance not agree that in fact there is a case of circumstantial evidence at the very minimum, enough that it should go to an independent investigation for inquiry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I reject completely the unsubstantiated inferences and innuendoes in my hon. friend's question, but to the extent
that it has any substance I will bring that substance to the attention of the Prime Minister.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Under a treaty with France which terminates on May 15, 1986, Canada agreed to let the fleet from continental France catch 21,000 metric tonnes of codfish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, while at the same time restricting the operations of Newfoundland and Nova Scotian trawlers in this area, a problem which has not been covered or even referred to in any way by the Kirby Report.
Since the French reported landing in 1981 a total of 21,000 metric tonnes of finished product, which would require them to catch something like 50,000 metric tonnes of fish in the round, or 2.5 times their quota, what steps has the Minister taken to inform the French that this type of wanton destruction of our fisheries' resources and breach of faith with regard to the treaty regulations are unacceptable to Canada?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I will not, of course, confirm the allegations of the Hon. Member. What I can say, though, is that early in the decade we signed an agreement with France that will terminate in 1986. The policy of the Department is to insist that every angle of the agreement be respected. We are negotiating with France at this moment to make sure that the implementation of the agreement is to our satisfaction.


REQUEST THAT COMMISSION INVESTIGATE ALLEGED OVER FISHING BY FRENCH FLEET
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since it is alleged by Canadian fishing interests that the French fishing fleet continued its over fishing as late as 1982 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, while Canadians are being denied such simple things as fishing licences as a conservation measure is the Government giving any thought to reducing the French fishing quota for 1983 by the amount the French have over fished during the past two years? If not, will the Government establish a commission to consider all disputes concerning the application of this treaty as called for in Article 10 of the agreement, which agreement I have here in my possession?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I would like to say very emphatically to the Hon. Member that, as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, my
February 28, 1983

loyalty and duty are to Canadian fishermen, not to foreign fishermen. Two weeks ago, for instance, our own inspectors brought to my attention that a foreign fleet was over-fishing. We immediately ordered that fleet to go to St. John's for inspection. One of the boats left the 200-mile zone and did not go to St. John's Harbour as requested.
The allegations that foreign fleets are over-fishing and are not fishing according to signed agreements are something that we monitor very closely. I will not start commenting publicly on every allegation made because allegations have to be verified and checked before a public statement is made. However, I can assure the Hon. Member that our fishing inspectors go on board vessels to make sure they are fishing in our waters according to the Department's regulations.


EFFECT OF VANCOUVER ISLAND COAL DEVELOPMENT-NECESSITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. My first question relates to the Quinsam coal development on Vancouver Island. As the Minister will know, there has been considerable discussion on whether or not there should be a public hearing before that project goes ahead. In the original discussions between the Minister's own officials and the officials of the Province of British Columbia, was there an indication given by Fisheries Department officials that the proposal was satisfactory enough not to require a public hearing?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I stated on the occasion of my first visit to British Columbia several months ago that I think it essential for all major projects that a public hearing be held so that promoters and all groups, like other interested parties, are able to put forward their points of view. In that regard I was very happy that the Minister of the Environment for British Columbia said publicly that he is in agreement with a public hearing, particularly on the Quinsam project, and I fully support his stand.


PEARSE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, my second question concerns the Pearse Report. News reports of the Minister's recent visit to British Columbia indicate that a significant number of the Pearse Report recommendations and suggestions will, in fact, be accepted by the Minister and his Department. Could the Minister tell us how soon the exact list of those recommendations will be made available to this House and to the public?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, this is a very reasonable suggestion. I will certainly discuss with the Hon. Member the proper forum through which a full report will be made concerning all the decisions relating to the Pearse Report.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Finance. It deals with the subject of economic recovery. I would like to point out that the only thing remaining of the national energy policy, which is in wreckage right now, is a promise by the Government to maintain Canadian oil prices lower than the world rate. If that Government promise is lived up to then farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and small businesses will all get a shot in the arm and we will see a more rapid recovery in Canada. Is the Minister prepared to stand up in the House and indicate that he and the Government are prepared to live up to this promise and that it will be a major factor in economic recovery?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to send a copy of the National Energy Program to my friend. It might be helfpful. He might read it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Don't get arrogant, Marc.


Marc Lalonde: He will find out that the Canadianization program, for instance, under the National Energy Program has been a tremendous success. He will find that Canadian ownership has increased quite significantly in the last two years.


Mr. Broadbent:: What about pricing?


Marc Lalonde: He will find also that the program of conservation has been extremely successful, that people are now conserving energy much more than before, thanks to the National Energy Program-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: -and a number of other initiatives under that Program are indeed working very well.


John Edward Broadbent: He is asking about price.


Marc Lalonde: Sure, he asks about price, but the Hon. Member prefaced his question with a number of wrong assertions. Surely I am entitled to state the facts and correct the record, notwithstanding the interventions of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. If he wants us to answer questions, the Leader of the NDP should please tell his colleagues to ask questions and to stop giving preambles that are completely wrong, otherwise we will be forced to use Question Period to correct preambles before addressing questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: As far as the question raised by the Hon. Member is concerned, there are agreements in operation with the Government of Alberta, the Government of Saskatchewan, and the Government of British Columbia. Under these agreements Canadians are benefiting from lower oil prices than if we were governed by international prices. That regime has

February 28, 1983
Oral Questions
been in operation and I expect it will continue in operation until the end of the agreement in 1986.


QUERY RESPECTING IMPACT OF OIL PRICE ON ECONOMY
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, for approximately a year I have been trying to deal with the document put forward by the Minister. I certainly think it is relevant at this point in time to explain to the House-


Mr. Ouellet:: Question.


Raymond John Skelly: -how that national energy policy may provide some economic recovery based on the governments promise. Is the Minister prepared to stand up and make a statement on the subject of how projections of economic recovery will be enhanced by keeping the promise which the Government made to keep the Canadian price of oil below the level of the world price instead of, as I think the answer indicates, breaking it and pushing it up toward world levels?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Canadian oil price is below international prices. 1 do not know what my hon. friend is referring to-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He said going up toward world price.


Marc Lalonde: He should look at the facts. The fact is that the oil price in Canada is below the international price. That has been the case since 1980; in fact, well before that, since 1974. This has been the policy of this Government.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just taken the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River to task for alleged nonrepresentation of facts during his preamble. I want to refer the Minister to February 16 when the "Coalgate" affair was first raised in the House by myself by way of questions to him, two of them with respect to his capacity to continue as a Minister of the Crown. Those questions were referred to the Minister of Energy.
The following day the Prime Minister informed the House, based on information from the Minister of Finance, that the Minister of Finance had examined his diaries, his papers and his files, and knew nothing of the affair until September, 1981. He later changed that in a subsequent letter to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister informed us on Wednesday, February 23.
Can the Minister explain to the House why, from February 16 through to February 23, knowing that the House had been fed false information, he sat there day in and day out without
clarifying the misleading of the House? Can he explain why he sat there and allowed to House to believe the misinformation?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe that this question does not refer to the Hon. Minister of Finance's responsibility as Minister of Finance. The Hon. Minister is a better judge than I of what falls within his range, but it seems to me that this question concerns a record of the Hon. Minister when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Therefore he is not able to answer a question dealing with that period in the House at this time. I would ask another Minister to answer.


Marc Lalonde: If I may, Madam Speaker, this deals with a letter that I wrote to the Prime Minister. It refers to my behaviour. I think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is right to ask the question, and I would beg to have the privilege to answer the question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: It is difficult for me to judge if the Hon. Minister is answering in his capacity now as Minister of Finance or for something that happened in the course of his mandate as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If it is as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am sorry-I would like the Hon. Minister to have a chance to correct any record that he would like to correct-but he cannot answer a question regarding something that took place at the time he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Erik Nielsen: The whole House is interested in the response of the Minister. Surely he can be heard.


Madam Speaker:: I know that the whole House is interested. But Hon. Members know that the rules we have should be very strictly followed. That is the only way to have this place function properly.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I again beg you to give me permission to answer this question. I am sure the House would give me permission to answer this question because it does relate to my action of last week or ten days ago of writing a letter to the Prime Minister. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking me what happened in the interval between the time that I sent the first letter and the time 1 sent the second letter. Surely this happened while I was Minister of Finance. Surely I am entitled to provide the answer to the Hon. Member. I would urge you to let me give that answer. I am sure that the Opposition is quite willing to let me give it.


Madam Speaker:: 1 find that very difficult to decide. Of course it is something that happened last week or the week before when the Hon. Miniter was Minister of Finance, but it concerns something that happened when he was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There are other places where the Hon. Minister can put statements on the record. Therefore, he might do that outside the House, or on another occasion.
February 28, 1983


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, let me ask this question of the Minister, to see if we cannot get around this impasse. I presume that he answered the Prime Minister's queries on February 16 as Minister of Finance, with respect to the keeping of his records in connection with this affair. He gave information to the Prime Minister which subsequently turned out to be false. That was later corrected by the Prime Minister some seven days later.
My question to the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance is why did he sit there day after day, for a week, and not correct that misinformation through the Deputy Prime Minister, or even himself?


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. That is the same question. The fact that it is prefaced by saying "as Minister of Finance" does not change anything as to the reality of the fact. I cannot allow the Hon. Minister to answer that question. I am sorry.


OIL RIGS DRILLING OFF NEWFOUNDLAND-DANGER OF ICE CONDITIONS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a very urgent question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This afternoon in the area of the Hibernia oil fields on the Grand Banks they are anticipating 70 knot winds and seas in the range of 45 feet to 50 feet. Those are precisely the seas that prevailed when the Ocean Ranger went down. The ice conditions are still unclear because of the closing down of the tracking station at Shoe Cove by this Government a week ago. They are unable to get accurate information as to the movement of ice. We do know that there are substantial icebergs in the area of the rigs.
Can the Minister satisfy the House why he countermanded an order of the Newfoundland Government-two orders issued to Mobil last week-to cease drilling and have the rigs return to port because of weather conditions, unusual ice conditions, and its concern over the adequacy of search and rescue in the area? Why is the Minister playing fast and loose with the lives of offshore workers?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is exaggerating. For years we have had a system whereby there was a meeting of provincial and federal public servants to monitor the situation whenever there was a problem. Last week my senior official was in Newfoundland in the afternoon discussing these problems with the officials of the Newfoundland Government. There was no mention of any problem at that time. A few hours later there was an order issued unilaterally-without even discussing it with our officials-by the Government of Newfoundland, without any consultation with the federal Government. It was evident that this was a great departure from the procedures which were followed in the past.
Oral Questions
I have asked my officials to advise me. I have asked the Department of National Defence which is involved in search and rescue, Environment Canada, and any other agency involved, to tell me what the situation was. The report I received last week was that there were no such special conditions last week that necessitated calling them back to shore.
There was a meeting yesterday afternoon in St. John's between the company and people of my Department. The company had also invited provincial civil servants to be there. They refused to come.
As I say, we are very much concerned about the security and safety of the people who work there. We are monitoring the situation at this time. I am afraid that the action by Mr. Marshall last week was just an attempt to score some points, and he did it contrary to the procedure that has been established for a long time. Even yesterday, when in good faith my officials were there and the company people were there, the Government of Newfoundland did not want to have anyone there to ascertain the facts and not try to score political points.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is the Minister who is trying to score points because, until this matter is finally resolved by the Supreme Court of Canada, he has to be responsible for decisions he has taken. The decision he has taken is to overrule the Newfoundland Government which exercised its authority on the moment-because we cannot tell when the wind is going to come up-to order the rigs back in.


REQUEST THAT RIGS BE ORDERED BACK TO PORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want to say to the Minister that it is a very hostile environment and lives are at stake there. He can play fast and loose with the facts on "Coalgate" but he is not going to play fast and loose with the lives of Canadians in that hostile environment. In light of the latest forecasts showing 70 knot winds and 50-foot seas, and in light of the inadequate search and rescue support because the aircraft are not there, will he now agree to order Mobil to bring those rigs in right away?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this morning I had a chance to review the situation with my Deputy and other officials. There is a group in St. John's which is monitoring the situation. The figures used by the Hon. Member are not the same as those of the various Department officials who have responsibility for that area and who are as preoccupied as anyone in the House concerning the lives of the people who work there.
Safety and security are my main concern. However, this morning the experts informed me that, in their view, the condition is no worse today than it was two weeks or a month ago. It is still winter and conditions are still difficult, but we are operating under the guidelines which have been in place for a long time. The people who have tried to deal with the situation, to ascertain some jurisdiction, wjre from the Newfoundland Government. For the first time in years, concerning

February 28, 1983
Oral Questions
the question of safety, the Government of Newfoundland has acted unilaterally, without consultation with either the companies involved or the federal Government.


AVAILABILITY OF SEARCH AND RESCUE FACILITIES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, maybe I could direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence, who shares my concern. One of the reasons given by the Newfoundland Government for ordering the rigs in, apart from the weather conditions, last week and today, was the lack of adequate search and rescue support. Last week it took six hours for aircraft to reach the area from Summerside and points on the mainland. In light of the fact that we now have 70 knot winds today, 50 foot seas, and three rigs out there with Canadians on board, what assurance can the Minister of National Defence give me that he has taken the correct course in ordering those rigs to stay there? By doing so he is jeopardizing the lives of those people, and the Minister has a responsibility in that area.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any question of jeopardizing the lives of anyone in this area off Newfoundland. I believe the search and rescue capabilities in that vicinity to be in the best state of readiness possible. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that even as late as this morning I was given a map indicating the position of all the ships, all the aircraft, and even all the icebergs-


An Hon. Member:: They are not there now.


Mr. Lamontagne:: -as well as all the drilling rigs. We are continually monitoring the situation as far as search and rescue and the movement of the icebergs are concerned. At the moment, in St. John's there is one Buffalo fixed wing aircraft and one Labrador helicopter on standby. We have taken all precautions necessary and appropriate and this proves that the security and safety of the people in the region are our main concern.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES TEST AND EVALUATION PROGRAM QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF U.S. SURVEILLANCE BASES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to address my question to the Minister of National Defence. This past weekend Mr. George Ignatieff, Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations and our former representative to NATO, stated that our participation in the development of the Cruise missile will make us less secure and more susceptible to an attack. He
maintained that the testing and the development of the Cruise missile would result in the United States wanting to set up surveillance systems in Canada to intercept Soviet air-launched Cruise missiles.
Can the Minister tell the Canadian people if there has been any discussion with the American Government to go beyond the commitments under the weapons testing agreement, to include the establishment of American surveillance bases and facilities in Canada?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, at the moment there are no commitments of which I am aware, other than the agreement which the Department of External Affairs has signed with regard to the testing of weapons systems.


An Hon. Member:: Who would know if you don't?


Maurice Lamontagne: I have not received a request from the United States Government. I have not even signed the memorandum of understanding that will determine how the testing could be carried out. At the moment I think Hon. Members must wait and see what will happen. However, one thing is certain. The objective of our Government's policy is to prevent war and preserve peace, which is what we believe to be the best policy to follow. All this public discussion of the Cruise missile testing makes up but one element of the global issues of disarmament, of peace against war, and clearly much discussion is necessary before we can say anything more on the matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Last Friday evening the CBC television news covered the situation involving a woman living in Kenora, Ontario, who is seven months pregnant and must work on a video display terminal. She fears for the health of her child, yet because of federal Government rules she has no choice but to return to work on a video display terminal. Can the President of the Treasury Board tell the House what regulations will be put in place and what steps the Government will take to protect the health of this woman and her unborn child?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will be very happy to review the case and see if the present rules adequately respond to her needs and those of others in similar situations. We are certainly very concerned about maintaining very high health and safety standards with regard to federal employees.
February 28, 1983


FISHERIES
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister has wisely rejected many of the recommendations in the Pearse Report on the Pacific fishing industry. In view of the Minister's response to overwhelming opposition to the Report and in view of the Report on the East Coast fisheries, the Kirby Report, the Fleet Rationalization Report in British Columbia, and the U.S.-Canada Salmon Agreement, would the Minister-rather than having these documents identified as basically Government documents-be prepared to table those documents in the House of Commons so that the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, with its new-found powers, would finally have an opportunity to deal with those situations in the fishing industry under the prerogative of Parliament rather than the Liberal Government?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to hear the Hon. Member saying that I have made a wise decision. I will certainly discuss his representations with the Government House Leader to see what can possibly be done to satisfy the Hon. Member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The provincial Ministers of Agriculture are planning to meet later this week to consider the need for a national stabilization program for the beef industry and are thus really responding to the challenge of the Minister to the Provinces several years ago. If these provincial Ministers do reach an agreement to work with the federal Government to assist hard-pressed beef producers, is the federal Government planning to move ahead with the stabilization program to assist this vital industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a very interesting question at this time, because I was invited about a week ago to meet in Toronto tomorrow with my provincial colleagues. I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. However, it will be the first time in history, if they do come up with an agreement, that they will make equity available for the beef and pork producers of this nation, that is, if they will stop top-loading programs in one Province compared to another.
I proposed a similar plan in 1978, but they would not accept it. I have waited five years. If they reach an agreement of that kind, which is necessary to put producers of these products on an equitable basis across the nation, Your Honour can be sure that we will consider it very closely. We will probably accept it. However, I know that there are other programs which are not tripartite. For instance, in some programs some might pay
Oral Questions
50 per cent of the premium on crop insurance, and there are others. If they want to become involved in spending that kind of money, I can find all kinds of programs for them.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and concerns an answer he gave to the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands on February 10 which set out the percentage of Caucasians versus Indians arrested for Fishing violations in British Columbia. In his answer the Minister stated that, "Over the last three years in British Columbia, 80 per cent of the charges laid by my officers were against white people".
In response to my Order Paper question No. 2,049 as reported at page 8668 of Hansard for March 26, 1981, the Minister stated:
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not keep separate statistics concerning the prosecution of native Indians as this could be interpreted to be discriminatory.
How does the Minister know that 80 per cent of charges laid in B.C. were against white people, if his Department does not keep these statistics?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, when the allegation was recently made by the Indian leadership of the Province of British Columbia that my Department bias against Indians because in one operation more Indians were charged than non-Indian people, I asked my Department to make a thorough analysis with regard to that allegation. The information that I have made public is essentially that the allegation of the Indian leadership is without any basis, any foundation. That was the reaction to the statement that my Department had a bias concerning any group. As for the substance of the question of the Hon. Member, I will certainly check and will report to him in due course to what degree the details of statistics are kept.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, obviously the Minister is privy to one set of figures, and Members who ask the questions just do not get those figures.


METHOD USED IN COMPILING STATISTICS
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, in response to the same Order Paper question it was stated that, even if a search of five years of Fisheries' prosecution files could be done, it would take up to eight person-months to complete it at a cost of $15,000 to $25,000 and regional staff stated that they did not have the time to do it, that they would have to contract the job out.

February 28, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
Could the Minister explain to the House how he got three years' figures in less than a month, and, assuming that the research was contracted, could he inform the House who received the contract and how much the contractor was paid for the job?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I would be very much surprised if we had to hire any personnel to collect the data because it was given to me by my officials at a special briefing session and there was no suggestion whatsoever that they had to hire any staff to gather that data, but I will check that allegation, too.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the four hundred and second report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on Friday, February 25, 1983, and finds that the petition meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), Burlington (Mr. Kempling), Perth (Mr. Jarvis), Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankough-net), Halton (Mr. Jelinek), Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and affix a text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I am prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) on February 25, 1983.
The essence of that submission was his allegation that the documents tabled in the House contained errors of fact and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) knew this and allowed the documents to remain uncorrected. The Hon. Member suggested that the Chair should find, on the basis of his submission, that a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament had been established.
A prima facie case, as the Hon. Member himself pointed out, means that sufficient evidence is presented to warrant the matter proceeding to trial or investigation. In order to arrive at this finding the Chair would have to be involved in the determination of what is or is not correct in the documents concerned, and whether or not the Minister of Finance was aware of any errors of fact in the documents.
Clearly, the Chair cannot make such a determination even on a prima facie basis. It is not the function of the Chair, furthermore, to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate. Neither is it the function of the Chair to assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing or not knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct. Reflections may not be cast upon the conduct of Members of Parliament except by way of a substantive motion, of which notice is required, of course.
This is clearly stated on page 428 of the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May. It is also supported by precedents of this House. I would refer, for example, to the following words contained in a ruling given on June 19, 1959:
-simple justice requires that no Honourable Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence.
Subsequent rulings in accordance with this principle were given by my immediate predecessor on February 28, 1978, and by myself on May 19, 1982.
I must therefore rule that this matter does not fall within the ambit of privilege and that if the Hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter he must do so by way of a substantive motion in which the accusation against the Minister is clearly stated.


MR. LALONDE-ASSERTION OF MR. NIELSEN DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, during the course of the Question Period the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) did raise a question which I think deals with my privilege as a Member of Parliament, and I would like to raise this question in a very limited way, considering the way the Leader of the Opposition raised it. His
February 28, 1983

specific allegation was that I sat here for a week knowing that the information I had provided to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was not correct and did nothing about it.
Surely, if I had done anything of the sort I would be at fault and I would recognize that immediately. However, I suggest to the Hon. Member that his assertion is totally without foundation. Obviously we say many things in this House. There are lots of debates and arguments, and in the course of debate we use all kinds of arguments, pro and con, with different points of view. But when I stand up in this House and speak about matters of fact, I consider myself bound not only by my oath of office as a Minister but by my oath of office as a Member of Parliament.
When I wrote to the Prime Minister on February 17,1 based that information on a check of my records, on a conversation with my staff and my Deputy Minister, the former Deputy Minister of Energy, and I also requested the Department and the current Minister of Energy to provide me with all the relevant data from the files of the Department of Energy. That information has been provided to the House and it has been tabled in this House as a memorandum to the Minister dated February 16, 1983, from Mr. Tellier, the Deputy Minister of Energy.
Following this I asked the Minister of Energy to make a thorough review of all the files so that all the information would be made available. He did so, and as well the documents that were tabled by the Prime Minister on February 23 included a letter from myself and a letter from Mr. Tellier to the Minister of Energy, in which the Deputy Minister of Energy indicated quite specifically and quite categorically that he had been made aware only the night before-that is, on February 22-of the fact that further documents existed in other Files which related to this particular subject, and that he was therefore writing to me, to the Prime Minister and to his Minister to inform us of this development.
Immediately upon receipt of that information I transmitted a new letter to the Prime Minister indicating to him that those new facts had been brought to my attention and that they therefore should be brought to the attention of the House, which was done.
So far from hiding anything from the House, Madam Speaker, within 24 hours, I gathered all the information I could get about this particular file and made it available to the Prime Minister, and that information served as a basis for answers by the Prime Minister. I indicated that to the best of my knowledge on February 17 I was not aware of any other discussion between parties to the Synfuels Coal Project and officials of my Department before September 3, 1981, since this was the only piece of information that was available to me either from the search of my records or the information provided by my former Department.
During the interval no further information was made available to me in spite of the fact that I had requested a thorough review of the files to be made. As soon as further
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde
information became available 1 so informed the Prime Minister, and the House was also informed.
These are the facts, Madam Speaker. I stand by those facts under my oath of office as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will accept my explanation in that regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I have a question?


Madam Speaker:: Of course, the Minister knows that he did not really have a question of privilege and that surely he was using up the time to answer a question which he could not have otherwise answered during the course of the Question Period.
It is very difficult for the Chair not to allow a Member to reply to something, but I am afraid I have to remind the Minister, as I would any other Member, that I was right in not allowing him then to answer that question. I quote Beau-chesne, Citation 359(6):
A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.
It is quite clear and I hope Members will remind themselves of this quotation, which only leads to orderly debate in the House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question. I would have hoped the Chair would cite Citation 359 of Beau-chesne at the outset of the Minister's remarks. Having cited it when he has completed his remarks, I hope it is not now going to preclude me from presenting observations with respect to those remarks.


Madam Speaker:: I was quite conscious that there was some amount of leniency being exercised at this particular time. Because of that I will allow the Hon. Member approximately the same time to reply.


Some Hon. Members:: No!


Madam Speaker:: Absolutely. That is a necessity because the rule has to be applied equally to everyone. I will allow the Hon. Member to reply, but not for any longer than the Minister took. I was quite conscious that this would start a debate. However, the Minister pleaded with the House and the House seemed to have no objection, even on the other side. They were insisting that he should answer that question, so I let it go. However, it must be limited. The Hon. Member of the Opposition.


Mr. Collenette:: On a point of order-


Erik Nielsen: We are on a question of privilege.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not dispute your ruling of a moment ago, but I do take great umbrage at your allowing the Leader of the Opposition
23280

February 28, 1983
Privilege-Mr. Lalotide
(Mr. Nielsen) to continue on this question of privilege for the simple reason that we are engaging in debate. In Question Period, Madam Speaker, you allowed the Leader of the Opposition to ask his two questions in toto and then, properly, you refused the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) his reply. You were correct within your interpretation of the rules. However, I submit that you allowed the Leader of the Opposition to ask his question in full. There has now been redress by way of a question of privilege by the Minister of Finance. That should end the matter. To allow the Leader of the Opposition to continue this scrurrilous debate outside of Question Period is reprehensible.


Mr. Lewis:: Did you hear what he said, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: The point of the Hon. Member is certainly well taken, but he is talking of two different circumstances. What I did during the Question Period was totally within the rules, of course. I think the Hon. Member for recognizing that. 1 did say that I exercised a bit of leniency in the raising of this question of privilege. My decision is that I will allow the Leader of the Opposition to reply briefly.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, to clarify the situation, 1 would like to ask whether the House is to conclude that you did not make a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in that you allowed proceedings to continue, or whether you did not make a ruling on the question of privilege raised by the Minister of Finance by saying that there was no privilege; furthermore, I should like to know under what Standing Order the Chair may make a ruling on a question of privilege and then allow someone to speak to a ruling it has already made.


Madam Speaker:: I was commenting on the question raised by the Hon. Minister of Finance. It was not a formal ruling. I was pointing out to the Hon. Minister a citation in Beau-chesne. I did not have the impression I was making a formal ruling. I would now like to give the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) a chance to make a few comments, as I have often done when questions of privilege have been raised. I repeat, I had not yet made a ruling and was only pointing out a citation in Beauchesne to the Hon. Minister of Finance.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it is my submission that when questions are asked during Question Period that have the effect of reflecting on the conduct of a Member or a Minister, they are deserving of a response in the House and Members or Ministers should be allowed to respond, particularly when it affects their personal conduct.
What we have is a question being raised in the House of Commons on Wednesday, February 16 where the Minister was twice given the opportunity to rise and state his position with respect to his capacity to continue as a Minister by reason of
allegations made at that time of a breach of the guidelines. On February 17, the day on which there is usually a morning meeting of Cabinet, Thursday morning-


Marc Lalonde: Wednesday afternoon.


Erik Nielsen: Fair enough. After Question Period. Nonetheless, there was that intervening Cabinet meeting. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) rose in the House on Thursday, February 17, and, as he himself stated, misled the House with respect to the response of the Minister. That is what he said. That in itself is highly questionable with respect to the conduct of the Minister in providing the Prime Minister with information, and he innocently misled the House on the basis of information supplied by the Minister.
Friday the 18th, the weekend of the 19th and 20th, Monday the 21st, Tuesday the 22nd all passed. On the Wednesday, by letter the Minister informs the Prime Minister that his letter of February 17 was wrong and there indeed was prior knowledge.
He sits four seats away from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). The Prime Minister was away in the Caribbean. He sits a hand's length away from his telephone on which he could have called the Deputy Prime Minister. He had a Cabinet meeting at which the Deputy Prime Minister was likely present. He goes back and forth in the lobby. Undoubtedly there was all sorts of opportunity to tell the Deputy Prime Minister that he had misled the Prime Minister on the 17th.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: He says no, but he had all this time, and he is asking us to believe that his departmental officials in six days, going through these files, could not until the end of those six days have come up with the information. I suggest to the Minister that that is not worthy of belief.
1 point out to the Minister that a public statement was made by P. J. Read, the official responsible for the oil conservation fund. In between the 17th and the 23rd Mr. Read made the public statement that the Minister knew of the circumstances of this arrangement. How can he then explain that he sat in his seat for that entire week and did not call upon the Deputy Prime Minister, in the absence of the Prime Minister, to terminate the situation where the Prime Minister had allowed the House to conduct its business for a whole week on the basis of false information supplied to him by the Minister of Finance?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a question of Privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am ruling that there is no question of privilege. We have been engaged in debate. I have given equal opportunity to both sides.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not to me.


Madam Speaker:: I must remind Hon. Members that if the Minister of Finance was not able to answer that question,
February 28, 1983

another Minister might have answered for him. That opportunity may be taken by any Member on this side, whoever is able to answer when a Minister may not be questioned on matters pertaining to his previous administrative responsibility. For fear this will turn into another major debate, I must end it. I am sorry, 1 apologize, but I must end the discussion here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) wishes to raise a question of privilege, but the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) notified me well before the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that he intended to raise one. Therefore, the Minister may raise his question later on, but I must first recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: If the Government thinks it has put this to bed, why is it so touchy over there?


MR. WADDELL-PROCEDURE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege with respect to my right to ask a question. I believe the specific issue is a difficult one. Where a question is put but it is borderline as to whether the Minister has responsibility and therefore should be allowed to answer, and when he is allowed to answer, the question then is: Can I follow up his answer?
I draw your attention to Hansard at page 23214, Friday, February 25, when the Hon. Member-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. That is not a question of privilege. The question was intercepted by me during the course of the Question Period. My decision stands. The Hon. Member was addressing a question to a Minister who was not able to answer because the question dealt with responsibilities which he had formerly. There is no question of privilege there. I am very sorry. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway does have a hard time understanding when I determine that is not a question of privilege. He never accepts it the first time; I do not know why.

Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I am raising a question of privilege because my Department was mentioned during question period, and in my opinion, the question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) should have been put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and not to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). In fact, I was a little late
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
in getting to the House because of a meeting with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Alberta. Nevertheless, since the question involves my Department, I think it is my duty to rise at this point and to report the facts to the House as they are, because the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will not fault the Minister on the fact that he was not in the House. I agree that the Minister has a duty to answer questions concerning his Department, but if he was not in the House when the question was put, I can hardly allow him to rise now after the oral question period has ended. He can and should answer the questions on another occasion.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, when the question was raised, the Hon. Member did not even want to ask his question-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the question is directed to another Minister, if the person asking the question does not direct it to the incumbent of the appropriate department, the Minister concerned may answer for another Minister. It is up to the Ministers to decide whether the question does or does not involve their department.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am raising a question of privilege. I think that if they want to know the truth . .. They do not want to know the truth-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Minister sets great store by the Rules, but he should also be mindful of the rule that when the Speaker rises and asks for order, all Members must act accordingly. Otherwise, there can be no order in the proceedings of the House, and it is certainly in the interest of all Members that order and decorum be maintained.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would be kind enough to take under advisement and inform the House at some subsequent time the answer to a question I have with regard to the interpretation of the rules. You quoted Beauchesne, Citation 359(6), today which provides, and I quote:
The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.
On Friday last, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) asked a question of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) which related directly to a period of time when, in addition to being the Deputy Prime Minister,

February 28, 1983
Business of the House
he was also the Minister of Finance. I submit to you that a question was asked today of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) which relates directly to the Deputy Prime Minister in his responsibility as the Minister of Finance. Therefore, a question put to the Minister of Finance today about a decision, or knowledge of a decision which should have been available to his predecessor, is an appropriate question.
I am not questioning the ruling, but I believe there was a misunderstanding of the question. I would just like to know whether it would be appropriate under Citation 359(6) of Beauchesne to ask the present Minister of Finance to tell the House when, after having perused the records of the Ministry, the previous Minister of Finance was aware of an action being contemplated or taken by the Government.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking me to interpret the rules in the face of a question which has not been put in a precise manner. 1 cannot do that. If the Hon. Member has a question, he may ask it. At the time it is asked I will try to do my best to judge whether it is appropriate to address it to one Minister or the other. I just remind the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that the Minister to whom he is referring cumulates two functions, and I am not quite sure whether on Friday he was answering in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister. Certainly it was not as the ex-Minister of Finance; I would not have allowed that. I do not think I have, but I will look at Hansard. However, I cannot give an interpretation in advance of the question. If the Hon. Member has questions he may ask them, and when they are asked I will try to determine whether it should be asked or not of the proper Minister.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, would you be kind enough to look at the question put on Friday by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, which appears on page 23214 of Hansard? Would you then also look at the question put today by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)? Would you then review both of those in light of Citation 359(6), and perhaps we could then discuss the matter further?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I will do that.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that tomorrow, we shall consider Bill C-139 instead of Bill C-143. This I discussed this morning with the Parliamentary House Leader for the Progressive Conservative Party, while I mentioned the fact last week to the Parliamentary House Leader for the New Democratic Party, so that I think we all expect to finish the second reading stage, even if there is no formal agreement on this Bill.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, that will be fine with this Party. We have wondered for some time why the Government has not brought on Bill C-139 for debate.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, we were prepared to vote against that measure some time ago.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons I have a petition from citizens of the City of Saskatoon. It relates to the situation surrounding Nicaragua. The petition reads:
Wherefore the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to call on the United States Government to desist from any actions which violate the principles of self-determination of peoples and the nonintervention of states, as defined by the United Nations;
And further to call on the Canadian Government to pursue seriously a policy which promotes peace and non-intervention in Nicaragua, a policy which condemns American intervention in Nicaragua, and which is committed not to force, but to negotiation.


QUESTION 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 question will be answered today: No. 4,625.


TESTING OF DRUG &quot;ANTI-NEOPLASTON&quot;
Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare do any testing of the drug "anti-neoplaston" and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) what did the tests show (b) if not (i) are there any plans to test the drug (ii) on what date will any tests be undertaken and what is the anticipated completion date of these tests?
2.	Is the Department aware of any tests in Canada or the United States that have been done on the drug and, if so, who did the tests and what did the tests show?
3.	Did Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski or any official from his Texas clinic contact the Department and, if so (a) what form did the contact take (b) what was the Minister's response?
4.	Did Dr. Burzynski or clinic officials make known the ingredients of anti-neoplaston and, if so (a) to whom (b) what are the ingredients?
5.	Have departmental officials initiated any contact with the clinic and, if so (a) on what date (b) what form did the contact take?
February 28, 1983

6.	Did any departmental officials visit or are they planning to visit the Texas clinic and, if so (a) what is/was the name and job designation of each official (b) on what date did he/she go or will he/she be going?
7.	Have any Canadian cancer victims contacted the Department about the drug and, if so (a) what form did the contact take (b) how many of these persons were treated or are being treated with anti-neoplaston (c) for what reason did they contact the Department (d) what was the Minister's response to these persons?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No. (a) (i) and (ii) Not applicable, (b) (i) The Department of National Health and Welfare has no plans to test anti-neoplaston. (ii) Not applicable.
2.	The Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto did tests on the drug anti-neoplaston. The results showed no anti-tumor activity. The Department is not aware of any tests done in the United States.
3.	(a) and (b) The Health Protection Branch of the Department was contacted by letter on April 22, 1982, and two medical officers met with Dr. Burzynski in Ottawa on May 13, 1982. The Food and Drug Regulations were explained and guidelines for the preparation of a Preclinical New Drug Submission for anti-neoplaston were discussed.
4.	(a) Dr. Burzynski in his Preclinical New Drug Submission did make known the principles of extraction procedures of the anti-neoplastons to medical officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare, (b) The ingredients are several different series of polypeptides.
5.	(a), (b) and 6. Mr. S. Ghani (Pharmaceutical Evaluation Division, Bureau of Human Prescription Drugs, Department of National Health and Welfare, visited the Burzynski Research Institute in Houston, Texas on July 29 and 30, 1982.
7. Yes. (a) Telephone calls and letters, (b) The number is not known, (c) To determine the safety and availability of anti-neoplaston in Canada, (d) The response was the same as that for any question concerning the testing of new drugs in Canada; that is, the Minister states that the manufacturer must provide adequate data on the safety of the new drug, and data to demonstrate efficacy for the indicated use. For cancer drugs this includes evidence of an anti-cancer effect in animal cancer, before human studies are commenced. In addition, complete manufacturing data, including quality control, sterility testing, etc. must be submitted.


STARRED QUESTION
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 4,714.


Madam Speaker:: The question mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.
Order Paper Questions


'MISSISSAUGA RAILWAY ACCIDENT INQUIRY
Mr. Fisher: 1.	(a) On what date was the judicial inquiry into the 1979 CP Mississauga derailment appointed (b) on what date did it end (c) how many days did it function in total?
2.	Who was appointed to act as (a) Commission Counsel (b) Assistant Commission Counsel?
3.	Did the (a) Commission Counsel (b) Assistant Commission Counsel represent a law firm at the time of his/her appointment and, if so, which one?
4.	What amount was the (a) Commission Counsel (b) Assistant Commission Counsel paid (i) per diem (ii) in total?
5.	Were additional funds paid to the law firms above and beyond the fees negotiated for their personal services and, if so (a) what amount (b) were the sums paid as additional fees for services or as payments for receipted expenses?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, 1. (a) The Mississauga Railway Accident Inquiry was set in motion on the 4th of December 1979 by Order in Council.
(b)	Judge Grange's report was tabled in the House of Commons and released publicly on January 19, 1981.
(c)	The Inquiry occupied in evidence and argument a total of 127 days. The original terms of the Order in Council required a report to be submitted by June 4, 1980; the date was subsequently extended to December 4, 1980 and a report was ready by that date.
2.	(a) Robert P. Armstrong, Q.C., (b) Willson A. McTavish, Q.C.
3.	(a) Yes: Tory, Tory, Deslauriers &
Binnington Royal Park Plaza P.O. Box 20 Toronto, Ontario M5J 2K1
(b) Yes: Keyser, Mason, Coleman,
McTavish & Lewis Suite 701
201 City Centre Drive Mississauga, Ontario L5B 2T4
4.	(a) (i) $100.00 per hour (limited to 60 hours per week). Fees were not on a per diem basis.
(ii) Payments were made to Tory, Tory, Deslaurier & Binnington and not directly to R.P. Armstrong. Fees billed by the firm specifically for Mr. Armstrong's services totalled $167,074.97.
(b) (i) $95.00 per hour (limited to 60 hours per week). Fees were not on a per diem basis.
(ii) Payments were made to Keyser, Mason, Coleman, McTavish and Lewis. Fees billed by the firm specifically for Mr. McTavish's services totalled $205,257.00

February 28, 1983
Order Paper Questions
5. (a)	Tory, Tory,	Keyser, Mason,
	Deslauriers &	Coleman, McTavish
Additional receipted expenses were paid as follows: Fees paid to various legal	Binnington	& Lewisassistants	$ 6,745.66	$13,836.79Travel, telephones, office supplies, courier services, searches, library services,	photocopying	7,618.26	4,364.27(b) Total other payments	$14,363.92	$18,201.06


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That was a terrific dissertation that we just heard. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us the date of that question.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, this question was tabled on February 21, 1983.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I find that amusing, Madam Speaker, and I am sure we all do on this side of the House. There are some 4,700 questions, some going back to March, 1980, but the Government popped this question in last week and got an answer back quickly, it shows that the Government is not interested in answering questions unless it can put a political connotation on them. We have seen a disgraceful example of how questions should be answered in the House. I am ashamed of the Government.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am delighted that we were able to give such a prompt answer to that important question. It should be pointed out that during this session the Government has answered 3,953 questions on the Order Paper, that is, 83.7 per cent. For the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) to say that we are not interested in answering questions on the Order Paper is obviously rubbish. We answer them promptly.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member raised this point. With his long experience I think he should know that there are certain questions the answer to which is at our fingertips and we try to supply that answer immediately. There are other questions that involve more than one Department, that involve a lot of research and expense to the Government. They take longer.
I know that 1 speak on behalf of the Department of Transport in saying that when we have the information we are willing to give the response as quickly as possible.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) if the Government has ever answered a question that quickly before, and if the Government feels it should play politics with something as important to the people as the Mississauga disaster.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, obviously we answer questions as soon as we get the information. I hardly think that an answer that is succinct and to the point and which sets out the facts can be regarded as playing politics, particularly when the Hon. Member who asked the question is from Mississauga and when the incident occurred in his riding.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that I have had on the Order Paper a question regarding the distribution of calendars by VIA Rail. It is a very simple question. It was placed on the Order Paper well before the question that he just answered for his colleague on the Government side. It was placed on the Order Paper on January 19. I asked for the cost of the calendar, how many copies were printed and who authorized the calendars.
I do not think that is a very difficult question to answer. I am sorry that I do not sit on the Government benches so that I could have my questions answered rapidly. I am sorry that I am not the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) who called for the inquiry-who demanded the inquiry.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, obviously I will be delighted to look into that matter on behalf of the Hon. Member. I will do my best to ensure that he gets a speedy reply. We always want to co-operate with Members.


Mr. Taylor:: Madam Speaker, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is not going to give me the same answer-that he is delighted to look into this. My question was asked on April 2, 1981. The lists were all prepared at that time. I asked for the names of the people who had been invited to President Reagan's dinner. I happened to see some defeated Liberal candidates there. Is the fact that patronage was shown to defeated Liberal candidates the reason that this question is still not answered, or has it just become habit that the Liberals take every Liberal to the through and nobody else has a chance to get at it?
I should like an answer to that question. The lists were prepared two years ago. Why is the answer being help up? That is what I would like to know.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am shocked at the Hon. Member who has cast aspersions on the respectable Canadian citizens who were invited to that dinner. I will be delighted to look into the matter on his behalf. He says that he does not want to hear that; I do not think he would want to hear that I would not be delighted to do so. I assure him that I would be delighted to look into it on his behalf.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the defeated NDP candidates and the defeated Tory candidates are also respectable citizens. They should get the same consideration as the defeated Liberal candidates, so do not give me that baloney.
February 28, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) may make queries about his questions, but not debate the matter.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would not want that comment to pass. The defeated NDP candidates do not want a place at the trough beside the Liberals and the Tories.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, question No. 1,653 in the name of the Hon. Member for High Park concerns the way the Government has been handling refugees from the Ukraine, the Soviet Union, Poland, Lithuania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and East Germany. I am surprised that that question has not been answered, and that the Hon. Member has not made sure that the Government gave the kind of answer it should, particularly when he himself is so interested in people who are badly treated in Communist countries.


Jesse Philip Flis: First, Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member should get his facts straight. There is no such Member in this House as the Hon. Member for High Park.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He does not represent High Park; he only represents Parkdale.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Skelly (p. 22957).
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the luncheon adjournment I was discussing this Bill along the lines of the lack of accountability in Government in terms of its methods of spending. I had mentioned one corporation about which the people in my area of Saskatchewan-and as a matter of fact all people in western Canada- are very concerned, that is, Canadian National Railways.
I wish to put on the record that in addition to the funds CNR is presently seeking, in 1977 it was given a recapitalization and a debt forgiveness of $808 million. Members of the House and the people of Canada were told at that time that it would allow CN to carry on in a very orderly manner, the
Borrowing Authority
same as any other corporation, and not to continue to come to the Government for assistance.
While we are speaking of expenditures of money, I was interested in the reply given today to a question asked by the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) in which a considerable sum of money was mentioned. I am sure that if we check Hansard, we would see that the Hon. Member for Mississauga North requested that judicial inquiry. My understanding as an ordinary member of the Canadian society is that a judicial inquiry in the courts of Canada should be more difficult than one where a member of the bar travels around the country, visits and makes up his own ideas three years after the fact, as Mr. Macdonald will do to report on the economy as it is today, three years after the fact. There is not much consistency in the answer given about the expenditure of Government funds. I am not familiar with all the gentlemen and law firms named in the answer regarding the Mississauga rail disaster inquiry, but I do not think I heard one ex-Cabinet Minister's name mentioned. This is the difference between the Government allowing $850 per day to an ex-Liberal Cabinet Minister such as Mr. Macdonald, and a reputable law firm acting in a court of law of Canada. I just draw that to the attention of the House.
As we look at our deficit and the request of the Government for an additional $19 billion in borrowing authority, there is no reason that Canadians should have much faith in anything the Government puts out, especially regarding projections as to cash flow and cash requirements. I should like to turn to November 1981 when the then Minister of Finance said that the budget deficit would be $10.5 billion for 1982-83. Just seven months after that, in June 1982, the same Minister had to go back on his previous forecast. At that time he said the deficit would be $19.6 billion, and then just four months thereafter, in October 1982, the same Minister of Finance showed Canadians just how out of whack his forecast was. At that time he told us that the budget deficit would be $23.6 billion. Then, four months thereafter, in February 1983, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated that the current forecast of debt would be $27 billion. We started out at $10.5 billion in 1982-83; then we went to $19.6 billion; then to $23.6 billion; now we come to $27 billion.


An Hon. Member:: That is more than six and five.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: As one of my colleagues says, that is considerably more than "six and five". If we are really to believe that the increase the Government is forecasting for expenditures in the coming year is only 9 per cent, we must start with the premise that its numbers are correct this time. But if we go with the premise that the first numbers we were given for 1982-83 were correct, we see an increase of 17 per cent in Government spending this year. The people of Canada cannot understand why the Government would come to the House of Commons and ask for approval of basically a loan or a garnishee on the people of Canada for an additional $19

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
billion when it has not even put forward a spending plan. I could not go to my banker and say, "Hi, Gary, how about $100,000?" He would say, "What do you want it for?" If I said, "I will spend it this year or maybe even in two months", he would not give me a loan. I do not think the people of Canada should give it to the Government without its putting forward a spending plan.
On February 14, 1983, the present Minister of Finance said:
I never said in my October 27 statement, or since, that there would be a budget before asking for additional financial funds.
The statement he made on February 14 was in complete contradiction to what he said on October 27, which reads:
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 former Minister of Finance repeated the same promise before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. In May 1982 he said:
I would not expect the House to act upon an additional request for borrowing authority without providing it with detailed information on the economic situation and the implications of that situation on the Government's fiscal situation. I do not think it would be appropriate to ask the House for additional borrowing authority until I have laid out in some detail an update of both the economic situation and the fiscal situation, and I certainly will be doing that before I would come back to the House for additional borrowing authority.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are asking me to come to a close. I do not think the people of Canada would respect us if we allowed the Government to borrow an additional $19 billion.


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, before addressing the main topic of this debate, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), asked me to indicate to the House that the Grange Commission was constituted of qualified Canadians who did an excellent job in their investigation of the happenings at Mississauga. Even though they were Progressive Conservatives, they did an excellent job.
I would like to address the remarks of Hon. Members opposite, particularly those in the Loyal Opposition who tried to make the point that-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope I am not correct, but I thought I heard the Hon. Member suggest that the Grange Commission was made up of Progressive Conservatives. The Chairman was Mr. Justice Grange of the Supreme Court of Ontario. To suggest that the Commission was made up of people who were in a political Party, I believe would impugn a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario. I think that I should not have heard those words from the Hon. Leader.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has made his point and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has listened attentively.


Peter Joseph Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the very qualified staff. However, I want to come to the main topic, that of the borrowing authority and the assertion by the Conservative Party that this Government somehow has not in any way indicated what the spending is for or the economic plan for it. Obviously, the Hon. Member was not paying attention to the Main Estimates tabled in the House this past week. But the Opposition is saying continually, in rhetorical speeches that the Government is refusing to show restraint in its spending. Yet when you take a look at the breakdown of Government expenditures and the Government's restraint program you will find in every area the Opposition is opposed to restraint while at the same time its Members call out for a reduction in the deficit.
I want to go through this area in detail giving the facts. Basically, Government expenditures can be broken down into four major areas. The first is transfer payments. The second is public debt. The third is payments to Crown Corporations, and the fourth is the operating and capital expenditures of the Government. I will take each of these areas separately and indicate specifically what is involved. I will start with transfer payments.
In this area we have payments to people, including Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, the Spouses Allowance and Unemployment Insurance. I have not heard Members of the Conservative Party indicate that we should make cuts in these payments. In fact, during the debates on Bills C-131, C-132 and C-133, I heard them say exactly the opposite, that we should not even put a limit of six and five on the increases in areas such as the OAS. The second area of transfer payments is in the area of payments to Provinces. This includes payments to maintain the medicare system, the postsecondary education system, the hospital insurance plan and the Canada Assistance Plan. Again, in this area of transfer payments to the Provinces the Conservative Opposition has stated time and again that there should be no cuts. The third area under the general area of transfer payments is subsidies to transfers. The Main Estimate here is the Petroleum Incentive Plan which applies $1.1 billion to the increase of exploration for oil and gas and to make sure that we are self-sufficient in oil and gas. The fourth area includes another category of miscellaneous other transfer payments. This includes small business investment grants. We have heard the Opposition calling for more money and more aid to small business. This area includes the Enterprise Development Program and the DIP Program to increase productivity. We have heard calls from the Opposition to increase productivity measures, which include funds put forward toward job creation. We have heard time and time again from the Opposition that funds should be provided for job creation. I have just outlined the basic structure of transfer payments in the expenditures. These have accounted for 63.7 per cent of the increase in Government spending. In all these areas the Opposition has told us not to make cuts. At the same time the Opposition has told us to cut the deficit.
February 28, 1983

The second major area of expenditure is expenditures on the public debt. Not even the Opposition has been so preposterous as to say that we should not honour our obligations in paying interest on public debt. That is not possible for a fiscally responsible Government to do.
The third area is that of payments to Crown Corporations, which account for about 6.9 per cent of the increase in government spending. The majority of this spending was used in increased financing for the CMHC programs to increase new and existing housing projects, to create jobs and to give a stimulus to the housing industry.
Another major portion of it was put forward as part of the Canadianization program. I am not sure where the Opposition stands on this. It depends upon which Conservative is speaking. Some are in favour of Canadianization and others are not.
Another major area is transfer payments to VIA Rail. We have heard time and again the Opposition opposing the reorganization of VIA Rail routes in order to save money.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They reduced it by 20 per cent and increased it by 48 per cent.


Peter Joseph Lang: Again, in this area of Crown Corporations, the Opposition has expressed a desire for the Government not to decrease expenditures. The only time the Opposition talks about restraint is when it is general, when it is easy, and you do not have to touch any program, such as assistance to business, assistance in creating jobs, health or any other program. The Opposition will not get down to specifics.
The fourth major area-and I am going to go through this rapidly because I have only ten minutes-is government operating and capital expenditures. This area is broken down into defence and non-defence related expenditures, which account for 15.2 per cent of the increase in government spending. The Conservatives have made it clear that they think more should be spent on defence. The Opposition is not asking for the Government to make cuts in defence, which account for almost half of the increase in this envelope of government operating and capital expenditures.
In the other area of non-defence related expenditures, the vast majority of expenditures are in the form of wages and salaries for public servants. The Opposition, in many speeches on Bill C-124 and on the six and five measures that followed, indicated that it does not feel salaries and wages for public servants should be held to six and five increases. Clearly, the Opposition is not asking for significant cuts in expenditures in this fourth area of government expenditure.
Very briefly, I have gone over the four major areas of government expenditures. Transfers account for 63.7 per cent of the increase; the public debt accounts for 14.2 per cent of the increase, payments to Crown Corporations account for 6.9 per cent of the increase, and the operating and capital expenditures account for 15.2 per cent of the increase.
I have to ask Hon. Members opposite, as many Canadians are asking when they say they want to hold the deficit in time
Borrowing Authority
of recession and when they say they want to hold down government expenditures, will Hon. Members opposite at the same time be honest with the Canadian people and tell them that this means reduced health care, reduced education, reduced payments to support the unemployed, reduced Old Age Security and reduced defence?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Reduce the swill in the trough.


Peter Joseph Lang: It will mean reductions in the major social programs that have maintained not only the quality of life in Canada but the consumer demand that we have at the present time which has prevented us from slipping even deeper into the recession out of which we are now coming.
I see you are asking me to wind up my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I will. I have a Final plea to the Opposition. When they say, "Hold or cut the deficit, reduce government expenditures", why do they not put some substance behind their remarks instead of only rhetoric?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the last Liberal Member to speak in this debate asked some questions. He asked questions about reducing Government expenditure. If the Government would instead create a climate in our economy that would encourage the growth of enterprise, that growth would result in the creation of real jobs that would take people off of unemployment and put them to work. It is that simple.


Peter Joseph Lang: Stop giving us those cliches. Give us some proposals.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It is good that we have a question period after the speech. I can hardly wait to hear the questions.


Peter Joseph Lang: There are no questions.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: That is right. We are cut from 20 minutes down to 10 minutes. As usual, Members of Parliament are being cut back in speaking on important issues like the economy. I am not surprised.


Peter Joseph Lang: Your own committee agreed.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: This Government's concept of restoring the economy is to create new wealth by borrowing and increasing taxes on the very productive machine that we should be encouraging to create jobs. Its policy is to borrow and borrow billions upon billions of dollars year after year. This is not a new policy or experience; it is a policy we have seen through Bills such as this which have come before the House time and time again without our first seeing a budget or any fiscal planning. The Government simply borrows more and more money.
My constituents do not understand this concept. When they go to the bank to borrow thousands of dollars, they cannot just go back to borrow more money. At one point, the bank manager tells them they cannot borrow any more. At that point, creative employment is turned into bankruptcy, receivership

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
and unemployment. The people in my constituency and others do not understand the injustice when they see the Government continue to borrow.
I wish that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could come to my constituency and spend a week in my constituency office. I wish they could listen to the story of the owner of a moving company in my constituency who has been in business for 25 years, successfully employing 35 people. He would double the number of employees during the summer by hiring students. He never asked for any handouts from any Government to get started. He did not ask for a million dollars to float his business. He floated his business on its assets, on his courage and hard work.
What has happened to that business? He borrowed some extra money at 10 per cent or 12 per cent in order to expand his business. A year later, that 12 per cent was 22 per cent or 24 per cent. The 10 per cent profit margin disappeared. With that 10 per cent loss in the profit margin, there came another 2 per cent debt load every month. As the company's deficits began to pile up, its cash flow began to dry up. But could he simply go to the bank and ask for more money? Not at all. The business fell into receivership and then into bankruptcy.
Two years ago, our local papers carried headlines which said that the local businesses were rolling along. The policies of this Government began to take effect. Suddenly, the banks began to tighten money that was available to small business. This gentleman was unable to get short term financing to meet his cash flow problems. He hung on by, first, signing over his assets from other property. Finally, he signed over his home and his car, until the bank walked in one day, took all of it, and closed the door to 35 employees. It is only 35 employees, not 1.6 million unemployed, but those 35 people were unemployed because of the inability of this one person to continute. This situation happens repeatedly.
The banks used to lend money on the basis of assets and inventory. Cash flow was only one factor. But it is now the only factor. The policy now is to get rid of inventory at 10 cents on the dollar. There is no more cash flow for employees even to put the inventory to work. This happens over and over again.
The spirit of that entrepreneur is destroyed. That job producer will no longer create jobs. The Government, instead of continually borrowing and bailing out the big companies, should consider these small businesses with their assets and inventories and, realizing that the market has turned around and interests rates have dropped, help them to continue during the next six months. However, the Government is letting the banks and other financial institutions close these small businesses down. These businesses have been allowed to hang on
until the economy recovers, but now that there is a recovery, the banks are going to take their assets, wipe them out and sell them off at 10 cents on the dollar so that someone else can give it a try. The businessman to whom I have been referring did not have a Minister in the Government or a Minister of Finance to call to say "Fook, my friend, I need an extra million dollars." He could not call the former Minister of Finance to say that he needed an $850 a day salary to tell him what is wrong with the economy.
It makes me heartsick to see not only businessmen but others who have been successful and owned a home and car fall all the way down to having to rely on unemployment insurance and then on welfare just to survive financially. They have no way back up because they have been bled dry.
I am holding a letter which I am sure is typical of the letters that every Member in the House of Commons is receiving. Surely there must be some feeling and a response to pleas such as are made in this letter. This constituent says:
Jobs are needed badly. I have not worked since 1980. I have no UIC benefits. I have paid in for 35 years and did not draw. I do not receive welfare. I do not receive sick benefits. I have been an honest, hardworking man and have not caused Canada any problems. There seems to be no way for me to provide for my home. Recommendations of past employers can be obtained if necessary. My honesty can be checked.
I wonder who will check the honesty of the Government, the Government that keeps pretending that it can borrow billions upon billions of dollars and throw them away out of the other door. Instead, it should be supporting the productive engine, that is, our small business community in Canada.
The Government is asking for borrowing authority because it has spent over $1 billion more than it had projected just a few months ago.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is $3.5 billion.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It depends on which prejection you consider. It could be the projection from last week, last month or the one next month. In addition, the Government wants to borrow an additional $5 billion for this year and $14 billion for next year. What is this money for? We do not even have a budget to know what the Government plans to spend it on. This borrowing Bill for $19 billion is the largest amount asked for in Canadian history.
I will conclude by saying that this country is hurting. The businessmen in the country are hurting. I hope the Government will find it in its heart to use some of the money that it gets from this Bill to help those businesses which have existed for the last 25 years over the next six months. If they can be helped over the next six months they will make it. The Government should not keep destroying the small business generator that creates the real jobs in this country. They can survive if the Government creates the proper economy and climate.
February 28, 1983



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-The Administration-Role of Alastair Gillespie, b) Use of funds allocated to Nova Scotia; the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway)-Customs and Excise-Importation of pornographic video cassettes, b) Application of tax write-offs- request that legislation be amended; the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis)-Banks and Banking- Rescheduling of loans to small businesses and farmers.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Skelly (p. 22957).
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it must be regarded as an honour to speak in the debate on the largest borrowing Bill in Canadian history, Bill C-143. In fact, this Bill embodies a number of firsts. First, as I have just noted, it is the largest borrowing Bill which the House has ever been condemned to face. Second, it is the first time that the House has ever been asked to provide a blank cheque for no less than 15.75 per cent of the year's projected budget, before the fiscal year has even begun. Furthermore, it is being asked to do so in the form of borrowing authority which is certainly, considering the present situation, an outright admission of overlapping fiscal failure. Third, this is the first time in parliamentary history that a borrowing Bill has been for an amount greater than the total Government spending only a dozen years or so ago.
It must surely be a first for any Government maintaining the pretense of following a parliamentary system to submit a Bill such as this without tendering its resignation at the same time. This must be so, at least in what we would like to consider as the politically advanced world.
Just what do these figures mean? Your Honour may remember that when the present Government was in Opposition, in 1979, it raised a good deal of concern because, in its eyes, the then Government was slow in bringing down a
Borrowing Authority
budget. However, for the first time in nearly a generation, there was a Government in power which recognized that it held power in trust, rather than by right. The then Minister took the requisite amount of time and in due course brought down the first honest budget which had been seen in the lifetime of some of the young 18 year olds who voted for the first time in the ensuing national election. The rest is history.
When viewed in retrospect, the promises of cheap gas, lower interest rates, less inflation, reduced Government and myriad other promises reveal the moral calibre of the Party and the Government opposite which swept back into power. Nine months later it brought down its budget, which has not yet been passed. It has been modified in many forms and must soon be authorized by the House despite the fact that, in one guise or another, it has ruled the economic lives of Canadians since November 12, 1981. That budget called for a deficit of $10.5 billion and financial requirements of $6.6 billion. Step by step, month by month, mini budget by mini budget, these figures mounted until the deficit stood at $27.2 billion and financial requirements at $26.1 billion.
What then is the value of the figures which have been presented to us? We all know that this will not be the last time the bankrupt Treasury will, like Oliver of Charles Dickens' fame, be back for more. The figures have been drafted to reflect an ideal situation, if everything goes right. It is like a fairy story. If all the projections work out exactly as the Government has said they would, this is the amount of money which will be needed. However, the Government's figures never work out, so it must keep returning for more because its figures lie. There is an old saying that figures lie and liars figure.
Let us consider what effect there has been on the financial and economic life of the country. Today the deficit is equal to 34 per cent of all Government expenditures. In my opinion, that means that the Government must borrow half as much money as it brings in by taxation. Can anyone even conceive of a business operating in that manner? Can anyone imagine a family, a household, operating in that manner? However, this is not a business and not a family. This is a once prosperous nation whose Government has forgotten that it is not to rule by right but, rather, is to govern in trust. This is a bankrupt Government, and as the events of last week have shown, it is a bankrupt Government in more ways than one.
In the calendar year 1982, federal Government borrowing accounted for 51 per cent of the net new security issues placed in Canada. That is incredible. I cannot understand why the press has not spread this news across the front pages of the land, unless there is a feeling that even more news of the financial, moral and other types of bankruptcy shown by the Party in power would be too demoralizing for the public to take.
I will tell Your Honour some of the differences these fiscal and monetary non-policies of the Party in power make. First, there is the ever-mounting burden of interest which must be

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
paid just to carry the debt. That interest amounts to some $1,700 per taxpayer, at the present time; that is, before the passage of this Bill seeking authority to borrow further. The gross accumulated debt amounts to $5,500 per capita. That interest, just for the record, amounted to 4.8 per cent of the country's Gross National Product in the year now drawing to a close. That compares to 2 per cent when the Government first came to power 15 years ago.
Just as important is the loss of fiscal manoeuvring room. In 1968 and 1969, one tax dollar in nine was needed to service the federal debt. Today it takes one dollar in three. That means there is simply no room to undertake expensive fiscal measures to encourage recovery.
I believe the celebrated John Turner said something during his spell as Minister of Finance about spending our way out of recession. That is just the sort of thinking that has brought us into the present situation and depression. When the Government has spent its way out of a recession and then spent its way through a period of recovery, and all the time borrowed to do it-because, after all, the voters would not like to be taxed, would they?-then there simply is no more room to move around when it is necessary to do so. That amounts to nothing more than simple thinking, always looking for the easy way out, not caring for the country in its charge, looking no farther than the next election. Every person who has held a finance portfolio in a Liberal Government over the past decade and a half stands condemned of that fact. So do the willing sheep who, as they did last week, will stand on demand and bleat their approval for anything done by a member of the Government so long as he is a Liberal.
The third effect is that those in the private sector, the people and organizations actually creating real and permanent jobs in our society, are squeezed out of the money markets. Last year, 51 per cent of the net public borrowings in Canada were undertaken by the federal Government. That does not leave very much for the people who are to create jobs, lower inflation, pay salaries and bring prosperity back to our society. Of course, by cornering half of the available loan money, the Government has effectively bid up the price of money, the interest rate, out of all conscience, both for itself and for borrowers from the productive private sector.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, is the matter of confidence. Neither the decision maker in the private sector nor even the private citizen, whose only experience with finance may involve the family budget, can have any level of confidence in a Government which, for two decades, has shown less competence in trying to run the country than does any housewife in trying to run her household successfully. There is a rule in poker that one should never throw good money after bad. But what choice have we? This is like buying buckets for a sinking boat. There is little alternative.
I see that Your Honour is starting to signal that my allotted time has expired. Again, let me emphasize the fact that we on this side of the House feel that the Government should be more accountable to the House before demanding outright the astronomical sum of $19 billion.


Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, during this debate on Bill C-143 relating to the Government's supplementary borrowing authority we will hear a lot of figures being bandied about, and I certainly intend to do a little bandying myself to emphasize the seriousness of our country's most serious financial situation.
Many Canadians may find themselves having trouble understanding exactly where Canada stands financially. Even officials in the Department of Finance, including the Minister himself, are having problems.
However, one does not have to be a high-powered statistician or an economist to know that Canada is seriously in debt. Mr. Speaker, the simple fact of the matter is that the federal Government has not balanced its cheque-book since the 196970 fiscal year, one year after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office.
It is interesting to note that if this Liberal Government had been responsible and worked within a balanced budget each year, Canada's national debt now would be something under $3 billion. As it is, we have a staggering debt that even our grandchildren will never be able to pay off.
It would be interesting to have a peek at the personal chequing account of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I wonder whether his own system of dealing with his personal finances is anything like the system that he uses in his role of Finance Minister in looking after the affairs of the nation. Somehow, I very much doubt it. However, it is a fact that the Minister of Finance is charged with the duty and the responsibility of managing Canada's financial affairs in a sane and reasonable manner. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is not being done.
As a consequence, we find that people have lost faith. They know that the Government has absolutely no interest in working within a balanced budget and, as a result, it goes to the money markets, it reduces the availability of money, it shoots the interest rate up, and that makes it harder for the independent businessman, the farmer or the householder to obtain money at a reasonable rate. More important, through certain external forces, the interest rate in Canada has been thrust down to a point where it is now almost manageable, and at this particular time in the life of a Canadian it is imperative that he have confidence. How is he going to have confidence when the Government presents a $5 billion supplementary borrowing authority Bill and, right on the heels of that, without explaining its way out of it, without telling Canadians what it is going to use the money for, it is asking for a further $14 billion to $15 billion?
There is a building contractor in my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley who considered himself fortunate when he was awarded a contract for $2.4 million to build a school, through the Department of Indian Affairs. He considered himself fortunate. He is now really wondering whether he has his sanity. The contract, of course, was with the Department of
February 28, 1983

Public Works, and on his third draw he submitted documentation to prove his eligibility for a progress draw of $290,000. He was told by the officials of the Department of Public Works, with whom he had contracted, that they had miscalculated the worth of this particular firm, the ability of the firm to perform, and they felt that he could only put $90,000 worth of goods and services into that building, and they had budgeted for that. So all he was going to get was $90,000. Where was the other $200,000 to come from? There was a solution to that. What he was told to do was to lay his men off and they would go on UIC, or they could have some grandiose project where they could go out and rake leaves in the forest until some time after April 1 when there was a new budget and new buckets of money and he could be paid the balance. Over and above that, the Department officials said that they would pay him the interest on that $200,000 because they were incapable of paying the full amount at that time.
When situations like that are allowed to occur, how on earth can any Government balance its budget? How on earth can any Canadian expect to have any confidence in what its Government is doing? Situations like that are occurring every day. To save a few bucks, why do we not turn the heat down in this place? Everybody is cooking. 1 think it is mostly from the alternate sources of energy from the front benches opposite, but the fact remains that wherever we look, we see waste.
A few years ago the then Auditor General, J. J. Macdonell, provided concrete evidence to support his claim that Government spending and fiscal accountability were out of control. Over the years, the Liberal Government has been speeding down the road toward ever-increasing Government spending and waste. It did not, however, realize how fast it was going, and ever since it hit that deadly curve, "the recession curve", it has been spinning out of control.
As the Official Opposition, we do not take objection to the fact that the Government needs money. Of course it does. What we do take exception to is the fact that the Government cannot tell us exactly how much it needs and what it needs the money for. That, Mr. Speaker, is the reason we stand here in such frustration and try to impress on the Members opposite that they have a responsibility to their own constituents and they have a responsibility to Canada. Those good men and women across there have the same responsibility to the people in Prince George as I, the elected Member, does. They do not accept that responsibility. Regardless of how rotten this Bill is, every one of those sheep over there, when the vote on this dreadful Bill is taken, will stand up and be counted as supporting it. I think that is a rotten shame.


Mr. Fisher:: Baa!


Robert Lorne McCuish: The last time I saw a mouth like that it had a hook in it.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government is asking Parliament for money which it cannot prove to us that it needs. Despite its public relations program of restraint called six and five, what is in fact the case is that
Borrowing Authority
this Government may talk about restraint but it shows as much restraint as a bunch of sailors on shore leave.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to be able to speak this afternoon on the amendment to Bill C-143, the amendment that has been moved by my colleague, basically proposing that this Bill be amended so that the borrowing authority be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof, particularly the subject matter of the clause pertaining to the borrowing authority for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, be referred to the Standing Committe on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I think an awful lot has already been said, even today, with regard to what we are being asked to do as Members of Parliament here, in writing out a $19 billion cheque for the Government to do with the money as they please.
I know that there have been statements made in this House, such as on Friday when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger) said that all I would have to do would be to look in the Blue Book, look into the Estimates, and I would have answers to my questions there. Similarly, this afternoon the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) seemed to imply the same thing, that it was very clear in terms of where the money would be spent. I have not had an opportunity to look at all the Estimates. The little bit I have had a chance to look at troubles me. I certainly do have my concerns and worries as to where this Government intends to spend its money, in what manner it will be spending it, and what approaches it will be undertaking.
One of the areas highlighted in the Speech from the Throne and in other speeches over the past three years of this session has been the area of multiculturalism and the whole Government thrust in that area. In accepting the invitation of the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the Estimates, I note that for 1981-82 the projected Estimate for multiculturalism was $14 million. I notice in the Estimates for 1983-84 that the amount is $13,720,000. I have difficulty comprehending why there is this kind of a reduction in a program such as multiculturalism. I am sure if I looked through the Blue Book I could find similar sorts of cutbacks or rollbacks, yet the Government has a greatly increased deficit.
The answers being provided are not adequate. This is all the more reason for a budget to explain exactly what type of philosophy the Government is now following, what its plans and goals are and what its programs will be. It is very important that we have some direction.
There have been several mini budgets but only one major budget recently. This indicates that the Government is a house divided. Enough proverbs have been cited to show that a house divided cannot stand. We have good illustrations of this. In the Income Tax Act legislation, we were asked to pass a hodgepodge of band-aid solutions. This is done from one year to the next on policies and programs the Government intends to

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
follow. We have this kind of turmoil. That is why we have these unreasonable demands on Members of Parliament, asking us to pass Bills such as this $19 billion blank cheque.
I want to be constructive. I will give a case history in Canada that should be followed. The recent example I would point to is my Province of Manitoba. We have a Government that has been moving ahead, giving explanations, consulting people, telling them what it intends to do. If it requires money, it tells the people what is going to be done with it. There have been decreased federal transfer payments to Manitoba which, of course, has hit the Manitoba economy very heavily. Consequently, there is more of a deficit than was anticipated.
I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members some of the philosophy being used in Manitoba that could be incorporated into coping with the needs of the whole country. I have great admiration for the fact that creativity and innovation have been evident in the Province of Manitoba regarding the number one problem, namely, unemployment. I am amazed that the Province, which is often considered to be a have-not Province, places such emphasis on job-creation and meeting the basic needs. It does not just have make-work projects, but works with the municipalities and non-profit organizations in an attempt to deal with the unemployment problem, making sure that the job-creation measures deal with the existing needs.
In addition to recognizing the high rate of unemployment and shrinking revenues, which is common for Provinces such as Manitoba, it has had a re-priorization of some of its expenditures. In citing this case history, as an example, I am impressed with the fact that the Government of Manitoba has shown compassion and care.
If there was evidence of caring on the part of the federal Liberal Government, I could maybe try to understand why it is asking for $19 billion. Several weeks ago the Government asked us to place the pensioners of Canada under the six and five regime at a time when the cost of living and inflation has been much higher. We have not seen the care and compassion we would expect the Government to exercise for the needy people of this country.
The six and five legislation also applied to the Family Allowance. Here again we have not seen any compassion or caring such as is evident in my Province of Manitoba. I would urge the federal Government to think about this more seriously-
Perhaps one of the greatest examples 1 can cite regarding the Manitoba Government is that it has demonstrated cooperation and consultation. One area where it has demonstrated this most clearly has been in its consultation and cooperation with the unions. One of the major unions in Manitoba is the Manitoba Government Employees' Association. Through consultation and co-operation, the Government has reopened the contract which had been agreed on by both parties. We do not have the type of legislation that we have seen in Quebec. There has been a voluntary reopening of the contract, a voluntary cutback in the increase for the next period of time. This money is being channelled into a job-creation fund.
These people are participating. Other unions, associations and groups will be invited to participate in this. They are already participating in terms of discussion with the Government as to urgent priorities and needs and ways in which, together with the Province of Manitoba, they can deal with the problem of unemployment. These unions will be looking at ways in which this job-creation fund will be allocated.
Looking at this whole consultation process, I am amazed when we see that the new summer youth program will not have the local advisory board reactivated. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has decided to not cultivate this co-operation. These are things that are necessary.
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that my time has finished. I urge the Government to look at these approaches of being creative, innovative, caring and co-operative. I leave that with the House to consider.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-143, the supplementary borrowing authority Bill. As previous speakers have already stated, this Bill, if passed, will provide authority for the Government to borrow up to an additional $5 billion in new money for this current 1982-83 fiscal year and up to $14 billion in new money for fiscal year 1983-84. Without question, the total borrowing authority of $19 billion granted in this Bill is the largest borrowing Bill in our country's 116-year history.
To add fuel to the fire, this is the second time this year that this Government has sought to increase authority by more than the requirements that had been projected in its most recent financial forecast. The deficit today is 28 per cent of all expenditures. In other words, for every $4 the Government spends, it must borrow $1.
The Government keeps telling us that the federal debt is $134 billion. However, when one adds the total debt of the Crown corporations of $55 billion and the $49 billion in pension funds that the Government has appropriated, the real debt is closer to $240 billion. The June and October budgets of 1982 failed to provide economic and fiscal projections for the current fiscal year. Common sense should tell us that this is dangerous because it creates uncertainty and leads to unwarranted and destructive speculation in the financial markets as to the state of the federal Government's finances. No banker, Mr. Speaker, would grant a line of credit to a financially crippled business which refused to provide cash flow projections. Indeed, a private enterprise with revenue which only equalled 70 per cent of expenditures and a gross debt which was more than triple the value of its assets, would be forced into bankruptcy.
There is no question that the poor economic performance will continue to have a negative impact on the finances of the Government as the cost of social assistance rises and revenues stagnate or fall. Any recovery which may occur is likely to be a weak recovery and, as such, will only have a moderate impact
February 28, 1983

on the current fiscal dilemma. Even if we have a moderate recovery, it may not be enough to bring the federal books into balance. Unless measures are taken to control wasteful spending and to create economic growth, it can be expected that the present situation will not readily improve.
I realize that the Government is committed to carry out its obligations in financing our important social programs such as Old Age Security, spouses' allowances, medicare, and many other worth-while programs. These are obligations and duties which must not be reneged upon, but there are many, many other areas of spending which should be seriously looked at and should either be curtailed or eliminated entirely. One only has to go to the Auditor General's annual Report to see for himself areas of unproductive spending, areas of mismanagement and areas of unaccountability and cost over-runs which, when totalled up, amount to millions and billions of taxpayers' dollars wasted and gone down the drain.
I am not here to castigate and chastise individuals or Department officials, Mr. Speaker. I believe most of them are dedicated people who are trying their best to do the best job possible. However, because the money they handle, which it is their responsibility to spend wisely, is not really their own, I do not believe there is the same judicial care exercised in spending the taxpayers' money as when they are spending their own.
1 have in my possession, Mr. Speaker, a document which spells out this problem in detail, but because of the brief time at my disposal in this debate it will not be possible for me to read this document into the record because of its length. However, I can draw the attention of the Chair and of Hon. Members to a couple of examples. The first example has to do with over-runs, over spending the budget. Environment Canada experienced cost over-runs on 153 out of a total 223 projects to the amount of $283 million. This is a glaring example of poor budget planning which would have resulted in wholesale firings if it had happened in private industry. But we all know that public servants rarely get fired. If something goes wrong, the punishment is usually a promotion to get him or her out of the Department. At the other extreme, Mr. Speaker, on July 1, 1982, two days after announcing the need for more restraint, the Government paid $430,000 to provide 16 cities with fireworks. Really, Mr. Speaker, where is the common sense? Common sense should tell us that we are heading for rocky shoals if this trend in spending continues. But it is a case of this Government's continuing to flounder around, pulling the wrong levers and greasing the wrong skids.
The Government must readjust its priorities to get our economy rolling again. Money must be spent wisely to get our economy back on track. We must regain our strong economic base. Our industry must modernize in order to grow and expand. The Government should be encouraging such undertakings, not penalizing them with disincentives, by drowning inventiveness with myriads of discouraging regulations which private enterprise is forced to contend with. There must be dovetailing, equitableness and partnership between business and Government. That harmony will result in better economic
Borrowing Authority
results, on the other hand, working at loggerheads with each other results only in chaos and bankruptcy.
Over the years, Mr. Speaker, we have heard common arguments used by the Liberals to defend the Government's record on spending, debt and the deficit. One argument is, "Deficit spending is good for economic growth". Common sense should tell them that deficits do not necessarily occur as a consequence of measures to promote economic growth. The truth is that most of the existing deficit is the result of the failure to achieve economic growth. For example, in November, 1981, economic growth was projected by the then Minister of Finance to be 2.2 per cent. The projected deficit was $10.5 billion. In June, 1982 the Government predicted a negative growth of 2 per cent, and the projected deficit was forecast to be $19.6 billion. For fiscal year 1982-83 the Government is forecasting a decline of 4.4 per cent, and the expected deficit is $23.6 billion. It can be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, that as the deficit has grown from year to year, Canadians have become more and more aware of the damage which continuous deficits inflict upon the economy. We must be aware as well, Mr. Speaker, that our excessive borrowing is one of the reasons for the weak dollar and for the recent very high interest rates which have been necessary to support the dollar.
Another fallacy which we hear from the Government is, "There is a deficit because of the positive initiatives the Liberals have taken over the years to assist Canadians." The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the many examples of unnecessary spending by the Liberals have presented an unnecessary drain on the Treasury. That red herring, Mirabel Airport, has cost the taxpayers of Canada some $700 million. As I mentioned earlier, the Government has consistently failed to exercise adequate cost control on projects and on programs. It was discovered in October, 1979, that cost over-runs on ongoing projects initiated by the Liberals totalled $1.1 billion. In 1978 the Unemployment Insurance Commission paid $290 million to people not legally entitled to receive benefits.
Another fallacy projected by this Government is, "There is nothing wrong with having a large national debt. We only owe the money to ourselves, and there are assets to offset the debt." The major problem with the Government's debt is that it must be serviced. One tax dollar in four is used to pay interest on the debt. Interest on the public debt will cost the taxpayers of Canada $16.7 billion in the fiscal year 1982-83. That is $700 per capita or $1,800 per taxpayer. The assets of the Government are dwarfed by its debt. In March, 1982, the Government had $40 billion in assets compared to a total official gross national debt of $134 billion.
Another fallacy enunciated by this Government is, "There is nothing wrong with a short-term deficit." The federal Government has not balanced its books since 1970 and will not do so in the next five years. The Liberals have maintained since 1970 that the deficit is only a short-term problem. There is nothing short-term about 17 years. Since this Government took office in February, 1980, Government spending has increased by 66

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
per cent, compared to an increase in the Consumer Price Index of 38 per cent and compared to a nominal GNP growth of 30 per cent.
In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I have cited many reasons and examples for the pitiful state in which Canadians find themselves today. Unemployment has never been worse. Our economy is in despair. Our productivity is at an all-time low. This Government, the present manager of the affairs of our country, is bankrupt of new ideas and new initiatives for the recovery and betterment of Canada. I honestly believe that the time has arrived for a new sign to appear on Parliament Hill, a sign which will bring relief and rekindle hope and confidence in all Canadians. This sign will read, "Under new management".


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), Saint John (Mr. Landers), Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), Gloucester (Mr. Breau), York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), Moncton (Mr. McCauley), Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), Dollard (Mr. Desmarais) and Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-143, to provide supplementary borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Skelly (p. 22957).
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the amendment to Bill C-143 whereby it is proposed that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. Certainly this
Committee's input would be an appropriate crutch for a crippled Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) whose own position vis-a-vis this type of legislation has been seriously weakened during the past few days.
Members of Parliament cannot have things both ways, Mr. Speaker, assailing the Government for borrowing too much and, at the same time, urging greater levels of expenditures. What we can do, however, is to point out some of the more gross and wasteful priorities that the Government has used, and urge it to get more value for money in future. This would certainly meet the approval of the Auditor General. It should also accomplish a more useful purpose in its expenditures in future and look into the wasteful activities of Crown corporations, such as CN Marine and CN Railways, which do not even co-operate with the Auditor General's attempt to bring a little cost effectiveness to their management.
There is a perception in the country that the major economic initiatives, even if they are of doubtful value, are used in such away that they are characterized by the benefits they bring to prominent Liberals. This, to many Canadians, is adding insult to injury. A former Member of this place and a distinguished columnist, Doug Fisher, recently underlined this in a very pointed way.
Furthermore, when one reads on the frong page of our national newspaper that Liberals such as Gordon Gibson and Liberal Party President, Iona Campagnolo, are now concerned about the corruption in their own Party't comes as welcome news to those of us who have been saying this for years. The old adage, "physician heal thyself', must be taken into account by the liberal Party if it has any real motivation to restore some trust during the time that it will, of necessity, have to spend in Opposition because of its miserable performance since taking office in 1980.
While Canadians have shown a tendency to be charitable in the past and to ignore patronage, what they cannot ignore is the terrible cost in financing Government borrowing, as has just been pointed out by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). In the coming year, $18.6 billion will be spent on interest on our debt. The most insidious parts of these costs are those that are paid to foreign lenders. The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe made the argument that is sometimes used by economists to justify not being too concerned about the national debt as part of it is owed by Canadians to Canadians. But very few economists use this same argument to try to justify the drag or the inhibiting effect upon an economy, caused by paying money to foreign money lenders. This, of course, is the position in which our country has found itself more and more.
Our revenues are also in jeopardy. When the Minister of Finance as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources brought in the National Energy Program for a five-year period from 1981 to 1986, there was a confident expectation that all levels of Government would receive about $214 billion in revenues. Unfortunately, because of recent developments in the OPEC
February 28, 1983

countries and in the international oil market, it is becoming clear that the most optimistic figure we now can hope for in terms of revenue would be $133 billion. That leaves us a $81 billion shortfall from the first optimistic projection that the Minister made in the House and which was going to form the basis for a lot of programs the Government had hoped to fund.
Our major chartered banks are part of this major problem. They allocate a lot of funds, including petrodollars, on the basis of very poor feasibility studies, to many Third World countries which are now unable to repay. This has caused a lot of instability on world financial markets, including our own. In many cases, the banks made no attempt to make sure that the moneys were going to be used productively or to benefit in any major fashion the people of the countries which borrowed them. They only wanted the convenience of lending large chunks of money in the sure and certain belief that no country would ever go bankrupt. Now they are depending on governments-read "taxpayers"-to rescue them.
This is not just true internationally, but it is true in this country. One of our major banks, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, I suppose pursuant to Government policy and the theory that a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, allocated to Canadair, to Massey-Ferguson and to Dome, tremendous chunks of money. Now, on the East Coast, bailing out the crippled fishing industry, it looks as if one of the main beneficiaries will be the Bank of Nova Scotia. We must take a very hard look at banks, Mr. Speaker.
On February 9, the Wall Street Journal reported that a United States Congressman, Mr. Jerry Lewis, when he was looking at the real costs of world debt in the context of the United States purview, said:
A strong case can be made that whatever the banks' past sins of neglect, greed or recklessness, an overriding public interest requires that they be prevented from going broke. But why does this mean that the banks' managers should be able to impose the burden of resolution of the debt problem on the public?
They benefit from any gains they make on international or domestic transactions, but when they run into trouble, in order to save the jobs, in affected industries the first prerequisite is to pay them. I would say that we ought to take a good at a modification of this attitude. The banks ought to be told by governments, which have only been too happy to use their resources in the past to accomplish political objectives, that if loans are made and the recipients go bankrupt and as a result thousands of workers need jobs, the first priority would be to put the workers back to work without necessarily repaying the banks. In other words, tell the banks that they are on their own for a change.
The Minister of Finance asks us to trust him with $19 billion in the form of a blank cheque. In a few weeks, he will ask the House to approve his long-awaited budget which, needless to say, will have yet another gargantuan deficit. Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I cannot find any reason why I should feel confident that the Minister is going to spend those billions of taxpayers' money wisely. Given my origins, going back through Nova Scotia to the highlands of Scotland,
Borrowing Authority
I happen to believe in the old saying that if you look after the pennies, the dollars will take care of themselves.
The Minister, it would appear, although taking good care of his political friends, is taking care very loosely of the taxpayers' pennies entrusted to him. For example, he likes to fly to Europe by the Concorde aircraft at about $3,000 U.S. per trip, as he did on June 14, 1982, from Kennedy Airport to Heathrow, then on to Zurich, Geneva and Paris. His press secretary has flown to Europe first class at a cost of more than $3,000 for the return luxury trip, not to mention his bureaucratic advisers. It would be beneath their dignity to use the cramped quarters of the economy compartments of Air Canada's planes.
A man is known not just by the big things that he does, but by the small things. This king of largesse at the expense of the taxpayers of this country does not engender any great feelings of admiration in my breast for a frugality that could be transmitted into the kind of concern for taxpayers' money that I think most Canadians would like to see in this time of austerity.
I should like to come back to a column of the veteran columnist Doug Fisher, but I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that my time has elapsed, so I will continue at a later time.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I want to spend a few moments discussing the borrowing Bill and the amendment. I have a small problem with the arithmetic, however. The Bill deals with $14 billion and $5 billion. With my elementary arithmetic, that adds up to $19 billion. Beyond that I have some real difficulty.
I would commend to those Members of the House who have not read it, a column by Don McGillivray last week in which he dealt with $1 billion in realistic terms. He pointed out that to spend $1 billion at $100 an hour, 15 hours a day, six days a week and 50 weeks a year, would take well over 2,000 years. That is very difficult for me to comprehend and I am not apt to have a chance to try it.
I thought I would break down some of the numbers the Minister was putting before us into realistic figures and relate them to the dollars which would apply to my constituency of about 75,000 people. I took the spending of the Government and broke it down in that manner. I found that those numbers are almost too difficult to handle since in the small riding of Prince Edward-Hastings in Eastern Ontario we would be looking at a spending in this fiscal year of something like $250 million and at a proposed deficit of some $80 million. I guess what bothers me most, beyond the tremendous impact of those dollars, is the attitude of the Government. Frankly, it is very obvious to my constituents and me that the Government does not care. In any case, it is not interested in the people of this area.
Why should the people of Prince Edward-Hastings want me to support this Bill? For example, why would the people who

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
work at Stephens-Adamson in Belleville want me to support this Bill when the federal Government had a contract of some $20 million which could have gone to them? They were the lowest bidder and the only company in the world capable of building the equipment. I am sure Mr. Speaker remembers the contract because we spent a lot of time on it in the House. It was for the major coal project in British Columbia. The Government, in its wisdom, gave the contract to the Japanese. Why would these people want me to vote for this piece of legislation?
Why would farmers in the largely rural area of Prince Edward-Hastings want me to support this Bill? Over the past two to three years there has been a major winterkill of fruit trees. For example, one farmer lost 8,000 cherry trees at one crack, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has done absolutely nothing to help him get back on his feet. Producers of tomatoes, a major cash crop in the area, are being beset by Government-subsidized tomatoes imported from Italy. They are coming in at $2 to $2.50 per case under the cost of producing them in Canada, and the Government does nothing about it. Many farmers in the area are having difficulty meeting their payments. The Farm Credit Corporation tells us that they are underfunded and that it is not able to help. Why would the farmers in my area want me to vote for this particular piece of legislation?
Why would young people who have to work during the summer to obtain enough money for their education want me to vote for this Bill? The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has put into place what it calls Regulation 16, which means that every small piece of work young people are able to obtain has to be accounted for, that they have to have Social Insurance Numbers, and that deductions have to be made. In past years young people who worked for less than $250 for less than 25 days did not have those deductions. Now employers, such as the people who grow strawberries and other soft fruits, will find that they have to double and triple their paperwork in order to have young people helping them with their crops this summer. Why would young people want me to support this Bill?
Why would the shoe factories and the needle trades in the area which have received absolutely no support or protection from the Government want me to support this particular Bill? Why would children, the aged or retired public servants, all of whom are forced to abide by the 6 per cent and 5 per cent regime, want me to support this Bill? We know that the federal Government has something like a 9 per cent to 13 per cent increase in its expenditures. Why would any of these people want to support this particular Bill?
At this point I want to make a suggestion, one of which Mr. Speaker will be particularly aware. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) made a comment just the other day that in the budget the House of Commons is holding its increase in expenditures down to 5 per cent. The point he made was well-taken. If we really took a hard run at it, we could keep our increases to less than 5 per cent, yet we find
that the federal Government in total is not capable of keeping its expenditures below 9 per cent to 12 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And even 17 per cent.


John Raymond Ellis: Indeed, even 17 per cent, as the Hon. Member for Mississauga South just said. Why would the students at Loyalist College in the Belleville area support this Bill? These students are attending the only course in North America-not just in Hastings County, not just in Ontario, not just in Canada, but in North America-where they can learn to handle the new Government technology on Telidon. We saw in the newspapers the other day that the federal Government will now spend $24 million in advertising the new Telidon technology, yet when those yound people graduate from that course, well-trained in this technology, there is not a job to be found. Out of the first course about half of the students found employment; out of the second, none; and the third course is now going in and there are no jobs to handle this technology.
Why would marina operators advocate my support of this Bill? In my area there is a tremendous tourist industry, yet there is a marina operator on the north shore of Prince Edward County who asked for a small business investment grant, a program of this Government, but was told he could not have it because he, very wisely as a businessman, wanted to buy only good used equipment. No, he could not have it for that; he would have to buy new equipment. Why would he want me to support this Bill? Another businessman who was interested in a small craft harbours grant to open the entrance to his harbour was told in 1980 that he would have it in 1982. In 1982 he was told that he may have it in 1985-86. Why would tourist operators or marina operators in my constituency want me to support this Bill?
Why would the truckers in this area want me to support this Bill? After all, Maislin Transport received a shot in the arm of some $34 million a short while ago. None of the trucking companies in my constituency, no matter how hardpressed they are for work or how many employees they have laid off, are receiving any support from the federal Government.
I could go on and on and on, but my time is running out. I just named a few people in my area who might benefit by the largesse of the federal Government, which will spend on behalf of those people $250 million in ordinary spending and some $80 million in deficit spending. It seems to me that there is little or no justification for this when the people of Prince Edward-Hastings cannot benefit from it. I will tell the House who benefits from it. It is the friends of the federal Government. If this Party digs in its heels and asks for some real accounting on this Bill, it will be true justice.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the House of Commons today to speak to the amendment to Bill C-143, a Bill to borrow $19 billion. In particular I am speaking to the amendment which requests that the Bill go to committee so that the Members of the House, the people of Canada and I will know what is going on
February 28, 1983

at this historic moment. As many speakers have pointed out today, not since Confederation has the Government of Canada sought to borrow so much money at one time.
Some of my colleagues on this side of the House who have spoken today attempted, and reasonably so, to show to the people of Canada and to Members of Parliament what $19 billion means. The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) just attempted to do that. In all honesty I must say that I just do not understand the magnitude of $19 billion. We have come to a time in our history in which our debt has grown to such a degree that at present we cannot possibly imagine what is happening. This to me has become totally unreasonable. In taking the unreasonable amount of $19 billion the Government does not show what it is going to do with that money, which makes the situation completely unreasonable.
I come to the basic problem. It is happening to us here in the House of Commons and it is affecting the people of Canada. People have lost credibility in the process of Parliament. This past week, while I was knocking on doors in my own constituency, a remark was made very frequently to me. I am sure if other Hon. Members were doing the same thing, they would hear the same remark. I was asked, "What are your gooks doing in the House of Commons?" That is a very serious question. The very phrasing of it means that people have lost credibility about what is going on here. It is important that this borrowing Bill go to committee and be made public so that people will know what the $19 billion is all about.
Some reasonableness must be attached to this. If there is no reasonableness, and with the power of television looking in on us, it is no wonder people ask, "What are you gooks doing?" We moved this amendment because I think it is a reasonable and an honest thing for Canadians and for people in this House to know more about what is happening. Canada is falling into what is known as the debt trap in the international world. This trap is one which countries fall into and from which they can no longer get out. Then they collapse.


Blaine Allen Thacker: It is socialism. That is what it is.


Robert Joseph Ogle: The situation happens very rapidly. There are countries which had strong economies five and six years ago- or at least were giving the appearance of being strong-but as a result of international events that have taken place during that time they have collapsed or are collapsing. Basically, the situation is called a debt trap. Countries falling into this debt trap have debts that get higher and higher. Finally, the debt controls their life, their economy and their history.
I repeat again that this House has to become credible. This Government has to be responsible. This House must show that what is taking place here is not taking this country into the debt trap.


Blaine Allen Thacker: We are already in it.


Robert Joseph Ogle: In the last several months in Canada events have taken place which point to the lack of credibility about which I
Borrowing Authority
am speaking. The Social Action Committee of the Canadian Catholic Bishops issued a statement at the beginning of January which, as far as I know, probably had as much effect in the media and in discussions in Canada about our economy than any other statement ever issued by the Catholic or any other church group in Canada. The statement issued by the Bishops discussed the same theme that I am discussing now. It is the ethical reflection on what is taking place, what is taking place morally when the country is moving in such a direction. That is a valid question for church officials to ask. I believe it is a valid question that church people should ask the legislators of the country. When the Bishops produced their statement and made it public, they started with two principles. As far as I know these two principles have not been accepted by many Members of the House as yet. First, the church, in directing how morality should be applied in an economy, should make sure that the particular group looking after the people should give a preferential option to the poor. Labour, labourers and workers should be above profit and capital. Those are two profound statements and two principles that will affect judgments surrounding anything that is done in our House as it relates to the economy of this nation.
Naturally I will not go into the Bishop's statement at this time. But I think it is important to realize that what I am saying about the credibility of what is taking place here has come specifically to the attention of church people. They are asking moral questions about what is taking place.
I believe it is very important that this Bill to borrow $19 billion-an amount that I can in no way fathom in my mind, and I am sure many people in this House cannot either-is immoral. To be asked to provide that kind of borrowing power without telling us what it is for is, to me, basically immoral. It is basically wrong morally. We have to make the Government responsible for that immorality. The Government must speak morally to that question and tell us what it is going to do and why it is keeping silent.
Not knowing what the $19 billion is for or where it is to be spent is very important to me. I am the critic on international development. I would like to know, in this $19 billion projection of debt, what is to happen to the international aid process that we have. Where is the international aid? Is it going to be cut? Is it going to be cut even though the amount in the borrowing Bill is up, or is it going to follow the direction of the North-South Task Force, which was set up by the House of Commons, which raised our aid to 0.7 per cent of the Gross National Product? We know nothing about that. That is the kind of thing I believe I should know as a Member of Parliament. I believe everybody who has a portfolio or is a critic should know what is happening in his area within that $19 billion. Until we know that, how can we possibly make a moral judgment and vote about something that is so tremendously big? I say we cannot.
In the same area being faced today, that is, the doubt present in the minds of all Canadians concerning the validity of the process going on in the House right now, I would ask the

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
Government not only to be honest-which I think is imperative-but that it appear to be honest. I ask the Government to be honest and at the same time to appear to be honest.
This Government has been accused of being dishonest. I do not want to make that kind of an accusation because I have nothing to go on. I have no facts. Therefore, I will not say the Government is dishonest. I am asking the Government to be honest and at the same time to appear to be honest, because the Government does not appear to be honest by what it is doing.
What we are facing now is the highest borrowing limit we have ever been asked to authorize. In Canadian history this borrowing Bill is the highest the people of Canada, the Government of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, have ever been asked to authorize. We should know more about it. We must make a moral judgment that is as complete as humanly possible and that is not made in the dark.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate this opportunity to enter into debate on Bill C-143. It is a Bill whereby the Government is asking Parliament to authorize the borrowing of $5 billion to March 31, 1983 and a further borrowing of $14 billion to take the Government into the 19831984 year.
The House will know that we took the unusual step on this side, when the Minister made a motion for leave to introduce the Bill, of forcing a vote on that motion. We did that because we had received absolutely no information from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), even though we had asked for it, as to what the projected income and expenditures of the Government were and why it needed the money. The details were still not forthcoming.
When the Minister moved for first reading of the Bill, we took the unusual step once again of forcing a vote on the first reading of the Bill for the same reason. We feel that the House is entitled to have the details. We have had promises and more promises from the Government to give us the details.
On May 31, 1982, the former Minister of Finance, the minister of the debacle called the October, 1981, budget, stated in committee: "I would not expect the House to act upon an additional request for borrowing authority without providing it with detailed information in the economic situation and the implications of that situation on the Government's fiscal situation." On June 15, 1982, the then Minister of State for Finance stated, "We would not expect the House to act on a request for additional borrowing authority without providing it with an update on the economic situation and the implication of these new developments for the Government's financial requirements." On October 27, 1982, the current Minister of Finance stated, "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 ..." I underline the word "then", " .. . seek additional borrowing authority required."
We were told to wait for the Estimates. We waited for the Estimates and finally received them. Those Estimates stated that this Government plans on spending $88.9 billion in 198384. I should point out that we have had no indication of the revenues. I should also point out that the Government has abandoned its six and five program. You will know that the Government, in its desperate attempt to fool the Canadian public, launched a big program to persuade the people that the Liberal Party was responsible for a downturn in inflation. They did this not by sending out those little stickers, but by creating a depression.


An Hon. Member:: Very effective, too.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, very effective. It created a depression that it cannot get out of.
Our concern is that we are hearing all of the six and five lingo. Incidentally, some Cabinet Ministers have even gone to the horrendous step of putting those six and five stickers on their letterhead. I have written to the Minister of National Revenue, for example, to suggest that I did not think this was quite in keeping with what is proper conduct for a Minister of the Crown. We are now concerned that these little stickers will have to be reprinted. Instead of the six and five logo, they will have to read 17.8 and 9.6. This is serious because they now have a song about it. I am not sure whether the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) wrote it in his spare time or whether it is all that he has done based on the state of the economy. However, it is probably all that he has done. Those words will now have to be changed because six and five has become 17.8 and 9.6.
I want to point out some things that have been said in the House during the debate when we asked for the revenue figures to accompany the expenditure figures. The Member of Parliament, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) made an astounding statement. He stated that we should have been pleased when we received the Estimates. He suggested that the Estimates should be sufficient information for us to let them proceed with the borrowing Bill. Government Members are somewhat proud of the fact that they will spend $88.9 billion. But we do not know where the money is coming from.
My academic friend, an economist by profession, made much of the fact that the Government was laying out its expenditures. I would point out to the Government that when my constituents of Simcoe North go to the bank for a loan, the bankers have a habit of saying, for example, "That is fine. I realize your client will spend $88.9 billion. But where is the money coming from? How will you pay it back? Where will you get the money that you will spend?" The attitude the Government has taken is to ask us to trust them. We have seen a great example of why we should trust the Liberal Party and the Government. After all, Mr. Gillespie does. He has trusted the Liberal Party and has done very well by them. He seems to get a million dollars whenever he needs it in order to finance Government schemes which are not provided for in any Act or previous information.
February 28, 1983

We are asked to trust the same Minister of Finance who wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on February 17 to say that he has reviewed the matter with his staff and they say that he has not heard of this liquefaction project until September, 1981. The same Minister of Finance, the former Minister of Energy, came back a week later to tell the Prime Minister that he has checked with his staff who went through all the records and found out that he did know about it in January. I would caution the Flouse that this is an unfolding drama. There may be another letter forthcoming shortly in which the Minister of Finance has had another chat with his staff. We might find that he will say that when he constructed the National Energy Program in 1980, when it was introduced in the budget of 1980, in fact he knew about the liquefaction project.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hardly think that the comments of the Flon. Member are relevant. We are supposed to be talking about the borrowing authority. 1 would like to know exactly what the events of the so-called Gillespie affair have to do with this, Mr. Speaker.


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


David Berger: Furthermore, I wonder if the Hon. Member knows what the hell he was doing in January, 1981.


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


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I share your confusion as to what my hon. friend does. I think that confusion is shared by all Members of the House. I think what my friend has missed is the fact that we are talking about trust.


David Berger: What day is it today? Do you know how to add two and two? Have you ever read the goddamned Estimates?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.
[ Translation]


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), on a point of order.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, 1 clearly heard blasphemous language being used by the Member for Laurier, and I think you heard it as well. I stand corrected if it was not the case, but if he did use blasphemous language, I think it is against the Rules of the House.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: One at a time, please.
[ Translation]
I can inform the Hon. Member who just raised a point of order that the Chair did not hear any offensive language. However, the Chair has a duty to allow the comments of the
Borrowing Authority
Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, and if an unparliamentary expression was uttered in this House, it would be appropriate for the Hon. Member who did so to withdraw what he said.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it was a slip of the tongue in the heat of the debate. I insist that the Hon. Member does not know what he is talking about, but I withdraw the word I used.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: At this point I should inform the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) that taking-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He did not get a chance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: -into account the interruptions, which will not be taxed against him, he has about 45 seconds left in which to speak.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would need much longer than that to explain trust to the Hon. Member across the way. However, I am really pointing out to the House that the Minister of Finance is asking the House to trust him because he wants to borrow $14 billion for the next year. This is the same gentleman who has had such difficulty with trust in the past week and a half, and he will have more difficulty in the future.
In completing my remarks I would say that we are vigorously fighting the Bill because we feel that the Canadian people, through their representatives in the House, are entitled to a budget and to financial information sufficient to allow them to make an intelligent decision on the Bill and not simply to hear, "We want money". We must also know how the Government will spend it and how it will pay it back.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My colleague and friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger), is an impulsive man who apologized too quickly. I do not know what is unparliamentary about asking the Hon. Member for Simcoe North if he knows how to add two and two.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Hon. Members should really not abuse the provisions of the Standing Orders to rise on fictitious points of order, if I may say so.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to address my remarks to the amendment before us, particularly to suggest some reasons the Government might be well advised to support the amendment. In other words, we must ask what the committee will discuss.
Here are some ideas which might be of use to Hon. Members opposite. First, I think the whole world would accept the fact that many countries are in serious trouble, including Canada, because we have been spending more than we can

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority
afford. It is a simple fact and there is no question about it. However, what will we do about it? We have come to a point now at which the Government is suddenly asking the people of Canada to agree to increased borrowing of $19 billion so that it can look after expenses it foresees in the next three or four months. The danger is obvious. Interest rates have barely started moving downward in the past six or seven months. If a $19 billion load is suddenly thrown on the people of Canada, it would cause interest rates to rise again, which is the basic cause of inflation. In the interest of the people of Canada, and the whole world for that matter, I hope that the Government allows time so that ordinary laymen may put forward a few common sense suggestions which might alleviate our concerns.
Just as a teaser, I will put forward one or two suggestions. First, three years ago, in the Standing Committee on Finance, which was dealing with interest rates, an idea was presented that if the Government were to continue borrowing, then the high interest rates which the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance were requesting should not be allowed, and that there should be new and innovative ideas with regard to borrowing which might appeal to a large section of the Canadian public. I will just state these as thoughts to be considered on their merits by the ordinary layman speaking quietly in committee. I would like to hear reactions from the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada.
The Committee of which I spoke, having been set up three years ago, was cut off after the election in the spring of 1980, and the Government has refused to set up any similar committee since then. We will face the awful decision of destroying our little chance of survival if we do not consider this simple idea: if a Government bond is to be issued, why should it not be issued at a rate according to the value of money, or about 3 per cent? A rider could be attached to ensure an indexing of the rate and to ensure that the principal would be indexed at the end of each year based on inflation. Then purchasers would be guaranteed true returns on their investments. Several hundred thousand Canadians who buy bonds primarily for security might realize that this is a technique to stop inflation from rising too fast and also to reduce the demand on people for taxes now and in the future. It might also keep interest rates down, which is our biggest worry across the country as we try to get on our feet again. That is a simple suggestion and it should be considered. I do not expect that $19 billion would be coming forward in this particular offer. As I mentioned, such a proposal was accepted.
Why should we not consider another proposal? We should compare our charts with what the Americans have been doing since last July. The Americans are not making any big fuss about borrowing money. They are quietly doing what the Bank of Canada Act allows us to do here, but we are not doing it. If we compare the figures of a year ago with those of today, we find that the money supply is the same. However, the American money supply has been rising steadily since last July. Of course, there is the odd dip in the weekly accounts, but, generally speaking, the Americans have decided to use the money supply approach instead of borrowing. It will work to reduce inflation as long as there is an unused labour supply, unused plant capacity and slow circulation of money. Those
are the three elements. I think that in the quietness of committee, we might be able to persuade the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance officials to consider this alternative, rather than frightening the daylights out of the entire country with a $19 billion request for money in the next four or five months.
The two ideas I just mentioned are based on ideas put forward in the Standing Committee in 1979. For evidence of the effect of a standing committee of the House, one should consider the interest rate charts of the Bank of Canada. One would find that the minute such a committee was appointed and began to ask questions of the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance, the interest rate stopped rising, and that was true throughout a four-month period. The minute a new Government was formed which refused to let the Committee continue sitting, the interest rates fell, and then rose to a record high. I am suggesting that if a such committee were sitting, it would have a much more salutory effect on the Bank of Canada and Department of Finance officials than anything we could do.
I want to conclude by simply pointing out that now is the time to reconsider. We faced the same problem 25 years ago in Parliament. The difficulties were not nearly as immense as today. We set up a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Dana Porter, which reported in 1964. This Royal Commission's Report has sat idle on the shelves of the Government ever since. I have asked several questions about this Report over the years and have had no response. Our starting place in that committee would be to read this Report which is sensible, common sense and has many ideas that could slowly speed up our exit from the deep recession in which we find ourselves.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated that he had "wrestled inflation to the ground." Unfortunately, I guess he has never made a statement that was more misleading than that, because since that period of time we have seen one of the most inflationary periods in Canadian history. I guess a decision has to be made which comes first, inflation or high interest rates. Inflation causes high interest rates; interest rates cause inflation. And just like the chicken and the egg, which comes first? Actually, we have to realize that the Government is really the only body in Canada that can do anything about either one. Businesses and Canadian citizens can all work away at it, but unless the Government establishes the climate, there is no way that we can keep either one down or keep either one in place.
I well remember, before I came into the House of Commons, that I was told then that if ever the period arrived when the inflation factor was over 4 per cent, the country was going to be in serious difficulty. Here we are a number of years later, and the inflation rate is well over 4 per cent. If we could get the inflation factor down to 4 per cent, we would be doing well.
February 28, 1983

There is absolutely no way that we are ever going to get inflation down with the present Government policies. We should realize that the last number of years have been really good years in the Canadian economy, better than perhaps we have ever experienced, and yet our national debt has increased more during that period of time than it ever has before in Canadian history. The debt cost today is considerably greater, one and one half times greater, than the budget was when the present Prime Minister took office. So this should really tell Canadians what is happening.
Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada made a statement that I agree with, that those people who invest money have a right to have a return on it, and if the interest rate is not over the inflationary factor then they are not getting any return on their investment. Therefore it is of paramount importance that inflation be held down as well as interest rates because of the fact that interest rates will kill us. The person who is investing money would be just as well off if we had an inflation factor of, say, 1 or 2 per cent, and he was getting 5 per cent on his money. He would probably make a greater return on his money in that kind of situation than he is at the present time.
I believe that at the present time the number one villain in Canada is high interest rates. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has just told the House what effect high interest rates have on our Canadian way of life. For instance, when we have a Government that is exceeding its expenditures this year and will have to borrow money, probably $30 billion, $35 billion or $40 billion next year just to operate, and if it makes the same mistake next year that it made this year, then certainly we will have a deficit in the $40 billion bracket.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember that this year when we started out we were going to have a $10.6 billion deficit, then it got to $17 billion, then up to $23 billion, then to $26 or $27 billion, and it could well be up to $30 billion before we are through. So if we miss it by $20 billion next year, it means that we are at $50 billion, because the Government now says that it will need to have a $30 billion deficit next year.
This is why we are in such serious times. The role that the Bank of Canada plays in establishing the weekly Thursday prime rate is not the only influence that the Government has on interest rates. As I said, its deficit spending and its massive borrowing is creating a situation whereby too many Governments, corporations and individuals are chasing the too few dollars that are up for borrowing. The end result is that this competition in the borrowing market forces interest rates to spiral upwards. The results of high interest rates have been devastating for Canadians, for small businesses, for farmers, for consumers and for home owners.
There are farmers who do not know how they are going to be able to finance putting their crops in the ground this spring. That is a very, very serious situation that the Government has done nothing whatsoever to face. Countless thousands of Canadians have lost their homes or have forestalled the purchasing of a new or older home because of the unpredictability of interest rates. Thousands of small businesses and
Borrowing Authority
individuals have been forced into bankruptcy; and unknown thousands of others have simply closed the door and walked away. These victims are not reported in the bankruptcy statistics but, if they were, the totals would be considerably higher.
This present Government has no idea of exactly how much money it owes. The gross debt is estimated at about $140 billion. Crown corporation debt is another $55 billion. In addition, the Government is using, to meet current spending obligations, the almost $50 billion that public servants, RCMP and Armed Forces have contributed to their pension plans. Simple arithmetic tells us that these three areas total almost $250 billion in liabilities.
I have said on other occasions that the Government should not be administering the pension funds of civil servants, RCMP and Armed Forces personel. These funds should be removed entirely from the general revenues of the Government and placed in the hands of trustees who will ensure that the funds are administrated wisely and well. I cite as examples of good trusteeship some of the pension plans in the private sector where these funds are invested in blue chip investments which bring handsome returns, and at the same time generate some economic activity in the community and in the nation. This is not a new solution to a problem. This is just the practical application of common sense. For years the Government paid a pitance in interest to these pension contributions, 4 per cent per annum. It is considerably higher now but still far less than these massive pools of capital could earn in the marketplace, invested wisely by trustees.
I said earlier that the Government really does not know how much it owes. Can any Member on the Treasury benches tell me what the Government's obligations are in contingent liabilities? Can any Member on the Treasury benches tell me what long-term low-interest loans to other nations, some of them hostile to our way of life, are costing Canadians? Can any Government Minister tell me the Government's response to the Auditor General's charge that about $4 billion of these loans ought to be written off and considered as gifts or outright grants? Our spending is out of control. The Auditor General has told us that, and we have no reason to believe that the Government has been able to bring it under control.
We have a foreign aid bill in the ballpark of $2 billion. One million dollars is dispersed in multilateral aid through the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and so on. The other $1 billion is parcelled out in bilateral aid by CIDA, which has almost 1,100 employees in red brick skyscrapers in Hull, and about 55 people out in the field. I ask you, how can one administer a foreign aid program effectively sitting on you-know-what over in Hull? Better that we should funnel these funds through the churches, the Unitarian Services, the Red Cross, rather than just letting them trickle down through CIDA programs.
I would like to go on, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps I will do so at a later stage in the debate.

February 28, 1983
Borrowing Authority


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a group of people in my riding who are unemployed. This group includes 4,600 people in Port Alberni who are on active unemployment insurance claims. This Bill will give the Government the power to borrow an additional $19 billion without giving any firm indication of whether that money will protect the jobs of Canadians or whether there is something in that $19 billion which will put the 4,600 in Port Alberni and 6,200 in Nanaimo who are on active unemployment insurance claims back to work.
There is nothing in the borrowing authority Bill to give any indication that present jobs will be protected or that meaningful new ones will be created. That is why this Party is moving that the borrowing authority Bill go to a committee so that we can deal with it in a concrete way to find out where the money is going. Will it be thrown away, as many Canadians suspect, or will there be something for the NDP to support in terms of protecting the incomes of Canadians?
The Organization of Unemployed Workers in Port Alberni forwarded a brief to the Leader of our Party when I was in Port Alberni last Friday. I would like to outline some of the complaints of this organization. This group speaks from a great deal of experience about job-creation programs and their effect in that Valley.
They call job-creation programs alphabet soup. Those who have actively tried to follow job-creation programs will understand the significance of that term. We have had the CCDP for some time, basically a program of summer employment for young people, women and native people. That is the Canada Community Development Project.
There is a large trade union movement in the Alberni Valley, including the IWA, and the Canadian paper workers' union. The per capita income in that city was in the top ten throughout the seventies. We now have the CCDP program which pays $175 per week.
We have an EBAP Program, the Employment Bridging Assistance Program, which was sloppily introduced by the federal and provincial Governments. They neglected to discuss that program with the trade union movement which was involved in the forest industry and which was used to working in that industry with productive employment, producing a product which was sold around the world.
The EBAP Program was to pay $300 a week to workers. That did not work very well. Most of the work to be done was in the forest industry, working alongside union members earning considerably more. The companies felt no obligation to supplement what the federal and provincial Governments were doing under the program to create employment in the forest industry. It hopes to create additional employment in the future by improving our forest base through reforestation, silviculture, thinning and better forest management in general. Well, that is not happening yet.
The latest scheme is NEED, the New Economic Expansion Development Program. I would like to outline the result of the
first application under the program in Port Alberni. I remind Hon. Members that there are 4,600 active claimants of unemployment insurance and 1,000 families on welfare in Port Alberni. The NEED Program is supposed to allow people to gain some unemployment insurance benefit weeks so that they can go back on UIC. The first application from the Alberni-Clayoquot regional district, calling for eight jobs, was turned down. There are 5,600 people in that Valley seeking jobs, and eight jobs were turned down because they did not meet the criteria of the NEED Program.


An Hon. Member:: The nerd program.


Edward Allan Miller: I don't know what those initials would stand for.


Mr. Epp:: They stand for Liberal.


Edward Allan Miller: That is certainly the reputation that all of these job-creation programs are gaining in my riding, and other ridings I suspect. They were turned down because they did not meet the criteria of the program.
This would have provided six jobs in ski development to improve the facility for tourism, bringing economic wealth and health to that ski area and the community, drawing more tourists during the winter season. Those jobs would have lasted into the summer months, providing six people with the opportunity to get off welfare and into employment, albeit poorly paid employment. You do not go very far on $200 a week. Most people would be better off on welfare. However, they are prepared to go back to work because they do not want to be on welfare or on unemployment insurance. They want to be productive workers in their communities, providing for their families. As I said, it was turned down.
Another job was to help initiate and co-ordinate the Industrial Labour Adjustment Program which Port Alberni was fortunate enough to get. It is the only city in Western Canada to have that project. The NEED Program would not hire one more person to co-ordinate that program and help the committee develop some economic plans and jobs.
Third, the regional district wanted one person to help coordinate their activities to try to create jobs in the Valley. We have none of those jobs. The bureaucracy and the criteria will not allow meaningful jobs.
The unemployed workers have published a scathing attack on job-creating programs, an attack I would like to go into in some detail. It reflects many of the problems that I have had as a Member of Parliament in trying to deal with those programs to see that the people are paid on time and have access to the program.
The union is frustrated by its inability to get help and protection from the job-creation programs, with the kind of job-creation approach this Liberal Government is taking. We do not see that this $19 billion will improve that situation in Canada.
The Organization of Unemployed Workers asked certain things in this brief. They are asking to continue being represented by the union from which they are laid off so that they
February 28, 1983

can have some protection under the job-creation programs and can find jobs which they are prepared and willing to take. They are asking for some expansion of public sector employment opportunities through meaningful work projects within the community which will give well-paid, meaningful, longterm employment opportunities.
They are asking for the industry to participate in funding some projects that they are responsible for, particularly in the forest industry. Why should Government come along with job-creation programs to support the corporate sector, which is quite willing to lay off more and more people each year with the excuse in its rationalization that it is making us competitive? Basically what it is doing is making them competitive and throwing Canadians out of work.
I have a petition from the Organization of Unemployed Workers which I will table in the House tomorrow when petitions are called. Because of the frustration that this organization is feeling, representing as it does the work force in Port Alberni, it is calling for unemployment insurance benefits to be extended, not because these people are particularly interested in staying on unemployment, but they have seen the failure of job-creation and the failure of the federal Government to deal with unemployment in a meaningful way. They want unemployment insurance benefits to be increased to 90 per cent of their insurable level so that they can maintain their homes and families. The job-creation program is becoming more and more of an obvious failure. The budget we are expecting to be brought down and the $19 billion we are being asked to approve had better deal with the problems of the workers in this country.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the theme of the questions which I asked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Chretien) last Thursday, and to elaborate a little concerning the overt attempts, in my view, by officials to circumvent the Parliamentary guidelines of good behaviour in order to provide an artificial legitimacy for the payments to be made to Alastair Gillespie and Associates in this project.
The Minister, upon reflection, Mr. Speaker, should realize that these efforts only serve to implicate the Government more deeply in the special treatment, access and favouritism, or whatever you want to call it, towards a former Cabinet colleague in relation to this Nova Scotia energy project. Indeed,
Adjournment Debate
the oil substitution agreement itself, as part of the National Energy Program, was stretched in order to accommodate that kind of project which Alastair Gillespie espoused. When efforts were made to alter the submission to Treasury Board, the guidelines were not being followed, they were being circumvented in advance. Anyone looking at this situation, without extreme prejudice, can see this very clearly.
The people of Cape Breton and of Nova Scotia are sick and tired, Mr. Speaker, of being the victims of rhetoric and job proposals by a series of Liberal Cabinet Ministers and the former defeated Premier. A quick review of Liberal promises to Cape Breton reveals that the defeated Premier of Nova Scotia, now Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) traded for years on the promises that they were going to build a new steel mill at Gabarouse, or to use the argot of the industry, a Greenfields project. After milking this for all the political capital it was worth, they forgot about it.
They also raised people's hopes in Cape Breton with another energy-related project, the celebrated Shaheen oil refinery. Land was expropriated at enormous cost but nothing happened here, either.
The most recent piece of "puffery" from the Deputy Prime Minister was his announcement that a large steel fabricating facility was being considered for the port Hawkesbury area, which would supply 1,000 jobs. When questioned by reporters for more details, and after it was pointed out to him that such a plant was already available in nearby Pictou County in my constituency, where over 1,000 people also needed work in an existing plant, the Deputy Prime Minister, said in his usual obfuscatory manner, "Well, it is only a concept". Some concept, Mr. Speaker. Some track record.
The persistent raising of the hopes and aspirations of the people of Cape Breton by the Liberals, while shirking their responsibility to produce something practical, is costing them their political credibility there. I am sure that recent private polls have driven that home to them very, very forcibly.
Recent international pricing developments, as well, regarding petroleum products, are now showing the people of Nova Scotia and, indeed, of Canada, how bankrupt and ill advised the federal Government's National Energy Program really is. The revelations about the liquefaction of coal and the details of this project are just other examples of the latest Liberal blunder. The Province of Nova Scotia, naturally, was anxious to participate in this pilot project, but, as usual, the primary funding, the concept, the impetus, and much of the gain, was designed by the Liberals to benefit themselves. Surely, the Cabinet documents indicate that knowledgeable officials in the Department of Energy knew from the start that this project had little chance of bringing any practical benefits to the people of Cape Breton.
The former defeated Premier of Nova Scotia, incidentally, living up to his nickname of "Gabby", intervened the other day in the House and asked a question designed to provoke me. He asked the question of his colleague, the Hon. Member for

February 28, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). I would like to say at this time by way of a riposte that I could remind him of the details involving a "page" from his past, and a well-known trip he made to Toronto to secure legal advice when he was Premier of Nova Scotia from a prominent Toronto lawyer in order to discourage a reporter who was interested in the incident. And later on, if I recall, a similar intervention was made with the CBC to forestall another fascinating piece of research. However, I am always willing to elaborate on any detail or questions involving my conduct, both public and private. If the former Premier wishes to elaborate on this, I am sure that people would be interested.
However, as the late John Diefenbaker used to say, when you are after big game, you should not be diverted by rabbits. I want to go back to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and point out that he and his predecessors, both of whom have had legal training, must realize upon mature reflection what a clumsy subterfuge this attempt was to avoid the very proper intent of Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) guidelines to regulate the conduct of this Parliament. He must be given credit for that. Both of them would gain in stature if they would simply admit this.
Speaking in the House last Thursday, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a point of referring to the sacrifices that a former Cabinet minister makes in public life. As he put it so colloquially, they should not have to go to the Sparks Street Mall with a cup in order to earn a living. I think it is a fair comment that neither the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources nor his predecessor could have gained any more out of life in the private sector than they did by coming into public service. I venture to say that instead of making sacrifices, they are the net beneficiaries, as many of us are, of entering public life. To cry poor mouth after having served the country under these circumstances is a pretty artificial way of gaining sympathy.
While on the subject of the private sector, I must say that it is strange indeed that Mr. Gillespie, apparently a knowledgeable businessman with a lot of versatility, chose his own department and his own deputy minister to pursue his business initiatives. One would have thought he would have pursued some of the other myriad and imaginative ways there are of making money.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has taken issue with some of the answers provided him. I certainly wish to take issue with some of the comments he has made today. In particular, he made reference to things the officials of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources had done in terms of circumventing guidelines established by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I wish to refute all the arguments made by the Hon. Member for Central Nova and point out to him that the money contained in the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement of 1977, $9.2
million, was provided to a bank account in Halifax, and was to be administered independently by two individuals representing the Government of Canada and two individuals representing the Province of Nova Scotia. An independent joint management committee was administering the money.
It is sad that the Hon. Member for Central Nova dismisses, as the interim Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) has, the benefits of such a project to industrial Cape Breton. Aside from the 2,000 or 2,500 jobs that might be created in the coal mines, there is the economic multiplier of three or four which brings it up to 7,000 or 8,000 jobs. As he ought to know that that is very important in industrial Cape Breton.
Notwithstanding the jobs, there is the issue of self-sufficiency. That 40,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil per day is being displaced is not a serious thing in the Canadian context, but when you look at it from a Nova Scotia perspective it is great indeed.
It ought to be noted that when the Hon. Member for Central Nova was minister of Regional and Economic Expansion in the former Government, he did not provide any money to help the Donkin mine proceed. When Sysco came looking for financial assistance from the federal Government, what money did he provide for the people of Cape Breton? Not one cent. He was a Conservative minister, dealing with a Conservative Government in Nova Scotia. What deal did he get for the coal miners of Cape Breton on the price of coal sold to the Nova Scotia Power Corporation? He got nothing. He has got nothing for them for a good many years, not only while he was a minister, but while he has been a Member of Parliament. Where has he been for 22 months while this issue has been going on? Where has the Hon. Member for Nova Scotia been-asleep?


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE-IMPORTATION OF PORNOGRAPHIC VIDEO CASSETTES. (B) APPLICATION OF TAX WRITE-OFFS- REQUEST THAT LEGISLATION BE AMENDED
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I rose in the House to ask a question concerning the importation of pornographic material into Canada, and I was not satisfied with the answer I obtained from the Minister.
I should like to point out that the advent of mass access to video cassette players has opened the floodgates for pornography in Canada. Since the introduction of the home video cassette recorder in 1975, the video equipment market has expanded by at least 300 per cent. One can only guess the effects this has had on the pornography industry in Canada.
Recent estimates of the dollar value of the industry in North America range from a low of $1 billion, according to The Globe and Mail of last July 6, to a high of $50 billion per annum, as given by a spokesman of the special anti-pornography squad of the Ontario Provincial Police. This is one of the few police forces in Canada which has a special squad to handle pornography. I think it is very commendable.
February 28, 1983

It has been estimated that 65 per cent of the American film industry is now engaged in the production of pornography. Public outrage at the exploitive nature of pornographic material being distributed has risen at a comparable rate. The demonstrations against the Red Hot Video outlets in Vancouver indicate the depth of this public anger. While the illegality of the fire-bombing of some of these outlets must be condemned, we must not ignore the frustration felt by the public with the inactivity of various levels of Government and their paralytic inability to control the growth of this industry.
Many people question why we should in fact control the growth of pornography in Canada. The answer to this is very simple. Films, magazines and other media have a powerful effect on the formation of public attitudes and morals. If people regularly see the depiction of immoral behaviour on television, or in other forms, they will soon take this to be the norm and, therefore, acceptable.
According to the present obscenity section of the Criminal Code, obscenity is judged "according to contemporary community standards". This leads to a Catch 22 situation where community standards are continually dropping as more pornographic material is introduced. It all amounts to a gradual but relentless erosion of public morals.
While it does not appear to be the duty of Government to set down a strict moral code which all citizens must follow, as in present day Iran, it is the responsibility of Government to protect the potential victims of such exploitive material. In this sense I am concerned in particular about women and children who are portrayed in material which is not only sexually exploitive but also contains acts of violence in conjunction with gratuitous sex. Obviously "kiddy porn" and violent pornography involving such acts as rape are clearly unacceptable to society at large and, equally clear, it is the duty of Government to control the malignant spread of such destructive material.
At this stage the Government is failing dismally in controlling the growth of the pornography industry in Canada; 95 per cent of all pornography is imported from the United States. Only about 5 per cent of these imports are intercepted at the border. Most commonly, once one video cassette is smuggled into the country, copies are made at either licit or elicit dubbing houses, and the resulting cassettes are distributed to retailers and/or consumers.
Because of the slight possibility of actually being caught and prosecuted, the distribution of these cassettes is a low-risk, high-profit investment. There can be little doubt that organized crime has entered into this lucrative business.
In reply to my question in the House on February 14, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) acknowledged that his Department had been less than effective in stemming this growing flood of pornographic material into the country, and indicated that the "Customs and Excise division, took action in this area and banned the entry of cassettes considered by a large majority of Canadians to be immoral". This is simply not good enough. When only one cassette in 20 is intercepted at the border, and when each cassette that gets through customs can be so easily copied, then the Department, and more specifically the Minister, must do more than simply
Adjournment Debate
ban the entry of offensive material. He must take action to enforce that ban.
In fact, not only are the efforts of the Department of National Revenue inadequate and ineffective, but the current income tax structure could actually encourage the establishment of a domestic pornography industry, up until now something we have been able to avoid. Because the generous tax write-off provision for films produced in Canada does not differentiate between pornographic and non-pornographic material, some domestic producers could enter the field and could in fact use the resulting films as part of their Canadian content quota in order to satisfy CRTC regulations. Instead of inadvertently encouraging the establishment of a domestic pornography industry by incentives such as these, we should be ensuring that there is no domestic production at all, as well as addressing the difficult task of eliminating the importation of pornographic material.
I realize that it may be well nigh impossible to prevent the importation of "hard core" pornography. However, I think that the Government should at least make a highly visible effort to control its importation to stem the tide. In the area of smuggling of illegal drugs, we commonly use undercover agents and are able to make large drug "busts" that are a very visible disincentive to drug traffickers. We should be able to mount similar operations to discourage those who import pornography, and set an example by our treatment of those who are caught. Good long prison sentences and heavy fines for those convicted of smuggling pornography would be a clear deterrent to importers, and would thereby make this trade much less attractive. We must demonstrate the resolve of the Government to stop, or at least curtail this immoral and exploitive trade. That is what the Government has so far failed to demonstrate.


Garnet McCallum Bloomfield: Mr. Speaker, as noted in the Minister of National Revenue's (Mr. Bussieres) response in the House on February 14 concerning this issue, the Department is taking all necessary measures to enforce the laws of the country as strictly as possible. I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that, in the case of articles such as video cassettes where the contents are not immediately apparent to a cursory examination, the costs involved in making a detailed examination of every importation would be prohibitive. The Department is aware that some importers are attempting to import material by clandestine means to escape detection, and it is taking all possible action to apprehend this material at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer and with a minimum of disruption to legitimate importers.
In this respect, the Department conducts spot checks on a sample basis of importations of this type of material, as well as examination of any material of a suspicious nature. The Department also conducts examinations on the basis of information provided by law enforcement agencies or other sources.

February 28, 1983
Adjournment Debate
If the Department were to attempt to conduct detailed examinations of all importations of video cassettes, video tapes, films, video games or similar articles, several hundred additional customs officers would be required across the country.
With respect to the taxation side of the matter, I must advise that where a film is acquired by a taxpayer for the purpose of gaining income therefrom, the Income Tax Act and regulations provide for a claim of capital cost allowance at the rate of 100 per cent of the cost, if the film is a certified feature production or a certified short production, and 30 per cent of the cost of other films.
Certification is mainly to the effect that a film has the required Canadian economic content, and this determination is the responsibility of the Department of Communications. At this stage the subject matter would become evident, and if it appeared to be pornographic the advice of the Department of Justice could be sought. Revenue Canada's responsibility is to apply the Income Tax Act and regulations as enacted. The Department of Finance is responsible for proposing amendments to the Income Tax Act and regulations.


BANKS AND BANKING-RESCHEDULING OF LOANS TOSMALL BUSINESSES AND FARMERS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, any Member of Parliament who is fortunate enough to represent an agricultural constituency of Canada, or has an agricultural component in his or her constituency will be well aware of the incredible pressures that food producers are under these days. Whether one is talking about a cattle, hog or sheep operation, or poultry farms, market gardening or wheat farming-no matter what the situation-by and large, the agricultural sector in this country is experiencing pressure unprecedented since the 1930s.
Back in the 1930s, various provincial Governments, using the legislation available to them, passed legislation to provide the much needed relief to this sector. While it was a pittance, it was accepted by those in receipt as at least a gesture of good faith. It eventually became necessary for the federal Government to change it. In 1934, the Government of Canada introduced the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934. That Act enabled pressure to be brought to bear on various lending institutions to assist the farmers of Canada to stay on their land.
I want to take a few moments to read from Bill C-653, which is before the House. It is an Act to revive the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. It reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to revive the moribund provisions of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which provide a simple and inexpensive procedure for farmers to rearrange their affairs when cash flow becomes insufficient to meet current obligations as they come due.
The Act as framed is only applicable where two-thirds of a farmer's indebtedness was incurred before May 1935. In addition, the Act, originally general in its application, was subsequently narrowed to cover only the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Bill would remove both of these limitations.
In my estimation, the Bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson), at a time when the issue of farm bankruptcies was being raised day after day in the House, is a gesture, at least on behalf of the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, that there are actions and steps that could be taken by the Government in an effort to bring some semblance of security to the hardpressed farming community. It is well known right now, for example, what the banks are doing to many farmers, ranchers and food producers generally in our country.
In western Canada it is not now uncommon for the banks to go to the food producers and tell them that they will not have their traditional working capital advance unless they sell off portions of their property or operation. This means there is a flood of property, equipment and land on the market especially, in western Canada and, I suspect, in other parts of Canada as well. I speak of western Canada since I am a representative from that area and am more familiar with it.
As a result, land and property values, along with equipment values are being depressed. This brings hardship to bear on all food producers of that region. It also causes hardship to equipment dealers who are now faced with the dumping of equipment on the market. The result is a downward migration of property values and the validity of farming operations, simply because the banks are bringing this undue pressure to bear in an attempt to maintain their own cash flows.
I believe we now have a situation in which the long term viability and profits of the banks must be considered in relation to the long term credibility of Canada's food producers. I would be the first to admit that both are important, but it is not an issue of one or the other. We have just received annual reports of various banks in Canada which indicate healthy profit returns which, while not excessive, are up to $300 million.
As Members of Parliament we are all aware of the number of bankruptcies being faced by food producers in this country, let alone those myriads of food producers who are simply forced to walk away from their hopes, dreams, and the ability to create a fundamental aspect of Canadian life.
Normally one would go on and simply identify the critical nature of the situation, and those areas where the Government has refused to act. I am not able to do that today, because the Government has taken the first step toward solving this very critical problem. It has introduced, through the personage of Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex Bill C-653, which would essentially resolve the situation, in the short term. It would allow food producers to stay on the land and continue producing food. It would adjust their financial affairs through a quasi-judicial process, enabling this most critical sector of our economy to continue.
I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) during a recent Question Period, why not bring this Bill forward? I am certain that Members of the Opposition would allow passage of the Bill without debate, because of the important role it
February 28, 1983

would play. It would be a simple matter for the Government to bring the Bill from first reading to second reading. We will put it through all stages of the House with perhaps no debate at all. We could deal with it in an afternoon, because I do not think a single Member of the House does not appreciate the seriousness of this matter. I encourage the Government to take this necessary step, and introduce this critical legislation as quickly as possible.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, all of us are very deeply concerned about the effects of high interest rates, and the practice being followed, not only by the banks, but also by lending institutions, in scheduling debt, or in asking businessmen and farmers to repay their debts. I myself raised the issue with the Canadian Banker's Association during the pre-budget consultation held with them in December. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) also raised this matter with them at that time, as well as on previous occasions.
The banks have shown considerable concern about keeping businessmen and farmers afloat during this difficult period. I think the real, overall cure to this huge problem is to ensure that interest rates in general come down. We have heard some good news along that line recently, as I am sure the Hon. Member would agree. This week prime rates were at 11.25 per cent; one year mortgage rates were at 11.75 per cent; and our official Bank of Canada rate was at 9.48 per cent. This is possibly because our inflation rate is coming down. Prices actually fell instead of rising in December and January. That was the first time, in a long time, we had seen that phenomenon. Our annualized 12 month rate, from January to January,
Adjournment Debate
is 8.3 per cent, and our six month rate, from June to January, is 6 per cent.
American rates are also dropping. This week, six major American banks announced primes of 10.5 per cent. These are the key indicators to our people that relief is coming.
We have our own house in order. We are beginning to bring under control the forces which push interest rates up. We are allowing ourselves room, within our own economy, to benefit from foreign improvements, such as the drop in the United States prime rate. However, we are still concerned about specific individuals while this is taking place.
The previous Minister of Finance set up a special system to review complaints about interest rates from businessmen and farmers. In answer to the Hon. Member the other day, the current Minister of Finance made a pledge that he would take specific cases to the banks, as well as to the Inspector General for Banks, asking them to review these harsh circumstances once again. The Minister raised tl^e question of the Private Members' Bill of the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). We have taken note of it, and have started to act on this side to give both personal and general attention to the whole question of interest rates. We have a system in place to take care of individuals, and we have a general attack on the underlying causes of high interest rates.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 1, 1983