1984-03-21

VACANCY


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Gordon Gilchrist, Member for the electoral district of Scarborough East, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, we are all fully aware that we are living in very difficult times now, with the number of unemployed approaching the two million mark. The greatest percentage of unemployment is found among young men and women under the age of 25, many of whom have not even had the opportunity to find their first job. These young people are becoming more and more disillusioned with their lot in life and have practically lost hope of any future for themselves.
Because they cannot find work to support themselves, many of these young people who are over the age of 18 have no other choice but to live at home with and be fully supported by their parents. However, according to the Income Tax Act parents cannot claim these young people as dependants for income tax purposes. I believe that the Income Tax Act should be changed in order to accommodate this very important problem. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government to take the steps which are necessary to change the Income Tax Act in order to offer tax relief to those parents who are fully supporting their children who are 18 years of age and over and are unable to find employment in these very difficult economic times.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, my statement is about the refusal on the part of the Commission de protection du territoire agricole to cede to Bell Helicopter at Mirabel a portion of land zoned as farm land.
Municipal authorities at Mirabel and federal Members from the Laval and Laurentian areas are becoming increasingly concerned that Bell Helicopter may decide not to locate at Mirabel. We are aware that the decision to have Bell Helicopter locate at Mirabel has led to numerous meetings and representations by local Members to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox).
We are convinced there is no justification for further delay in establishing Bell Helicopter at Mirabel, which would provide 3,000 jobs for the region in the high-tech field. We urge the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Jean Garon, who was never in favour of the Mirabel project and has always oppposed plans for developing Mirabel, to make representations to Mr. Rene Levesque so that we can ensure Bell Helicopter will be able to locate at Mirabel.



CALL FOR EXTENSION OF ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOPING ATHLETES

Mr. Otto Jelinek (Hatton):: Mr. Speaker, as a former Olympian I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the nation's capital participants from nearly 30 countries in the World Figure Skating Championships. I am sure that the House joins me in wishing them good fortune and good sport. It is in this spirit of sportsmanship that I call upon the Government, and specifically upon the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier), to extend athletic development fees, such as the ones provided to hockey, to other sports.
Using an example to explain this, Mr. Speaker, figure skaters in Canada are presently assisted financially through Sport Canada during their developing years, only to be plucked by foreign professional ice shows which in turn are not obligated to contribute toward that development.

March 21, 1984
This innovative system could be applied to numerous other sports, which in turn would help support amateur athletics in Canada while at the same time reducing the financial burden on the taxpayer.



INSOLVENCY ACT


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, recent events surrounding the Maislin bankruptcy settlement of unpaid employees' back salaries poignantly illustrate the immediate urgency for a new Bankruptcy Act providing wage protection for workers. When Parliament prorogued in December, 1983, the Finance Committee had started its hearings and there was an understanding that all Parties would move the Bill expeditiously to committee stage in the new Session. The Insolvency Act, now Bill C-17, has been ready and waiting for second reading, and the Finance Committee impatiently awaits its work.
Attempts have been made to accommodate our colleagues on the other side, and we have urged their continued co-operation. In response to their request, proposed amendments were submitted to them for study some four weeks ago. Ironically, it has been the New Democratic Party which has been obstructing all constructive efforts to move the Bill forward. In view of the vital significance of this Bill, and in view of its long and tortuous legislative history, I call upon members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Official Opposition to exert all possible efforts to bring the Bill to immediate second reading with speedy passage to committee stage.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, all those concerned with the importance of retaining the Winnipegosis subdivision welcomed the January 11, 1984, announcement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), which indicated that he was recommending to Cabinet the retention of 10 miles of CN track between Sifton and Fork River, Manitoba. As the Minister stated: "Producers delivering to this point would face unreasonable extra hauls if their point was abandoned."
I welcome the Minister's letter of February 28 which stated that he was seeking to have this portion rehabilitated and added to the basic network. There is concern, however, over the fact that two months have elapsed and no Cabinet decision has been announced, possibly due to the present leadership race.
I would therefore urge the Government to act immediately to add the Winnipegosis subdivision to the permanent rail network. I also call upon the Minister of Transport to review the Oakland and Inwood subdivisions, for in those cases also there exists an urgent need for retention. The Amaranth Rail Retention Committee has documented the negative impact that rail line abandonment on the Oakland subdivision would have on that area. It is important that the Oakland subdivision be added to the permanent network. Similarly, the Inwood subdivision must be retained.



PROVISIONS CONCERNING ELDERLY

Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians across this beautiful country of ours were very interested in what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had to say in his Budget on February 15 of this year.
Pensioners were particularly well served by the Minister's announcement that the guaranteed income supplement will be increased by $25 as of July 1 and by another $25 on December 25 of this year. This $50 increase in the guaranteed income supplement means that the Government will be paying an additional $460 million to help pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, although the Opposition has preferred to ignore the attractive provisions of the last Budget, I can assure you that all Canadians, and especially the people in my riding of Bourassa, applaud these new measures which are a way of expressing the gratitude we owe our elders.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of SUCO representatives, I got in touch with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to get answers to certain questions, including this one: How does he explain that the Canadian Organization for Solidarity and Development already receives funds from CIDA, although it has been in existence for only a few months and several of its administrators are directly responsible for SUCO's huge deficit of the last fiscal year?
Why does CIDA reject the position of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, the Quebec Association of International Cooperation Organizations and many other nongovernment organizations in favour of negotiated solutions? And why does CIDA refuse to accept in the case of SUCO
March 21, 1984

certain solutions which in the past were acceptable in the case of other non-government organizations?
Since funds will no longer be allocated to SUCO as of April 1, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Quebecers directly involved, I am asking the Minister to give me precise answers to precise questions.


Mr.   Gimai@: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw attention to the presence in the gallery of several young Canadians who are members of the Youth Forum-



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, in World War I, World War II, and during the Korean conflict, hundreds of thousands of Canadians came forward to serve their country and were prepared to give their lives to ensure that future generations of Canadians would live in freedom and peace in a democratic country. Today, many veterans, many veterans' widows, and many veterans' families depend solely on the pensions and allowances provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. These pensions and allowances are inadequate to meet their financial needs satisfactorily, and in parts of British Columbia these inadequate cheques often arrive many days late. For many individuals and their families this results in their not having sufficient funds to purchase food. It also forces veterans to stand in line-ups at local food banks, and to use welfare food vouchers.
These humiliating experiences are inexcusable. Our war veterans, their widows and their families, deserve much better. I urge the Minister for Veterans Affairs to take steps immediately so that those who were prepared to die for their country are able to live out their lives in dignity. They should be provided with a pension adequate to meet their needs, and the Minister should ensure that their cheques are mailed to arrive on time.



MARINE TRANSPORT


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, yearly the volume of shipping in Canadian Arctic waters increases, to the extent that it has now become commonplace. Merchant vessels and specialized offshore oil and gas explanatory equipment ply the waters, and we can look forward to the day when the Northwest Passage will be a well established and viable international trade route. To encourage these developments and ensure safety to mariners, the Government of Canada should continue to promote more detailed hydrographic sur-
Oral Questions
veys, improved weather forecasting and ice reconnaissance, together with better electronic navigation systems.
The Canadian Coast Guard is to be complimented on its desire to increase Arctic ship safety, and on its plan to acquire icebreakers designed to Arctic specifications. The administration of the Coast Guard should be changed in due course to establish a northern region with headquarters in the North, in order to eliminate the problems caused by the present fraction-alization of jurisdiction in the Arctic by the existing regional offices.
Furthermore, we need improved international co-operation between Canada, the United States, and Denmark, the states which border the Arctic Ocean and Northwest Passage.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in the House the Minister said in reply to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Halton, and I quote from page 2240 of Hansard:
For us the small business sector is the most important element in terms of job creation. We have shown our determination to support it with the measures in the Budgets of last April and last February.
I can agree with the Minister on that, Mr. Speaker. Two-thirds of the jobs in this country are created by the small business sector. But how does the Minister expect the small business sector to expand and create new jobs when, in the Minister's own estimation, interest rates will continue to go up?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if my friend checks what I said in the House yesterday, he will see that I have not indicated that interest rates will continue to go up. I have indicated that, if interest rates in the United States increase, it will be very difficult for Canada to keep interest rates lower than those in the United States for any extended period.
I have not forecast continuing increases in interest rates. The evolution of the situation will very much depend also on what will happen in the United States over the next few weeks and months.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ACT TO OFFSET POSSIBLE INTEREST RATE INCREASES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, if interest rates continue to expand-and this is not strictly hypothetical-this will more than offset what little there was

March 21, 1984
Oral Questions
in the last two Budgets to provide incentives to the small business sector to expand. In view of the fact that unemployment in this country continues to increase, whereas in the United States it continues to go down, what steps does the Minister propose to take, what leadership does he intend to provide, to offset high interest rates and to allow the small business sector to expand to provide jobs for the million and a half people in this country who are in danger of being left behind?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend starts his question by saying "if' interest rates continue to increase. That is obviously a hypothetical question, and we will have to see whether or not it is verified over the next few weeks and months. Interest rates have gone up half a point-


Mr. Blenkarn:: They have gone up a whole point in the last three weeks.


Marc Lalonde: If they had gone down half a point I do not think my friend would have said that this was a fantastic factor for growth and that all our problems will be resolved. On the other hand, because interest rates have gone up half a point, there is no reason to believe the recovery has come to a halt or that we will know a recession.
There are movements in interest rates, and we are trying to keep those movements to the minimum on the upward side. I hope that the situation in the United States will stabilize without generating further increases in interest rates in that country. If that were to be the case, we would be in a position to have no further increases in our country either.
As far as the Hon. Member's reference to unemployment is concerned, obviously we are very concerned about the number of unemployed in our country. However, I want to remind my friend again that employment has also increased quite significantly in our country. As of last month we have created 54,000 new jobs. I hope we will continue to do so over the next several months.


COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES ECONOMIC TRENDS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the dollar continues to hover around 78 cents. The Minister knows in that kind of scenario interest rates have to go up.
Since the Minister continues to compare our situation with that of the U.S., can he explain how it is in the last three months unemployment in Canada continued to increase, whereas in the U.S. it continues to decline? It is now below 8 per cent. The U.S. employment rate is about 2.8 per cent ahead of where it was when the recession started, and we are 1.3 per cent behind. Can the Minister explain why we continue to fall behind and the U.S. continues to move ahead?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again my friend forgets to mention that employment has also
increased quite significantly in Canada in the last several months, particularly in the last month. As I said, it has increased by 54,000 new jobs. As far as industrial production is concerned, my friend makes a very selective choice of statistics. For example, in The Economist of March 17 there is reference to changes in the annual rate of industrial production. In Canada it is plus 13 per cent; in the United States it is plus 9.9 per cent. There are statistics which show there is faster growth in the U.S. than in Canada and in other areas there is faster growth in Canada than in the U.S., as in industrial production.


FINANCE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with all the data out today there is no question that the Canadian economy is growing less quickly than that of the U.S. Some 50,000 jobs have been created in Canada as against 2.7 million in the U.S.-not a very good performance.
This morning Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the U.S. Council of Economic Advisers, said that higher interest rates are a natural consequence of the much stronger U.S. economy. Last week Governor Bouey said there is no domestic reason for higher interest rates in Canada. Yesterday the Minister said if interest rates go up in the U.S. we are going to follow in lock-step. Since the Minister's Budget in no way anticipated the higher interest rates, would he let the Canadian people know the options open to us if in fact interest rates in the U.S. continue upwards the way they have over the past few weeks?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to what Governor Bouey said, that there are no domestic reasons for the rate increases we have known. He went on to explain the external reasons for the increases we have known. If my friend can explain to me how we can have a situation in Canada where people who are saving will get, let us say, 9 per cent, but 11 per cent in the U.S., and why they would keep their savings in Canada rather than the U.S., then he will have the answer to his own question.
As long as we have a situation where our economies are so interdependent, and where there is freedom of movement in capital markets, he will realize we must have competitive interest rates in Canada if we want to keep investment and growth in this country. Even the Conservatives would be the first ones to ship their money to the U.S. if they could get a higher return.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I am sure he knows that.
March 21, 1984


SIZE OF DEFICIT-EFFECT ON POLICY FLEXIBILITY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated by his response that his hands are tied. He has no other option, no independence of action.
If the deficit in Canada were much lower than it is today, would he have more flexibility and independence of action? In other words, interest rates would be lower than they are today and he would have room within his Budget either to decrease taxes or direct specific funding toward those people who are being hurt by higher interest rates. Would he have that increased flexibility?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble answering the Hon. Member. The answer is no. There is no indication that if our deficit were lower than it is at the present time, interest rates would be lower as well, for the simple reason, and I repeat, that our interest rates are very closely linked to those prevailing in the United States. Again, we must keep our interest rates competitive if we are to keep investment and money in Canada. This has no connection with the present level of the deficit in Canada. The Hon. Member knows that in spite of the deficit we have now, there is no pressure on financial markets inside Canada, or, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada said, there are no domestic reasons that would justify an increase in the interest rates. The reasons are external, and they are particularly linked to what is happening in the United States.


GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST RATE POLICY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it is on the same subject as the previous question. A minute ago the Minister was once again linking growth in the Canadian economy with his high interest rate policy. This is the same argument which the Government made a couple of years ago for its high interest rate policy then. Instead of having growth we had a record number of business bankruptcies, a record number of Canadians losing their homes, and the highest debt load for farmers in any period since the Great Depression. That is the kind of growth we had with his high interest rate policy.
Since we had all these negative effects in the past few years from a high interest rate policy which was undertaken not that long ago, why does the Minister think things will be any different now? Why does he think things will get better instead of worse with this high interest rate policy? Everyone in the country, except the Minister, knows very well that this will not be the case.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not have a high interest rate policy. The Government's policy is to keep interest rates in Canada as low
Oral Questions
as possible. In fact, during the last two years, we succeeded in eliminating the gap between interest rates in Canada and the United States. The Hon. Member will recall that there was a difference of up to 5 per cent, when interest rates in Canada were 4 to 5 per cent higher than they were in the United States. We have succeeded in eliminating this gap. We have been able to bring about a substantial decrease in interest rates in Canada, but I am sure my hon. colleague will admit that if interest rates in Canada are lower than they are in the United States, even the most dogmatic members of the New Democratic Party will be the first to move their funds to the United States where they can get a better rate and a better return on their investment. We are in a situation where we remain competitive with the American market, and I am referring to both the financial and other markets. That is the Government's policy. We are not out to have high interest rates. Our policy is to bring down inflation, to increase growth, to reduce unemployment and to have the lowest possible interest rates compatible with our North American context.


EFFECT OF HIGH INTEREST RATES ON FARMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister himself said just over a week ago, the reality is that if we let our dollar assume a more realistic level instead of imposing high interest rates on Canadians who cannot afford it, we would have increases in the number of jobs in Canada because we would increase our exports. That is the reality.
Apart from the job implication itself, in the past couple of weeks, because of the Government's high interest rate policy, farmers on typical farms have experienced increases of $3,000 in their costs this year. These increased costs to the farmer will result in increased profits for the banks. Why is the Government continuing to favour a high interest rate policy, which means more profits for the banks and more bankruptcies for Canadian farmers?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to answer the Hon. Member's question because it is based on a false premise, namely that the Government has a high interest rate policy. I spent several minutes after the Hon. Member's first question explaining that this was not the Government's policy-anything but. Our policy in Canada is to have the lowest possible interest rates in this country. However, we are also interested in a degree of stability in prices and in our economy, and we do not want a resurgence of the inflation we experienced at the beginning of the eighties, which brought us into our recent recession.
Therefore, the Government's policy is not aimed at keeping interest rates high, as the Hon. Member is alleging. As far as his allegation regarding bank profits is concerned, again I would say he is mistaken, because there is no guarantee that increased interest rates will necessarily be reflected in

March 21, 1984
Oral Questions
increased profits, since the banks will have to pay more on their own deposits. Everything depends on the margin between the two.


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the spreads have been at record levels. The amount that the banks are charging for loans, compared to what they are paying depositors, cause them to reap record level profits in Canada. For example, the Toronto Dominion Bank profits are up 33.6 per cent; Canadian Imperial Bank, 59.8 per cent; the Bank of Nova Scotia had a profit increase of 66 per cent last year, and then there is the poor Royal Bank with a profit increase of 130 per cent in Canada last year.
Why is the Minister favouring a high interest rate policy that can only mean fewer jobs in the Canadian economy, increased pressure on mortgage holders, and can only increase the debt burden of the farmers? Why does he continue a policy that does what Governor Bouey and the banks want, instead of what the ordinary people of this country would like?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again my hon. friend seems to be selective. He might have added to his list the profits made by the credit unions, co-ops and caisses populaires in the last year. He might have mentioned that indeed these have known increases in profits, and for a very good reason. The increase in profits must be looked at in terms of from where you start. My friend knows that in the last few years financial institutions have been in serious difficulty in this country and that they are recovering from a period when they have known serious difficulty.
The Member says again that the Government is favouring a high interest rate policy. I told him twice in French that this is not the policy of the Government. I said that in English in response to the Conservative question before, I have to give him the same answer in English, that the Government does not have a high interest rate policy.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In a recent interview with The New York Times, the Minister complained about the extravagance of Canada's airport system resulting in the continuing heavy losses in the Airport Revolving Fund. Since the system is plagued by the continuing heavy losses in the operation of Mirabel International Airport, for which the current estimates indicate S48 million in this particular year, what plans, if any, is he contemplating or prepared to undertake to reduce this loss at Mirabel which impairs the total Airport Revolving Fund?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first I would remind the Member for Vegreville that, as he knows, we are presently engaged in a major review of airline policy. The purpose of that is to generate a much broader range of competitive forces in the airline industry, and from that acquire a stronger sense of growth. I think that would have a very important and beneficial effect for an airport like Mirabel and other airports that are underutilized.
The answer to many of our economic problems is to generate more growth and activity, and to give a greater opportunity for the airline industry to provide consumer choices and options. That is a very clear message.
In addition, we have specific initiatives prescribed for Mirabel. We have a report that promotes the development of a new corporation that would undertake marketing for the area. We are selling off certain of the lands, and we are looking at other options for Mirabel and other airports that would give an incentive and added attraction to provide more airport activity. I think we are trying to make a better and much more effective use of the facilities that we now have.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Minister is saying that he is going to propose another series of studies.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the burden of those costs of the operation and maintenance of Canada's airport system, which the Minister referred to in his interview as containing many Taj Mahals, falls directly upon the consumer, and since the Minister is engaged in a campaign to deregulate, with the expectation that air fares will come down, what specific action will he take to reduce the burden of costs which would provide cheaper air fares to the consuming public? He has to do more than simply another study.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member. Of course more studies will not be the answer. But what we are engaged in at the present time is a responsible series of public hearings so that a wide variety of Canadians from industry and consumer groups can present their points of view. Second, we are also engaged in working internally on how we can reduce costs throughout our system. I would remind the Hon. Member that the primary and critical ingredient to provide for the better utilization of our airports is to get more growth, activity, and action in our airline industry. That means giving the consumers a better choice. That is what we intend to do.
March 21, 1984


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. I believe that Canadians have had a feeling of shock, almost revulsion, caused by disclosure of the Amnesty International report with respect to the Archambault riot, which concluded that there exists at least a reasonable ground to believe that there was torture, or other cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners after the July 25, 1982, incident.
Canadians have been under the impression that this only occurs in countries where tyranny reigns, or in some banana republic. How can the Minister say that there has been no torture, no other cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment within the federal institution, Archambault, when he is still waiting for his own in-house report? If he has nothing to hide, why does he not proceed with an open inquiry, a judicial inquiry which will be open to the public, so that they can see precisely what is going on in our federal institutions?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that, with the evidence that I had, and I, of course, followed the matter very closely and examined every shred of possible evidence of extreme incidents of torture which were alleged, I was not convinced by them.
I also took account of the fact, and I would ask the Hon. Member to take account of this as well, that the inmates in Canada's federal penitentiaries are not like the inmates in some tyrannical country or banana republic as he mentioned. They have very strong available recourses. They have the right to sue the Solicitor General and the Correctional Service of Canada. I encouraged them, week after week, if they had allegations of the sort they were making, to take that course. After all, there are a number of lawsuits outstanding right now against the Correctional Service of Canada, against the Solicitor General, that prove that the inmates do have that available recourse.
The fact is that they have not done so. The fact is that these allegations have become retroactively more and more serious. At the beginning, shortly after the incidents when lawyers first began making statements on behalf of their client inmates, no suggestion at all was made of the kinds of serious incidents that were alleged to the investigators of Amnesty International.
These are all the reasons why I prefer to encourage the inmates to proceed as I have indicated, and why I continue to believe that a public, open judicial inquiry would not be appropriate.
Oral Questions
Amnesty International asked for a "full, independent, and impartial investigation". The correctional investigator is an officer who is qualified to undertake such an investigation, and he is doing so.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That will come as news to Amnesty International.


INMATES' ACCESS TO DRUGS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Today the coroner for eastern Ontario disclosed a recent report in which he said security in the prisons is so loose and correctional employees feel so impotent that they cannot prevent drug abuse within the prison system, and that this has led to a substantial increased degree of murders and assaults within the institutions.
What is going on within the institutions when inmates apparently have unlimited access to marijuana, hashish, valium, home made booze, and a number of other drugs? Are these institutions out of control? What does the Minister propose to do to stem this tide of illicit drugs within, of all places, federal penal institutions?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, we live in a drug-infested society. It should not be surprising to Members to find that an institution like a correctional institution, a federal penitentiary, has very serious limitations on the degree to which entry of drugs can be prevented. Hundreds of people visit these institutions every week. Dozens of the inmates are out in the street for periods of time during the week. In spite of that, a high degree of control is maintained, and the drug problems which I can see do exist in the institutions are controlled as much as possible.
I read the report with a lot of interest. It is worth reading. I think a broader perspective needs to be taken before changes in policy can really be adopted. To move to a system that would have the amount of repression, investigation, and inspection that is called for in that report would raise its own problems. I think I would want to give a lot of account to the kinds of problems that would result from extreme measures of search and isolation of inmates, which are the recommendations in that report, and what the consequences would be before moving from a more balanced position than the one we presently have.
I am interested to have the Amnesty International report on the one hand, which finds repression in our institution, or allegations of it, and then this report on the other hand which says we are too soft on inmates. The policy that we try to follow is somewhere between the two.

March 21, 1984
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION- FRANCE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May 1 draw the attention of the House of Commons to the presence in the gallery of a parliamentary delegation from the National Assembly of France.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. The report issued yesterday by Amnesty International showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that prison inmates in Archambault had tear gas sprayed into their mouths, were burned on their flesh with lighted cigarettes, were severely beaten, and were the victims of water torture, surely represents the kind of activity which is condoned in repressive banana republics and not here in Canada.
Given the fact that the Amnesty International report calls for a full, independent, impartial inquiry, not a perceived whitewash by a government employee, paid by the Government of Canada, reporting to the Solicitor General directly, when will the Minister finally live up to his obligations and accept this essential recommendation of Amnesty International and order a full, public, judicial inquiry into these shocking allegations?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the qualifications of a public inquiry and a judicial inquiry do not appear in the Amnesty International recommendations. They were omitted. What appears here is a "full, independent, and impartial investigation".


Mr. Nielsen:: How can the investigator be independent?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: This House knows well the mandate of the correctional investigator. He was established pursuant to a recommendation of a parliamentary committee, and it was a unanimous recommendation of all Parties that that individual be given those authorities. He was given those authorities. He is exercising those authorities. The Hon. Member is criticizing the report and undermining it before it is even written.
I have undertaken to make that report public as soon as I get it. I will honour that commitment and make the report public when I get it. I think if the Member is wanting now to lay a foundation for attacking the credibility of the report, he should at least, in fairness to the correctional investigator, wait to see it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister fails to act on this uprecedented Amnesty report, he will certainly
bring international shame to Canada, and in particular to his Government.

Mr. Speaker, considering the outright rejection of the response to those very serious accusations, why did the Minister refuse to make a clear and unequivocal statement, as recommended by Amnesty International, against any kind of torture and inhuman treatment in prisons throughout Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is because, in that respect, our laws, our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the guidelines issued by the Commissioner of the Correctional Service are already clear enough to warn Canadians and establish the position of the Government and Canadians against this kind of behaviour. There is no need to tell a group of professionals such as correctional officers in our institutions that they must not resort to torture.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation. Could he tell the House just what the intentions of the Canada Post Corporation are with respect to its grand project to turn itself into retail outlets, thus competing unfairly with small businesses and merchants that must keep inventories? In addition, could the Minister tell us as well whether Canada Post has given him the names of the shareholders of that company, which I refrain from naming to avoid publicity, but which is now on a honeymoon with the Canada Post Corporation?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is mistaken if he thinks that the Canada Post Corporation has become retail outlets. The fact is that Canada Post is responsible for delivering both letters and parcels, and the project mentioned by the Hon. Member is a pilot project launched in a few regions of Canada to give better service to the clients of certain companies. That is part of the general responsibilities of Canada Post to deliver mail rapidly.
However, I can tell the Hon. Member that, as a result of representations made by him and some of his colleagues on the Government benches, the President of the Canada Post Corporation has assured me that he would reconsider the question and discuss with Canada Post customers the best way to correct the situation.
March 21, 1984


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, if I could take his attention away from his running mate, the Minister of Justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: My question deals with the Minister's statement that he has no problems with the national energy policy which his Government introduced. Could the Minister tell this House what elements of the National Energy Program cause him no problem? Is it the loss of 35,000 jobs, or the increase in oil imports, which his own Department estimates? Or possibly is it the $8.1 billion in PIP grants that he is paying oil companies to drill dry holes? Could he tell us why he is so satisfied with these accomplishments?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the energy policy that was put in place had some goals that are being met. The Canadian content of the industry is increasing every day. Of course we have become self-sufficient. We produce more oil than we consume now. The policy is on target. There was a big increase last year in the completion of wells, new wells being drilled and so on. I am amazed after being the critic of my Department for a year and now I am in the race that the Hon. Member dares to get up to ask some questions. The Conservatives have not produced anything. Their Leader gave a speech in Calgary. Two days after that-


Erik Nielsen: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre is recognized for a supplementary question.


PETRO-CANADA OIL RIG EXPENDITURES
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He will find, if he checks Hansard, that the last three times I raised energy issues in this House he was not in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: The Minister should be aware that Canadian taxpayers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: More.
Oral Questions


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: The Minister should be aware that Canadian taxpayers are paying about $300,000 a day, for a total of an estimated $61 million, for an offshore rig half owned by Petro-Canada. It is sitting in port for repairs. Considering that we have such high unemployment in this country, can the Minister explain why Canadian taxpayers should pay for a rig that is not working?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member just said that the rig needs repair. There is nothing mechanical that does not sometimes need repair.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When I think about the energy policy of the Opposition, I see that it has been under repair for years.
I can tell the Hon. Member that there was an increase in Saskatchewan of 127 per cent of wells completed in the last year. There was an increase in Alberta as well of the number of wells. Everything is much better than a year ago. We are making progress in the field of energy, but I know that the Opposition cannot make up its mind. The Opposition wants to abolish the back-in in our policy. The Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Buchanan, wants me to introduce a Bill right now because he wants the back-in, and he does not trust the Opposition should they become the Government.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would point out that it is the national energy policy that needs repair. How does the Minister justify spending taxpayers' dollars, approximately $12 billion by 1986, on high-risk exploration on Canada Lands when the results to date are poor? The same $12 billion directed to oil sands mining would create thousands of jobs. The technology is in place. The oil is there. We know it is there.	[DOT]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Hon. Member is ready to take over from the first critic who asked me a few questions. Helping industries carry out exploration in Canada's North and off the coasts of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is of fundamental importance to Canada because we must know what our resources are and how much our petroleum and natural gas reserves are worth, if we are to

March 21, 1984
Oral Questions
ensure self-sufficiency and security of supply. Under our system, we are providing exploration incentives rather than tax incentives, for the simple reason that we want to encourage our Canadian industry to participate in the development of our resources. If the opposition were to form the Government, Canada's entire oil industry would be given back to the Americans. Our policy is to provide for Canadian participation in Canada's oil and gas industry.


OIL SANDS POTENTIAL
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister recognizes that it is not prudent to be spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on high-risk exploration when in Canada we have the oil sands, with known quantities of oil, the largest single reserve in the world.
The Minister avoided my question. How does he justify spending billions on inefficient exploration, high-risk exploration at high cost, when the same amount of dollars invested in the oil sands would create thousands of jobs across this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were aware of the facts, he would know that in the last few months I have made agreements with the provinces and with industry for heavy oil projects in western Canada, and upgrading in Saskatchewan. For example, the Cold Lake project in the Hon. Member's riding is going ahead with Imperial Oil. There is the BP and Petro-Canada project at Wolf Lake. Another project by Amoco was announced a few weeks ago. Many programs are going ahead in the development of heavy oil and tar sands in western Canada. I am consulting and collaborating with the provincial Governments. We are making a lot of progress. It is possible to develop that kind of resource in western Canada and, at the same time, ensure that there is development in northern Canada, and in the eastern provinces where more activity is needed than anywhere else in the country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Honduras, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs will visit next month, has refused to sign the United Nations Agreement on Refugees. It has detained 7,000 or 8,000 El Salvadoran refugees in a detention camp in Colmoncagua, where they are entirely supported by the United Nations and relief agencies, but harassed by the Honduran military.
Remembering that the U.S. and Honduran armies are poised to invade El Salvador through that same area, will the
Prime Minister ask his Minister to request the Honduran Government to sign the UN agreement for the protection of refugees, and to give the El Salvadoran refugees the same freedom as it gives Nicaraguan refugees in Honduras, and forbid the use of Honduras as a base for the U.S. lead invasion of El Salvador?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has requested an intervention with a foreign Government in relation to a matter that is within its jurisdiction. Canada's position in relation to the encouragement of proper treatment for refugees is well known. No country has been more open and generous in receiving political refugees than has Canada. That continues to be our position.


PLAN TO RELOCATE REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is with regard to an international obligation of Honduras to sign the agreement on refugees. It is an international obligation to give good treatment to them and not to promote war with its neighbour. Considering that the Roman Catholic Church has supported the refugees in refusing to be relocated out of their camp, will the Prime Minister ask his Minister to ask the Honduran Government not to go ahead with its plan of forced relocation, and to consult with the church and the United Nations about the refugees' request to be relocated, if necessary, to a third country, or to be repatriated to El Salvador under United Nations protection?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware that persons become political refugees eligible to apply for acceptance into Canada and many other countries when they have left their country of origin and are located in refugee status in another country. People who are in that position in Honduras, who have come from Nicaragua or El Salvador, are in a position to make application to Canada or to other countries for consideration of their case. With reference to decisions taken by the Honduras Government within its own jurisdiction, the Hon. Member will realize that the Government of Canada cannot interfere in those domestic decisions.

[ Translation]


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.
The Minister seems to be well aware of the objections to which have given rise the Department of Labour's plans to transform post offices into something like general stores. I have seen, for instance, postal employees busy filling out orders while people who wanted to buy stamps had to wait in line.
March 21, 1984

In view of these circumstances, as the Minister is well aware of the main purpose of the Canada Post Corporation, which is to provide the best service possible, I would like to ask him, first, whether he was serious when he said that the Corporation would reassess its plans, and second whether he has received any representations with regard to this brand of competition which, at least in our opinion, cannot but shock the private sector?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the President of the Corporation has assured me that he would reconsider these plans because of the representations he has received. The Canada Post Corporation has signed a contract with one of its customers to be able to serve it better.
What the Canada Post Corporation did was to carry out a pilot project in about ten Canadian municipalities for a limited period of time to see how it could, first, better serve the public, second, provide a better service to one of its regular users, and third, determine whether such an operation could increase its profits.
However, the President has assured me that, in the light of the representations he has received, he is willing to reconsider this plan and take whatever action is necessary.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER TO MAKE A COMMITMENT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just admitted that the Canada Post Corporation is anxious to provide better services to one of its users when everyone is well aware that it has, in fact, millions of users.
In view of the circumstances, since the Minister is aware of the main purpose of the Canada Post Corporation and also of the objections such action will create as the Minister himself has said in the House that Opposition Members have already made representations to him, concerning this unacceptable project of the Canada Post Corporation, I simply want to ask the Minister whether he will undertake on behalf of this House to recommend to the Corporation that it confine itself to its primary job and forget about competing with the private sector in the marketplace.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member seems to be forgetting is that the thousands of Canadians who use the Canada Post Corporation to order merchandise are all customers of the Corporation and users of the postal service.
The Hon. Member is therefore quite wrong when he suggests that this new service provided by the Canada Post Corporation is offered to just one customer. In co-operation with a private business, the Corporation offers this service to the thousands of Canadians who will want to use it.
Petitions
However, quite apart from this question, I can assure the Hon. Member that the other issue he has raised as to whether the Corporation is entering into unfair competition with small businesses by extending its services is something that the President of the Corporation has accepted to reconsider, and I expect a report from him in the very near future.


PENITENTIARIES
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question which is addressed to the Solicitor General and is supplementary to questions which were posed to him earlier today. As the Minister will be aware, there has been another murder of an inmate and a stabbing of two guards in the Millhaven penitentiary in recent days. This is causing great concern within the community and great concern to people who work in the penitentiary, as well as to the inmates.
Could the Minister give the House his assurance that the investigation team he has set up under the leadership of Dr. Vantour will report publicly to Members of the House and to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries on its findings regarding the escalating violence in the penitentiaries in the Kingston area?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has reminded the House that I have indeed established a task force and asked it to examine the situation in Kingston area institutions relating to the violence which has occurred lately, including the tragic incident to which the Hon. Member referred. That task force is composed of three officials, and Mr. Vantour is the chairman. It includes, as well, one non-official, a former RCMP investigator, who I expect will make a very good contribution. I undertake that the report of the committee will be made public and it will be made public as soon as I receive it.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) on Tuesday, March 20, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form. The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) on Tuesday, March 20, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

March 21, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen POINT OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief point of order with respect to the validity of one of the Estimates in Supplementary Estimates (C). As you know, Sir, tomorrow has been set down as being the final allotted day in the current supply period and the House will be asked to pass Supplementary Estimates (C) before the end of the sitting tomorrow. This gives some urgency to the need for a ruling on the point of order which I am submitting before the close of business today so that if the Chair does not find itself in agreement with my submissions, we do have the option of filing an Notice of Objection. However, I hope that my argument will appeal to the Chair.
As a result of this, I would like to ask the Chair to consider the procedural acceptability of Vote lc under the Department of National Revenue, Customs and Excise. The explanation of the requirement for this Vote outlines the fact that the Department is requesting some $209,000 for a personal alarm security system and a further $225,000 for the "Offshore extension of Customs and Excise jurisdiction". I am not entirely certain about what the personal alarm security system is but that is not the part of the Vote which concerns me. Rather, I am concerned about the fact that the Department of National Revenue, through the Vote, has requested $225,000 for the extension of its jurisdiction before legislation has been passed by the House authorizing such an extension of jurisdiction.
I am sure that all of the important aspects of this issue will be touched upon at such time as the legislation to authorize this extension is brought before the House for debate. What does concern me is the fact that the Department, prior to any debate having taken place on Bill C-16 which purports to authorize the extension of customs jurisdiction, has asked that $225,000 be voted to the Department to allow it to extend its jurisdiction. By any definition, Mr. Speaker, such an Estimate anticipates the decision of the House with respect to Bill C-16.
It might be claimed, specious as the argument may be, that it is common practice for the Government to implement tax changes as soon as a Ways and Means motion has been passed by the House and that on this basis, the mere introduction of a Bill based on a Ways and Means motion is sufficient to permit the Department to proceed. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am not enamoured of that practice at the best of times, but using that argument in this case would clearly be a rationalization by the Government of an unparliamentary procedure.
If the passage of a Ways and Means motion is sufficient to authorize government expenditures, then we have no need at all to waste the time of committees or the time of the House as a whole when dealing with the Business of Supply. We could consolidate Supply with Ways and Means proceedings and save ourselves a lot of time and effort. The passage of a Ways and Means motion may be sufficient to permit the immediate implementation or levying of a tax, but I submit to you, Sir, that it is not sufficient to authorize expenditures.
It has already been well established by your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, that Estimates should not be used to legislate by creating new regulations or altering existing statutes. Surely any Vote which is explained in part as being for the offshore extension of customs and excise jurisdiction is one which seeks to authorize the Government to take action in the absence of enabling legislation.
For the reasons that I have just outlined, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that you might subject Vote lc to some close scrutiny and rule it out of order on the grounds that it anticipates a decision of the House on Bill C-16. This is a decision which, I might point out, has been delayed by the Government's own failure to bring the Bill forward for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will take the point raised by the Hon. Member under advisement and, recognizing the courtesy he has extended by giving notice, will attempt to bring a decision on it to his attention as soon as possible.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I hope-


Mr. Speaker:: I am aware that the Hon. Member may want to file a notice of objection in the event that the decision of the Chair is a certain way. The Chair is fully cognizant of his position and will attempt to meet that request.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank you kindly for that. I simply want to re-emphasize that tomorrow is the last day of Supply in this Supply period.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has become evident in the House that Members on this side and even on the other side are worried about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) not being in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is not the practice of the House to refer to the absence or presence of Hon. Members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in both official languages.
March 21, 1984


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, 18 years ago, the United Nations Gener-aly Assembly declared this day the International Day for the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. It is appropriate that we in Canada take note of this important day. While our record in this area is better than that of most countries, we cannot afford to be complacent and we must sustain our efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination.
[ Translation]
Canada's multiracial profile has become more noticeable during the last ten years, but that is not to say it is a recent phenomenon. It goes back to the very origins of this country, when European settlers and native peoples met. The first groups of Chinese, Japanese and Africans arrived more than a century ago. As for Canadians of other than European or native descent, in many cases they have been in Canada for four or five generations. They feel truly Canadian and share the hopes, dreams and expectations of other Canadians. [English]
It is my firm conviction that the vast majority of Canadians share our determination to make this society one in which all of us, whatever our racial background, whatever the colour of our skin, can participate and contribute fully to building a Canada of which we can all be proud. Although our record has blemishes, we have nevertheless established within this nation the capacity to deal with racial discrimination in a forthright and public manner. The strengthening of this capacity can ensure that we will remain in the forefront of nations whose actions and deeds clearly communicate to the world that racial prejudice and discrimination are not tolerated in Canada.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the statement of the Hon. Minister and I should like to put a question to him. As he is so strong on discrimination, could he announce when the Government might introduce legislation to remove discrimination from the Indian Act which discriminates against Indian women in this country?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this matter is under discussion now and a constitutional conference has dealt with it. I think the question should rather be addressed to my colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), in another forum perhaps, or to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro).


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the Minister's statement on behalf of this Party. With the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Collenette) I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. This is of particular importance in Canada and this Parliament must give it absolutely the highest priority. Racism still exists in
Racial Discrimination
Canada directly or, in many cases indirectly. I do not think any Canadian of good conscience, and certainly not Parliament, can rest until racism at all levels, in all sectors and with all people has been eradicated.
This country is a multiracial, multicultural society made up of Canadians-Canadians first and foremost, but with different backgrounds and different languages-coming from all parts of the world. We must obviously work toward a society in which race, colour, religion and even clothing make absolutely no difference to the kind of lifestyle and the goals that we want to set.
This can be achieved in two ways, Mr. Speaker. The first is by education. The federal Government could take the lead, but it has not up to this point, in educating all levels of our society in the eradication of discrimination and in raising the consciousness level of people who are different from what we perceive to be the norm.
The second area in which Parliament can work toward the eradication of racism is in the area of legislation. We must strengthen the Criminal Code, for example, and strengthen the Human Rights Commission. These are areas with which Parliament has not dealt with adequately.
We have a long way to go in this country and I believe Parliament can achieve its goals, provided that we give this matter the kind of priority that this Party thinks it should have and that I know all Canadians think it should have.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond on behalf of the New Democrats to the Minister's statement on this International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I do not want to say too much regarding the inception of this day or the decade for action to combat racism and racial discrimination which was inaugurated in the United Nations in 1973 and continued until 1983. In 1979, the United Nations proclaimed a week of solidarity with peoples struggling against racism and racial discrimination. Since then, annually on March 21 we have been asked to observe this day.
I had hoped that the Minister might have made a positive statement regarding some of the representations made by this Party recently. He pointed out very correctly some aspects of our Canadian history which show a sad lack of action in the area of eliminating discrimination. For the benefit of the House I would like to underline one or two such representations that this Party has made or will make.
The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) our justice critic, has obtained caucus approval for an all-Party resolution regarding the injustices that were perpetrated upon Japanese Canadians in World War II. We will be seeking all-Party support for this resolution and our justice critic will be approaching the other caucuses and the independent Member to my right here to seek their support for the acknowledgment of the wrongfulness of measures taken at that time. I had hoped that the Minister would have indicated that he was favourably disposed toward such action. I trust we will

March 21, 1984
Racial Discrimination
be able to work together on the representations that will be put forward.
We have not heard anything from the Government regarding some aspects of the War Measures Acts, which had implications for Japanese during World War II. Some action should be taken in that regard.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) has raised the whole question of the Chinese head tax in this House. To date she has received well over 600 representations, some including receipts for the head tax paid by Chinese Canadians. I had hoped that the Minister might have responded to some of those representations. I know that various organizations, as a result of this matter having been raised in the House by my hon. friend, have also been writing to the Government making representations. The Chinese-Canadian National Council has talked about this head tax compensation request which was made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East. It views the head tax as among the most blatantly racist and shameful acts in the history of our country. I was hoping that perhaps on this particular day the Minister would respond to the representations made by my colleague. The Human Rights Commission also has issued a statement in support of the requests which have been made with regard to compensation for Chinese Canadians. I hope that the Minister will see that some action-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the practice of the House has been that comments should not exceed the length of time of the original statement by the Minister. The Hon. Member has now exceeded the time of the original statement. Therefore, I hesitate, but I feel I should interrupt the Hon. Member.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out that we did have a short debate on this subject several years ago in the House when Ministers adopted the habit of making extremely short presentations, thereby cutting off any real discussion on the matter. The Minister's presentation was very short today.


Mr. Speaker:: Nevertheless, the Chair is bound by practices of the House. The Chair has not stopped questions. The Chair has simply called to the attention of the Hon. Member speaking that he has already gone beyond, something like two minutes beyond, the length of the original statement. The Chair is trying to be reasonable, but I would ask him to bring his remarks to a close.


Erik Nielsen: On the same point or order, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is only fair to say that the Minister did speak with me prior to following the procedure we are now following with respect to making a brief statement. He expressed the hope that, after the same privilege had been extended to the spokesperson for the Conservative and New Democratic Parties to make a similarly brief statement, in this exceptional instance, because of the nature of the statement and the occasion, we would even refrain from asking any questions in the hope that
perhaps more statements will be made by Ministers in this slot in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is trying to be fair, and the hon. spokesman for the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), did observe roughly the same limits as the Minister. I am inviting the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky) to do likewise.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude by saying that we each have a ministry of reconciliation which we can bring about in this country. I hope that the Minister will take it upon himself to act upon these representations I have mentioned. When the report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities is brought forward, I hope he would act immediately on these representations, as well as incorporate them in the Multiculturalism Act at the time it is brought forward.


Mr. Yurko:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have a chance to say a few words on this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I would like to say a few words on this very important matter before the House because today is the International Day for the Eradication of Racism. This matter has been rather close to my heart. I have constantly asked myself what racism is. It is a most despicable form of hate and discrimination among mankind. Some of us have repeatedly indicated the need for the equality of man in the eyes of man.
All I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that I was in Brunei recently to recognize the independence of that country. One of the people there made the most profound statement to me in terms of this question of discrimination between peoples of different colour, different race or different sex. He said, "I want you always to remember, Mr. Yurko, that we all have the same colour of blood".


PETITIONS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from over 4,000 people who live in Vancouver East, including many that are written in Chinese. The attached petition states: that whereas residents of Canada are alarmed by the threat to the survival of humanity posed by the existence of nuclear weapons and the continuing arms race; and that whereas the Government of Canada permitted the testing of the Cruise missile over the soil of Canada on March 6, 1984, thus contributing to the nuclear arms race; and that whereas the following statement was endorsed unanimously by the United Nations in 1982:
March 21, 1984

The increase in .. . nuclear weapons, far from strengthening international security, on the contrary, weakens it. Enduring peace cannot be built on the accumulation of weaponry.
And that whereas the testing of weapons of war, such as the Cruise missile, contribute to the escalation of the arms race and weaken international security; therefore your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Commons will make every effort to prevent future testing of the Cruise missile in Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of approximately 1,000 Saskatchewan residents. The petition states:
That, in the opinion of your petitioners, of Canada's senior citizens, and more specifically the members of Saskatchewan Senior Citizens "Action Now" Association favourable consideration should be given by your Honourable House to the proposals set out herein.
They mention several proposals such as federal pensions being substantially increased so that there is parity not charity for pensioners; that the basic income tax exemption be raised above the poverty level; that there be established in this country a department of senior citizens' affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member give a brief explanation of the purpose of the petition?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That pretty well summarizes it, Mr. Speaker, except to add that they ask as well that the original health Bill supported by federal conditional grants be reinstated. I cannot read the rest of it, but that is the general thrust of the petition on behalf of around a thousand senior citizens in Saskatchewan.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT AND THE YUKON ACT


Hon. Serge Joyal (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-26, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act and the Yukon Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 95, 391, 456 to 459 inclusive, 498, 515, 571, 581 and 703.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, media relations or publicity are employed by the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Thirty-three.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the Ministry of Justice establish a Special Committee to study the problems associated with pornography and prostitution in Canada and, if so, what (a) were the names of the non-public service members of the Committee (b) were their terms of remuneration (c) was the purpose of the Committee?
2.	Will the Committee receive public presentations?
3.	Will the Committee hold hearings outside Ottawa and, if so, at how many locations?
4.	What is the estimated total cost of the Committee's operation?
5.	Within what time frame is the committee expected to complete its work?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes.
(a)	Paul Fraser, Joan Wallace, Mary Eberts, Andree Ruffo, John McLaren, Susan Clark.
(b)	The Chairman is to be paid S500 per day. Other Committee members are to be paid $300 per day, subject to a maximum of 60 days.
(c)	The terms of reference of the Special Committee are as follows:
(1)	to consider the problems of access to pornography, its effects and what is considered to be pornographic in Canada;
(2)	to consider prostitution in Canada with particular reference to loitering and street soliciting for prostitution, the operation of bawdy-houses, living off the avails of prostitution, and the exploitation of prostitutes and the law relating to these matters;
(3)	to ascertain public views on ways and means to deal with these problems by inviting written submissions from concerned groups and citizens and by conducting public meetings in major centres across the country;
(4)	to consider, without travelling outside Canada, the experience and attempts to deal with these problems in other countries including the United States, European Economic Council and selected Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand;
(5)	to consider alternatives, report its findings and recommend solutions to the problems associated with pornography and prostitution in Canada, as soon as possible, but not later than December 31, 1984.
2.	Yes. The Committee welcomes written and oral submissions from the public.
3.	Yes. Other than the national capital region, the Committee was scheduled to appear in 20 locations across Canada and has already appeared in some locations: Calgary, Edmonton,

March 21, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Vancouver, Toronto, Niagara Falls, London, Windsor, Montreal, Val D'Or, Sherbrooke, Quebec City, Victoria, Regina, Winnipeg, St. John's, Charlottetown, Fredericton, Halifax, Whitehorse and Yellowknife.
4.	Five hundred thousand dollars.
5.	The Committee was appointed June 23, 1983, and is due to report by December 31, 1984.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In 1979 were any income tax reassessments made by Department of National Revenue auditors and, if so, how many taxpayers were reassessed?
2.	How many of the reassessments (a) were withdrawn (b) gave rise to litigation (c) were confirmed by a court?

Question No. 457-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In 1980 were any income tax reassessments made by Department of National Revenue auditors and, if so, how many taxpayers were reassessed?
2.	How many of the reassessments (a) were withdrawn (b) gave rise to litigation (c) were confirmed by a court?

Question No. 458-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In 1981 were any income tax reassessments made by Department of National Revenue auditors and, if so, how many taxpayers were reassessed?
2.	How many of the reassessments (a) were withdrawn (b) gave rise to litigation (c) were confirmed by a court?

Question No. 459-Mr. Blenkarn:
1.	In 1982 were any income tax reassessments made by Department of National Revenue auditors and, if so, how many taxpayers were reassessed?
2.	How many of the reassessments (a) were withdrawn (b) gave rise to litigation (c) were confirmed by a court?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Year	Number of Reassessments
1979/80	255,349
1980/81	255,169
1981/82	253,710
1982/83	328,500
2.	1979/80	1980/81	1981/82	1982/83(a)	Objections allowed in full	6,693	7,080	9,106	12,961(b)	Cases submitted to litigation	1,855	1,958	1,989	2,614(c)	Reassessments confirmed by a court	721	961	920	833


Mr. Howie: Does the Government maintain records showing the extent to which it is contractually committed for each fiscal year beyond 1983-84 for leases and other goods and services and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, for each year, what is the dollar value of those contractual commitments?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Departments of
Public Works and Supply and Services as follows: For leases, yes; for goods and services, no.
(a)	The Department of Supply and Services, as the main contractor of government goods and services, does not keep records of the global amount of long-term commitments. In order to provide a global amount, each department would have to look to individual transactions which in time and money would be prohibitive.
(b) Contractual Commitments-Leases	Dollar Value
April, 1983-March, 1984	249,006,958.55
April, 1984-March, 1985	255,928,094.43
April, 1985-March, 1986	179,058,721.03
April, 1986-March, 1987	144,100,263.88
April, 1987-March, 1988	111,737,303.33
April, 1988-March, 1989	86,633,864.71
April, 1989-March, 1990	65,513,495.86
April, 1990-March, 1991	62,343,993.63
April, 1991-March, 1992	60,805,696.81
April, 1992-March, 1993	50,819,331.27
April, 1993-March, 1994	33,753,062.68
April, 1994-March, 1995	27,569,510.50
April, 1995-March, 1996	24,269,226.76
April, 1996-March, 1997	23,003,479.63
April, 1997-March, 1998	22,687,355.65
April, 1998-March, 1999	22,687,354.65
April, 1999-March, 2000	22,687,321.65
April, 2000-March, 2001	22,687,321.65
April, 2001-March, 2002	22,687,321.65
April, 2002-March, 2003	22,687,321.65
April, 2003-March, 2004	22,687,321.65
April, 2004-March, 2005	22,687,321.65
April, 2005-March, 2006	22,687,321.65
April, 2006-March, 2007	22,687,321.65
April, 2007-March, 2008	22,687,321.65
April, 2008-March, 2009	22,687,321.65
April, 2009-March, 2010	22,687,321.65
April, 2010-March, 2011	22,687,321.65
April, 2011-March, 2012	16,838,431.00
April, 2012-March, 2013	16,838,431.00
April, 2013-March, 2014	16,838,431.00
April, 2014-March, 2015	18.00
April, 2015-March, 2016	18.00
April, 2016-March, 2017	18.00
April, 2017-March, 2018	18.00
April, 2018-March, 2019	18.00
April, 2019-March, 2020	18.00
April, 2020-March, 2021	18.00
April, 2021-March, 2022	18.00
April, 2022-March, 2023	18.00
April, 2023-March, 2024	18.00
April, 2024-March, 2025	18.00
April, 2025-March, 2026	18.00
April, 2026-March, 2027	18.00
April, 2027-March, 2028	18.00
April, 2028-March, 2029	18.00
April, 2029-March, 2030	18.00
The foregoing amounts include short term crown-lease contracts and long term lease-purchase contracts the latter normally covering a period of up to 35 years. This explains the abrupt reduction of commitments in the year 2014. Moreover, the amounts exclude operating and other costs which can only be committed on an annual basis at the start of each fiscal year. A further point to recognize is that commitment values change from month to month due to new leases entered into and old lease terminations.
March 21, 1984

Order Paper Questions
Claude I. Taylor (Businessman)	Place Air Canada
President & Chief Executive Officer Montreal H2Z 1X5


Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of Air Canada and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a) See list below, (b) See list below.
Compensation. See Report on Governor in Council Appointees tabled in the House of Commons on November 17, 1983. Compensation for all other positions not listed in the report is regarded as proprietary information to Air Canada.
Current Officers of the Company
Geno F. Francolini Chairman of the Board (interim parttime)
Claude I. Taylor
President & Chief Executive Officer
B.	R. Aubin
Vice-President, Facilities & Supply
A.	Bodnarchuk
Vice-President, Computer & Systems Services
D. Bryce-Buchanan Vice-President, European Region
G.	Chiasson
Vice-President, Passenger Marketing
L. C. DesBois, Q.C.
General Counsel
L.	S. Desrochers
Vice-President, Financial Planning
M.	Fournier
Vice-President, Public Affairs
G.	G. Gauvreau Vice-President, Eastern Region
B.	A. Gillies Vice-President, Cargo
C.	H. Glenn Executive Consultant
D.	J. Groom
Senior Vice-President, Finance & Planning
P. J. Jeanniot
Executive Vice-President & Chief Operating Officer
H.	H. Cantor
Vice-President, In-Flight Service
J. P. Labrie
Vice-President, U.S. & Southern Region
R. W. Linder
Senior Vice-President, Marketing, Sales & Service
J. C. McDougall Vice-President, Maintenance & Engineering
J. R. McMurthy Vice-President, Central Region
B.	F. Miller
Vice-President, Atlantic Canada Region
L. M. Raverty
Senior Vice-President, Technical Operations
W. J. Reid
Vice-President & Treasurer W. J. A. Rowe
Vice-President, Western Region
C.	H. Simpson
Vice-President, Flight Operation
F. Vallee-Ouellet Secretary of the Company
R. T. Vaughan
Senior Vice-President, Legal & Government Affairs
J. Whitelaw
Senior Vice-President, Fluman Resources
H.	J. Whitton
Vice-President, Operational Planning & Control
I.	H. Asper, Q.C. (Lawyer)
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer CanWest Capital Corporation
Jacques Bock, B.Sc. (Businessman) President
Bock et Tetreau Inc.
Harry G. Colwell (Lawyer)
Partner
Gilbert, McGloan, Gillis
Michael G. DeGroote (Businessman) President & Chief Executive Officer Laidlaw Transportation Limited (est. 1961)
Lawrence C. Jolivet (Businessman) President, Oakwood Holdings Ltd.,
& Christopher Lawrence Ltd.
Arthur J. LeBlanc (Lawyer)
Partner
LeBlanc, MacDonald & Pickup Barristers & Solicitors
Pierre Levasseur (Management Consultant)
President Groupe Levasseur
Robert S. Lucenti (Lawyer)
Senior Partner Lucenti & Rivard
J.	W. McLoughlan (Businessman) President
McLoughlan Supplies Limited
W. T. Molloy (Lawyer)
Senior Partner MacDermid & Company
Branny Schepanovich (Lawyer) Barrister & Solicitor McCuaig Desrochers


Mr. Howie: 1900 Lakeview Square Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3C 3H8
601 Cote de Liesse, Coin de Stinson Montreal, Quebec H4N 2N1
Harbour Building 133 Prince William Street Box 7174, Postal Station "A" Saint John, N.B. E2L4S6
110 King Street West Suite 490 Hamilton, Ontario
8th Floor 595 Howe St.
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 2T5
301 Pitt Street P.O. Box 700
Port Hawkesbury, N.S. B0E 2V0
910 Lagauchetiere St. East Montreal, Quebec H2L 2N4
108 Main Street East North Bay, Ont. P1B IA8
22 Blackmarsh Road P.O. Box 877
St. John's, Nfld. A 1C 5L7
905-201-21st Street E. Saskatoon, Sask. S7K 0B8
1824 Royal Trust Tower Edmonton Centre Edmonton, Alberta T5J 2Z2


[Stage Direction]
What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Farm Credit Corporation and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that position in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983?
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises:
Board of Directors
Geno F. Francolini, F.C.A.	Tillsonburg Town Center
(Chairman: Interim Part-Time)	Suite 100, Tillsonburg, Ont.
Vice Chairman of the Board	N4G 5A7
Chief Executive Officer Livingston International Inc.
(a)
E. H. Anderson P. Babey G. I. Trant E. J. J. Doyle R. Lambert C. T. Palmer I. Perlich
(b)
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member

March 21, 1984
Order Paper Questions
The Chairman and Vice-Chairman are full-time executives and their salaries are $73,000-585,920 and $61,090-571,890 respectively. Other members who are not employed by the federal Government receive a $200 per diem allowance fixed by the Governor in Council for each day in attendance at Corporation meetings. However, Dr. Trant does not receive an honorarium due to his position with the federal Government.


Mr. Howie: Did the Atomic Energy Control Board establish standards for workers exposed to radioactive substances and, if so, is this information available to the general public and, if so, where?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy Control Board reports as follows: Yes, AECB has established standards for workers exposed to radioactive substances. This information is available upon request either by telephone or by mail from AECB.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Are any exempt staff employed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, if so, what are their (a) titles (b) positions (c) names?
2.	Do any of the staff mentioned in part I receive income, financial assistance or other benefits related to their employment from sources other than the ministerial budget and, if so (a) which members (b) what are the details of the income, financial assistance or other benefits?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes, as follows:
(a), (b) and (c) Justyna Kuryllowicz, executive assistant to the Minister; Judy Blanchard, private secretary to the Minister; Robert Benoit, senior policy advisor; William Babcock, senior special assistant; Peter Black, special assistant; Steven Megannety, special assistant; Jean Parri, special assistant.
2. No.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 182 could be
made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 182 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of Employment and Immigration and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words on Bill C-21. However, before I do so I would like to present an amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-21 as follows:
That all of the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount required to meet the Government's needs to the end of the fiscal year is objectionable in principle and this House therefore declines to give second reading to Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority."
March 21, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think it is incumbent upon me to take the matter under advisement. I will attempt to render a decision on the acceptability of the motion presented by the Hon. Member later this day. In the meantime, we will carry on with debate.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, we have had a good many of these Bills presented to us in this Parliament. It is rather staggering to go over some of them. We have had presented to us Bill C-30 for $12 billion; Bill C-59 for $14 billion; Bill C-l 11 for $6.6 billion; Bill C-125 for $7 billion; Bill C-151 for $10.7 billion. Now we have a Bill before us, Bill C-21, for the highest amount, some $29.55 billion. This brings the total to $102 billion all in one Parliament, and we are still going.
This Bill, as we are all aware, is to pay for past borrowing. One third of tax dollars are used to service our national debt. Our national debt could be as high as $180 billion, most of it because of this Government. All Canadians should realize that governments borrow money just like individuals. However, when the Government goes to market and asks for $29 billion, it has the effect of driving up interest rates for everyone else. This is precisely what is happening today.
I am well aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Government needs money to operate. It needs money just to pay interest on its debt. However, I believe the Canadian people have already made up their minds as to what they are going to do with this Government when the next election comes along. They are going to say we have had enough of them, we are going to give them their walking papers. Kick the rascals out.
A lot of us are interested in how this money being sought is going to be spent, Mr. Speaker. Rather than just saying it should not be passed, some of us might like to make some suggestions as to what could be done. Certainly it has been a profligate Government. It has been handing out money like a drunken sailor to various pet charities, shall we say. I refer to such programs as the Winter Works Program and others in ridings throughout the country. Coincidentally, the lion's share of this money seems to fall in Liberal ridings, primarily those of Cabinet Ministers.
I suggest that the Government could use a considerable amount of money this year and in succeeding years to combat one of the greatest and most serious problems we have, that of acid rain. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) is meeting with his counterparts from nine European countries as well as from the ten provinces. I hope they are going to come to some conclusions and that the federal and provincial Governments will put their money where their mouth is. They should enact legislation to reduce nitric oxide emissions from automobiles and sulphur dioxide emissions from these huge smelters.
Canada is certainly a fairly substantial polluter, emitting some five million tons a year. This compares to our American friends' emissions of 25 million tons a year. Comparing that on a population basis it should be more or less ten to one, so we are certainly not lily white by any manner or means. I therefore hope this Government will take positive steps in this
Borrowing Authority Act
area this year, because it will only have the power to do so for this year.
The Government also spends a good deal of money advertising itself. We see these full-page ads extolling the Ministers and their Departments, and that runs into many millions of dollars. Despite the high powered advertising by the soap companies and various others, the biggest advertiser, the biggest spender, is the federal Government. It is about time it looked to cutting down on advertising considerably. Another particular interest of mine is the tourist industry, the second most important industry in Canada. It generates $18 billion a year. There will be some comments about that tomorrow because I believe the Opposition Day motion will be on the tourist industry, and the Government should be doing more to help this industry which employs 1.1 million people. The name of the game is to get more people back to work, which will turn the economy around. I am hoping some things can be done in that area.
We have some real prizes when it comes to subsidizing various Departments. I am thinking particularly of Crown corporations. I think of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has been referred to by many people as the "crazy broadcasting corporation" and it is costing the taxpayers about $900 million a year.


Mr. Masters:: About the same as public broadcasting in the U.S.


Stan Darling: I am well aware of that. However, it is a $900 million expenditure. When a great event takes place here in the House of Commons, the Budget or the Prime Minister's resignation, when you go out front you see the whole place is cluttered up with CBC trucks. CTV and Global, which manage to put out pretty good programs, do not need all that paraphernalia. It makes you wonder how much of this $900 million touch could be cut considerably. Canada Post is a Crown corporation which is supposed to deliver the mail within a reasonable time at reasonable expense. We do not expect Canada Post to operate as a self-sufficient entity right now. A lot of Members are taking a very dim view of Canada Post going into the general store business to try to raise money which will put small business people out of business. That is another area into which the Government should check.
There is also the $4 billion slush fund, which is a reserve fund for whatever the Government is going to do. There is a Bill for $25 billion as well as the $4 billion. Maybe this is to be held as a special election fund to bring out additional goodies to try to save the Government as it slides downward into oblivion. I see you are signalling to me, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a few minutes to make some remarks this afternoon on Bill C-21, which is an Act to provide borrowing authority to the Government for $29.55 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85. This is made up of $25.6 billion for financial requirements and
2294

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
an extra $4 billion for unseen contingencies. Individual people in the House of Commons are going to be asked to vote to put the country into almost $30 billion worth of debt.
The word "debt" is a word we do not hear too often in the House I am afraid. It is a word I heard very clearly when I was growing up. Like many other people of my age in the House, I grew up when times were tough. It was a time of depression. One word that I can remember being taught was a bad word is the word "debt". It meant that we were not able to pay for what we were doing. The budget at our home was nothing compared to what we are talking about today.I would like all Members in the House to consider what debt does and what it means to borrow and put people into debt. Even though debt is now talked about in billions of dollars, it is not unlike the debt which was in people's homes during the depression. In homes and communities it meant that people were going to go broke. They were not going to be able to continue living the way they had been prior to the depression. It is important that Houses of parliament and governments do not forget the word "debt". When times became good again people took for granted that they could always get credit. The word debt became credit. I suspect the Government is looking upon this Bill today as if it were raising credit. It in fact remains debt, which is something that has to be paid off.
We must be aware that the problem of debt has brought governments, people and countries down. In the last few years some of the countries in Latin America which were taking off and beginning to become developed countries, suddenly got into the debt trap. This means they can no longer pay their debts. When that happens, the country goes down. It may come up or it may not come up. This is a new phenomenon in world international economic life.
I brought those points to the forefront in beginning my remarks because I believe that we do not frequently talk about debt. We do not talk about what debt does. We do not talk about the fact that if debt gets out of hand it can be totally destructive to a person, a family, a community or a country. I believe that is a serious situation which we have to keep in mind.
Several years ago the Government was elected under the phrase "a just society". I have no quarrel with that phrase. I believe it is a good phrase. I am sure there is not anyone in the House of Commons or in Canada who would not want to see a just society. I understand a just society to mean that every person within that society is treated in a way that is human and equal so as to make it possible for them to live a full life. I do not think anyone challenges that notion. However, did that happen? Was there a just society? Did that come about simply because it was said? Or, on the other hand, has it not been a just society? Is it a society which is not being just to great sectors of the population? I believe it is not being just. I do not believe that simply because we are going to borrow $30 billion, society will become just. I would like to say a few things about that.
To bring about justice in a society it is extremely important to remember the side which is weak, the side which has no
power, the poor, those who do not have political connections. Remember them before you remember the side which is powerful, the side that does have political connections, the side that has wealth. To bring that just society about, those on the weak side must be looked after in a special way in order for them to live as human beings. I believe that is not the way the decisions are made.
Earlier today in Question Period my Leader made a simple statement about who became rich during the past year and who will get richer in the future. He used the Canadian banks as an example. The profits of the Toronto-Dominion were up 33.6 per cent last year. The profits of the Canadian Imperial Bank were up 59.8 per cent. The profits of the Bank of Nova Scotia were up 66 per cent. The profits of the Royal Bank of Canada were up 130.3 per cent. Profit is not a bad word. However, millions of young Canadians cannot get a job. Universities are not getting funding to allow young Canadians to go to school and become educated so they can go out and make their own living. As a senior citizen who is visiting from Saskatoon told me today, people cannot possibly live on $550 a month when their rent is $325 a month. How can they possibly live like human beings?
When we talk about borrowing money to bring about justice in a society, let us be very careful to see what is happening in the society. I believe that for the powerful, rich and those who have connections things have been good and are getting better. The example of the banks is a case in point. On the other hand, the odds of those who are poor, weak and do not have connections are poor and getting poorer. The weak are the young, unemployed, senior citizens and people in the middle who can no longer get a job. I do not believe that what is taking place in our country now is balancing that off so that there will and can be a just society, one to which we are all looking forward and which we want.
Who got the tax breaks in the recent Budget? Was it those who do not have anything, the poor? Did they benefit? No. The people in the upper income brackets were able to put money away in RRSPs. A person with a $50,000 income is able to save $1,600 on his taxes. Those who happen to be in a higher bracket, those who make over $86,000, were able to save $5,000 on their taxes. But will they be the ones who will pay the money? It is not the people in those brackets but the low income Canadians who will still be forced to pay at least another $9.2 billion in personal income tax as it was announced in the Budget last year.
That is what is happening to Canadians. I believe that when there is power on one side and weakness on the other, connections on one side and no connections on the other, the burden should go to those who have the power, strength and economic backing rather than upon those who do not.
We oppose this borrowing Bill on the grounds that it does not set out the correct priorities. Our experience in the House shows that the priorities are not being directed toward those who need the help most; they are being directed toward those
March 21, 1984

who already have economic power. 1 believe that is wrong. For that reason we are opposing the Bill.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, when Bills come to the House of Commons we often look at them with a good deal of curiosity and sometimes with skepticism because the appearance of the Bills themselves are somewhat deceptive. 1 would say that this particular qualification applies to Bill C-21, the Bill requesting borrowing authority.
The Bill appears to be very simplistic because it is a two-page document with printing on one side only. One would not think that it amounted to much, yet what this Bill asks Parliament to do is to give the Government the authority to borrow almost S30 billion. The real effect of this Bill is to emphasize the lack of control that Parliament has over the spending of the Government. With its present majority, the Government can come to the House and force through a borrowing Bill for any amount of money while believing that it will get the acquiescence from this side of the House and be able to spend that money as it pleases.
During this debate and other debates, such as the Budget debate, my colleagues and I have been emphasizing the frightening size of the Government's deficit and the tremendous impact that it is having on the Canadian economy. When one considers the deficit, more than $30 billion now, it is the most significant road block to a sustained economic recovery in this country. It prevents the opportunity for 1.5 million Canadians to return to the paid labour force. It is a millstone around our necks and more so around the necks of those who are unemployed.
Whenever the Government ends its fiscal year with a deficit, as it did last year, the year before and as it will this year, the shortfall that it creates does not suddenly disappear or go away. Instead, it is added to the long-term national debt, a national debt which we know is increasing by leaps and bounds and on which we must pay mounting interest year after year. In turn, that interest payment increases the deficit. It is on a merry-go-round that we cannot seem to get off. The Government brings in additional moneys in borrowing to increase that deficit and, in turn, the interest charges go up as the national debt increases.
This year alone the interest charges will be $20 billion. That is some $800 for every man, woman and child in this country. Just last week those interest charges increased by some $750 million in one week alone. That was due to the fact that the Government's high interest policy allowed the prime rate to climb another notch higher.
The Bill before us today-this innocuous looking little Bill-illustrates most clearly that the Government has yet to come to grips with the roller coaster impact that its fiscal and monetary policies are having on the Canadian economy. Bill C-21 seeks authority to borrow some $29.5 billion, $4 billion of which is in a contingency fund.
That $4 billion calls for more than passing interest. I would say that the $4 billion which the Government says it will put
Borrowing Authority Act
aside as a contingency fund is really the Government's equivalent of mad money. It is that sort of fund that one tucks away to be there in case one feels the urge to go on a spree. All too often in recent years we have seen the Government go on a spree of wasteful spending of taxpayers' dollars. Those funds that it spends so foolishly and inefficiently on a continuous basis do not come from the pockets of government Members opposite, they come from the hard earned income of millions of Canadians who are already having enough trouble making ends meet.
The fiscal mismanagement that has been disclaimed time and again by this Government is nowhere more evident than in the way the Government allows Crown corporations to be run. This has been pointed out by many of my colleagues. Most of these Crown corporations should be, but are not, covered by this borrowing authority statute.
It is interesting to think of Crown corporations and how they operate. Crown corporations may borrow funds using the Government of Canada as a guarantor but without seeking any prior approval from Parliament. In fact, Members of Parliament are simply presented with a bill for Crown corporations without ever having had a chance to examine the expenditure plans of those corporations.
Nowhere is that more evident than in what we have seen in the last month with Canadair. Canadair came back to Parliament earlier this month to get additional funding. The Minister simply told us it would have additional funds. He did not come to Parliament to tell us that. We were told that Canadair lost $330 million in 1983. In the previous year it lost $1.4 billion. That is the largest annual loss in Canadian corporate history. Before that corporation is finally sold off, it will have cost the Canadian taxpayers some $3 billion, without any accountability for what has been done with that money.
Let us not forget that Canadair is only one out of some 300 Crown corporations that have been established in this country, all of which operate outside of borrowing Bills, such as the one that is before us today. Other examples include de Havilland which lost $226 million last year, with almost the same amount projected as a loss in the next 12 months; VIA Rail which lost $440 million in 1982-83, and Canada Post which was down by some $300 million.
Yet each of these Crown corporations, regardless of the magnitude of its losses, is allowed to continue to operate as though nothing were wrong. They need not seek additional credit at inflated interest rates. They do not have to face bank managers who are worried about repayment. They do not have to deal with the investigators and the auditors from Revenue Canada who might come along to threaten them or force them into bankruptcy for not being able to pay their taxes. No, indeed, Sir, that is not the way these Crown corporations operate. They simply spend as much as they want, usually more than they need, and then they forward the Bill to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The Minister then covers these debts without, as he told us, losing any sleep over the whole matter.

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
Who in the private sector would enjoy that kind of luxury? How many small business people can go to their local bank, refuse to pay off their past deists, and still borrow additional funds? What company can tell its stockholders that it has lost millions of dollars once again, yet continue to exist or at least not change some executives? How many farmers can hold off their bankers indefinitely while running up deficits? These things can be done by Crown corporations, but not by individuals and companies in the private sector, Mr. Speaker. Every time the Government comes before the House asking for borrowing authority, what it refuses to do is to bring Crown corporations under these borrowing authority Bills.
If there is one thing the Government should be addressing and could be addressing when it is considering asking the House for borrowing authority, it is means and mechanisms to bring Crown corporations under borrowing authority control. The newly introduced Bill C-24 does not address that, Mr. Speaker. If nothing else, in considering what the Government is doing here in asking the House today for borrowing authority, it should think of means and mechanisms to bring Crown corporations within the borrowing authority of this Parliament.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is with distressing frequency that I have found myself rising in this House to speak on Bills which seek to provide this Government with more money. Bill C-21 marks the eighth time since the election of 1980 that Parliament is being forced to provide this Government with more borrowing authority. Each time I have been shocked by the sky-rocketing deficit and the rising debt burden on Canadians. Each time I have been appalled at the colossal economic mismanagement underlying the Government's necessity thus to go into debt. And each time I have seen no end in sight, for nowhere are there signs of government restraint nor efforts to curb the kind of waste graphically described in every annual report by the Auditor General.
But the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85 is not like other borrowing Bills that we have seen and criticized in this Chamber for two reasons. The first is its magnitude; the second is its timing.
In terms of magnitude, Bill C-21 goes far beyond its predecessors. Members will recall that last year around this time the Government extracted $19 billion in borrowing authority-at that time the largest borrowing Bill in Canadian history. This year, the Government not only matches that already astronomical $19 billion, it antes up an additional $10.55 billion, over 50 percent more. By demanding $29.5 billion, Bill C-21 now has the dubious distinction of being the largest borrowing Bill ever to come before Parliament. Like a desperate gambler, this Government is taking enormous risks in order to keep playing its unfortunate game, and the stakes in this Government's gamble are nothing less than the economic wellbeing and indeed the solvency of the Canadian people.
As one indicator, the borrowing requirements in Bill C-21 are equal to 91 per cent of forecast personal savings in Canada for this year. If this borrowing Bill goes through, by the end of this fiscal year Canada's net debt will be $180 billion, as compared to $17.7 billion in March 1968. That represents $7,000 to $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in Canada. And the future looks even more grim. The Government's budgetary projections are that net debt will have risen to $261.5 billion by March, 1988, which represents almost a quadrupling in the net national debt in eight years.
Of the annual Government expenditure of $100 billion, over 30 per cent is to be financed by going into debt. Imagine if you tried to run your household accounts and you, Sir, had to borrow one-third of your expenditures? How long would you last personally? The Government can last because the Government, as opposed to Hon. Members here, can print its own money and demand money, whereas individuals cannot do that. It is absolutely unrealistic and unfair to treat Canadians that way. Interest on the debt in 1984-85 will equal 4.7 per cent of Canada's GNP as compared to 2 per cent when the Government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office. For every $3 that the Government spends it must borrow $1. In 1984-85, servicing that ever escalating debt burden will cost an estimated $20.4 billion, the equivalent of $800 for every man woman and child in Canada or $1,900 per taxpayer. The enormity of these figures is appalling. I do not know why Canadians are not rising in revolt and marching on the Government on Parliament Hill to demand that the financial enslavement they are being put into along with their children and generations yet unborn is stopped. However, they will have their opportunity to revolt. That day is coming, and coming soon.
That $20 billion required to service government debt in 1984-85 is equal to total government spending as recently as 1972-73, the very year I entered this Chamber. I am ashamed to have been part of a process, I even opposed it, for all but nine months, that has enslaved the Canadian people in this way.
The Government has a tendency to forget the speed and scale of increases in its spending and in the deficits underpinning them. Government spending has increased from $12.3 billion in 1968-69 to $96.9 billion in 1984-85, a jump of 668 percent. In the four years since the Liberals returned to office, government spending has almost doubled; spending in 1984-85 will be up by a further 9 per cent. Spending on a national accounts basis is now equal to 25 per cent of Canada's GNP; it was only 21 per cent four years ago.
Other Members of my Party have ably addressed the horrific consequences of this mess of red ink spilling all over the Government's accounts. This ever-growing interest burden, the loss of fiscal flexibility, comes at a time when we need it to fight the recession and to help its victims, and we are losing control over all sense of judgment and proportion in running our economy. We are crowding out private sector borrowing. As a consequence, unbearable interest rates are being charged
March 21, 1984

all sectors of the Canadian economy and home owners in particular. Loss of confidence in a government that so brazenly lives beyond its means is what we now face.
In brief, Bill C-21 both manifests and advances this Government along its road to economic destruction. No wonder Members on this side of the House are so vigorously opposing this Bill and will continue to do so until we are absolutely forced by the continued heavy-handed methods of this fiscally irresponsible Government to shut up. This comes at a time when it is at best inopportune and at worst inconscionable.
That brings me to my second point in the moment I have remaining, the timing of Bill C-21. Given that Bill C-21 makes such historically monstrous demands, one would have expected at the very least that it would be coming from a Government with a firm sense of direction along with a solid and lengthy mandate. Instead, the government's historic action comes at a time when its leadership is up for grabs and its mandate is about to expire. Why are the Members opposite seeking to borrow such a huge amount for a full year when they can claim to need it for only about half a year?
Next fall the country will be getting a new Budget and a revised borrowing requirement. That Budget will be the obligation of either the new but short-lived Liberal Prime Minister or, if an election is called, as the country fervently hopes and prays, a new Progressive Conservative administration. Either way, why is Parliament now being locked into a borrowing authorization beyond that which it must necessarily and can legitimately make? In short, $15 billion, half the amount demanded, would be enough to see this Government and this country through. At that time, and only at that time, new circumstances will suggest future borrowing requirements.
In conclusion, I cannot support Bill C-21 because of its thrust in general and because of the moment when it is appearing before us in particular. Every responsible Member of Parliament must oppose this Bill, and I congratulate my colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) in helping us to bring before the House in this repeated form the sincere protests that Members of Parliament on this side have against such fiscal irresponsibility.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us seeks to authorize the federal Government to borrow up to an additional $29.55 billion in new money. I want to address the Bill in relation to the Government's waste of the money it already has the authority to spend.
Yesterday, The New York Times, the United States' most prestigious newspaper, carried an extensive interview with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). Blazened across the top of the page, in large bold letters, was the headline: "Canada Betrays a weakness for White Elephants". The article detailed one horror story after another concerning federal Government expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on projects that were neither wanted, needed, nor even used once completed.
Borrowing Authority Act
I have a particular interest in the article in question because it mentioned the proposed new Charlottetown airport in my riding of Hillsborough in the same context as genuine white elephants such as Mirabel Airport, the ill-fated hydrofoil Bras D'Or, the Candu reactor and Canadair. Indeed the Minister of Transport himself raised the matter of the Charlottetown airport right in the Times interview to which I have made reference.
We in Prince Edward Island should be flattered and proud that the Minister of Transport saw fit to mention our fair isle in the middle of an interview with such a prestigious newspaper as The New York Times. But listen to what the Minister had to say in that interview.
To begin with, the Minister of Transport tried to explain how the federal Government could spend some $430 million building an airport like Mirabel, which the Times describe as "a national symbol of disastrous planning", representative of "extravagant Government projects that stand out in sharp contrast to the frugality of the Canadian people themselves." What was the Minister's explanation for such waste, such profligacy, such extravagance? He said, and I quote:
With so much reliance on the federal Government (for airport construction), there are no constraints to limit design or planning from an economic point of view. Unlike the U.S., airports (in Canada) are a federal concern with no provincial or metropolitan oversight. So, who is going to complain that we are building Taj Mahals? As a result, we have a lot of Taj Mahals.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker, the Minister's explanation for federal Government waste of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. He says there are no constraints on the federal Government from the provinces and the municipalities. He says the federal Government can go on spending millions of dollars at will because there is no one to stop it from building Taj Mahals.
I want to bring to the attention of the House the Minister's primary example of the kind of waste to which he was making reference. It was not Mirabel, which has cost the taxpayers $800 million since it was built nine years ago, including the $430 million in initial construction costs. He did not refer to Canadair, Bras D'Or or any of these multimillion dollar projects that in most cases were a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money. He cited, for all the world to see and to read in The New York Times, the Charlottetown airport. The Minister said the following to The New York Times:
Only three airports in the country make any money, and right now we are spending $25 million on a new terminal building for Charlottetown.
I want to take issue not with The New York Times but rather with the Minister himself. How could he possibly imply that Charlottetown's new airport can be associated with Mirabel or with other such profligate wastes of taxpayers' money? He calls the Charlottetown airport a Taj Mahal. Let me set the facts straight.
First, the Government is not spending $25 million on a new terminal building for Charlottetown. The building itself will cost $7.1 million. The total redevelopment of the airport- including control tower, runway, land acquisition, water and sewage, vehicle parking and access roads, maintenance, garage

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
and firehall-is $27 million. By any reasonable standard, that amount is not extravagant for the complete modernization of an airport that is nearly half a century old and that the Minister's predecessor described in the House of Commons as antiquated and a disgrace, not only to his Department but to the entire country.
Second, whatever might be the amount being spent on the Charlottetown airport, construction of the new terminal building has not even begun. The project was announced seven years ago, in 1977, with great fanfare by the then Premier of the province, Alex Campbell, and the then Minister of Transport, Otto Lang. Ever since that time construction of the new terminal building has been delayed time after time. Indeed, the present P.E.I. Minister in the federal Cabinet-whom I am very fond of and whom I see in the House today, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell)-has announced tenders for construction not once but several times in the last four years. Yet I have been told by officials within the Department of Transport that construction of the new airport terminal will not begin this summer, next fall or next winter. It is not even likely that tenders will be invited by July 1. This means that the construction of the airport is not likely to happen in 1985 and perhaps not even in 1986. This is almost a full decade, Sir, after the facility was announced with great ballyhoo by Messrs. Campbell and Lang.
The new Charlottetown airport is not a Taj Mahal as described by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). It is not even a fishing shack. In fact, it is nothing, because no construction has begun and no tenders have been issued. Islanders are wondering, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, whether they will ever see a new terminal building constructed.
Tourism is the second largest industry on Prince Edward Island. The federal Government, the provincial Government, the City of Charlottetown and the private sector have combined to build a magnificent $32 million Convention Centre. We are soon to receive one of only four veterinary colleges in the country, thus rendering Prince Edward Island a major educational centre. In conclusion, we need a modern and efficient airport to get people and goods to and from the Province of Prince Edward Island and to help us become more self-sufficient and self-sustaining.
An airport is not a luxury and will not be a Taj Mahal. It is a vital part of the economic base of the province. I urge the Minister of Transport to view this important project in that light. I urge him to consider it as a vital economic tool for regional development. If he is not prepared to accelerate this project and particularly to issue tenders soon, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that after the next election a new Progressive Conservative Government will be prepared to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I would like to inform the House at this time that I am prepared to rule on the amendment proposed earlier in the debate by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). The Chair finds the amendment acceptable.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments with regard to the Bill which is before us. I do not propose to take a great deal of time. I am delighted that you have chosen to accept the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) inasmuch as I do believe that it is inappropriate for the Government to ask permission of the House of Commons to borrow more money than it can demonstrate it needs to meet the current obligations for the present fiscal year.
As usual, the Government has asked for more dollars by way of borrowing authority than it can actually demonstrate that it requires. I therefore would put it to you, Sir, that if the Government really wants to receive approval for some borrowing, it would be advisable for it to come forward with an alternative piece of legislation. Whether one does or does not favour the concept of borrowing, there is no doubt in my mind that given the obligations of the Government to date and given what we know its obligations will be during the balance of this year, borrowing in some amount will be required in order to meet the on-going financial requirements of the nation.
I have pondered for some time whether government borrowing in itself is the reason for the economic chaos in the country or the consequence of the economic chaos in the country. There is an argument being advanced by members of the Official Opposition that borrowing is the reason for the economic chaos. I am not at all sure that that argument can be sustained in whole. I think that there is a certain element of truth to it but I do not believe that it is in fact accurate to say that all of the problems we now face are the result of the Government's borrowing during the last two to three years.
I think it would be more accurate to say that the reason why we face such difficult economic times is because the Government has mismanaged the economy. It has allowed interest rates to reach levels unprecedented in Canadian history. As a result of that action, hundreds of thousands of people have been driven out of business. There have been more bankruptcies in Canada than we have seen since the depression of the 1930s. Farmers in numbers far exceeding those which faced bankruptcy in the 1930s are now facing bankruptcy and losing their business. Individuals were faced with the inability to meet mortgage commitments on their family homes and were forced to lose all of their investments. I suspect that rather than being the reason for our economic chaos, borrowing is the consequence of our economic chaos.
I wish to look at this situation for a moment in light of what has happened since 1980. In addition to the things which I have already mentioned as being unacceptable consequences of actions on the part of the Government, we have also seen the cost to Government rise dramatically since 1980. The cost that must be borne by the taxpayer either through current taxes or the future burden of the cost of borrowing that we have undertaken as a nation in the last four or five years has risen dramatically. We have seen an economy which operated at 65 per cent of its capacity with a consumer market place reduced
March 21, 1984

considerably as a result of tremendous dislocation in the work place. Up to two million people were unemployed and unable to enter the consumer market place to buy the things they themselves, their neighbours and their friends all across the country were in the process or should have been in the process of manufacturing.
There are two consequences as a result of having two million people unemployed. The first consequence is that the day-today needs of the unemployed must be met either through unemployment insurance or welfare payments. That, therefore, adds a considerable sum to the cost side on top of the already large sums of money spent by the Government. Concurrently, it reduces on the tax side the amounts of money which normally would have been collected from those people who, had they been working, would have been earning money and paying taxes. By pursuing a policy which allowed two million people to become unemployed, the Government created a situation which inevitably resulted in the Government having to borrow more money. The Government reduced the tax base while at the same time taking on additional responsibilities on the expenditure side. It makes sense, does it not? I see that there is a lady in the gallery who is nodding her head. Yes, it does make sense and I agree.


An Hon. Member:: She is probably your mother.


Ian Deans: No, she is not my mother. She is obviously someone's mother but she is not mine.
Because of decreased productivity, there was a decrease across the board in the numbers of items sold which in turn decreased the amount of sales tax collectable, the amount of corporate tax chargeable and which further decreased the numbers of tax dollars that normally would flow to the Government. You can see the dilemma if you take into account those factors together with any number of factors including that the Government had to spend large sums in order to try to create employment in areas where unemployment levels had gone out of sight.
The Government's economic policy brought forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) created the unemployment, the economic downturn, the situation where the tax base was eroded, the situation where the costs of doing business increased for most people, the situation where the Government required people to spend more money than they would otherwise have to spend, the end result of which was that it was forced to borrow more than it would otherwise have had to borrow.
If one were to level an indictment at the Government it would be that it pursued a policy which completely undermined the economy of Canada. I therefore say that the consequence is that because the Government is not now in a position to improve economic conditions given that it will not alter its headlong dash toward economic meanness, more people will be unemployed year after year, of course, there will be the need for even more borrowing. Either that or for those
Borrowing Authority Act
people still employed we will have to raise the level of taxation. The New Democratic Party would fight that because we know who would have to bear the additional burden. It would not be the Bank of Montreal or the corporate structure; it would be the average taxpayer.
For those reasons I should like to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the word "fiscal" in the fourth line of the amendment be struck out and replaced with the word "calendar".
The consequence of such action would be that the Government should not be authorized to borrow more today than it requires for its expenditures in this calendar year. It would have to return to the House of Commons at the end of the calendar year for approval for additional borrowing and to allow for further scrutiny of its economic policies. That would necessitate the Government's reducing the amount it is seeking from about $25 billion-I leave it to the Government to make that calculation although I could do it-to an amount in the order of $18 billion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before putting the motion to the House the Chair would like to reserve its decision and take the matter under advisement and come back to the House at the earliest opportunity with a ruling on the acceptability of the motion.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I like the motion submitted by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) to the effect that the Government might have to come back to Parliament to ask for the funds it needs and that its borrowing under this Bill would be limited to its needs in this calendar year. If only we could persuade the Government that it should come back on its knees, in abject submission, because it has bungled the economy of Canada in a manner which should make every Member who sits in this Chamber-at least those on this side-feel ashamed.
It is in shame that I stand here to castigate the Government on the record it has built for itself on economic and fiscal matters in this country. It is not just for this generation that I feel shame, Mr. Speaker, but also for the younger generation. Every child born today or any day this year will start life burdened with a debt of $7,000 which is the debt that each of us bears right now.
Yesterday I had a letter from a constituent who was being harassed by the Department of National Revenue. He has a mortgage of something like $7,000, which is a lot of money for many people. Because of the Government's bungling, each child starting life as of now will have a $7,000 debt on his or her back. That is a shameful admission to have to make, Mr. Speaker.
This morning the Canadian dollar stood at 78.20 cents compared to the U.S. dollar. It has climbed a little bit. Treasury bills were quoted at 10.45 per cent earlier today which suggests to me that when the Bank of Canada rate is announced tomorrow at one o'clock it will be in the order of

Borrowing Authority Act
10.70 per cent. This is a sign that the Government does not know what it is doing in the fiscal sphere. It has squandered money. Profligacy is not the right word. There must be a stronger one but it does not come to mind, Mr. Speaker. If the bank rate is 10.70 per cent tomorrow, then what will mortgage rates be on Friday or next Monday? Where will people be who have to renegotiate a mortgage? In the last 10 days or so interest rates have gone up and there are signs that this will continue.
I do not quite know how to direct the attention of Members on the government side of the House to the reality of this Bill. I notice they are not contributing to the debate. Perhaps there is some shame over there. Perhaps they find it difficult to defend a Bill which seeks authority to borrow $29.5 billion, $4 billion of which is to be kept in reserve over and above what is currently needed. I suspect many Members opposite do not know just how much $29.5 billion is. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I am at a bit of a loss myself to know how much it is.
I will refer to the documents which were presented with the Budget. One of the documents which was presented at that time is entitled The Fiscal Plan. It is worth reading. It reveals and awful lot of things. Between 1973 and 1974 the national debt was pretty close to the amount of the borrowing authority we are debating today. In 1974-75 the expenditures of government climbed from $24.1 billion to $31.3 billion. So in that year the full expenditures of government were of the order of this particular borrowing. The deficit foreseen by this Government for this borrowing authority is of this order as well, give or take $1 billion or $2 billion.
I suppose we have become so used to talking in billions of dollars that we can easily give or take $1 billion or $2 billion. But it is a staggering thought, Mr. Speaker, that expenditures ten years ago equalled what is today the deficit. I looked at some of the tables on page 62 of the booklet The Fiscal Plan, which was presented with the Budget on February 15. At the time when we had to face our debt around the end of the war in 1946 and 1947, it is surprising to note that the net public debt-which, of course, does not include the Crown corporation borrowing, grants and so on-was $13 billion, which represented at that time 110 per cent of the Gross National Product. In other words, there was more national debt than there was Gross National Product. The net public debt was $13 billion after a war which lasted five years.
I mentioned that the net public debt for 1975-76 was $28 billion. In 1976-77 it was $34 billion. The preliminary estimate of the Government of the net public debt for 1983-84 is $150 billion, which represents 38 per cent of the Gross National Product. This percentage has been growing out of control. We now have 38 per cent of the Gross National Product represented by debt in this country. This is our gift to our young people. This is what makes me so ashamed, Mr. Speaker. We are loading on to the pages in this House, the children of the
people in the galleries and on our own children a debt of this enormity, and that is shameful.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is now prepared to rule on the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The Chair finds that the amendment is acceptable.


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my comments on Bill C-21 on the record today. I know it is the general practice of Hon. Members to say, when they rise to speak in debate, that it is a pleasure or an honour to participate. I cannot use those words today, Mr. Speaker. We have had many debates in this House on Bills which have been put forward by this Government asking for borrowing authority. I feel that what we should do is recycle our speeches because what my colleagues and I have said on previous occasions applies on this occasion as well.
I said to the Government at an earlier time with respect to other borrowing bills: "Do not come back and ask for more". But once again this advice was rejected. However, if those other requests for borrowing authority were extreme in terms of the amount of borrowing authority requested, they pale in comparison to Bill C-21. The Government is asking this Parliament to give authority to borrow an additional $29.5 billion.
If one says that quickly enough and does not analyze what is behind that statement, one might say that is just another typical statement made in the House of Commons. But let us analyze just what the situation is. The Government is saying that it needs this kind of borrowing in order to tide itself over for a specific period of time. There is no knowledge in this House at the moment that this amount of borrowing will be sufficient to take the Government through to the end of the fiscal year in March, 1985. There is no evidence of that whatsoever.
What the Government wants, by its own admission in this House, is a certain amount of money which it can prove it needs to carry on the functions of government. Then additionally it wants a slush fund, a contingency fund, a fund which it can have in its back pocket, so to speak, so that it does not have to come back and have the onerous task of asking Parliament for more borrowing authority. The greater tragedy though, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government has such a legacy of borrowing, and Canada now has such a large structural debt, that long after we are gone from this place and this earth, and long after those who are younger than we are are gone, that debt will still remain. In fact, today we do not pay for our debt. All we do is take a major portion of our revenue and pay the servicing of the debt, the interest.
Government really should be no different from any other household. When one has mortgaged a house, one cannot get a second mortgage to pay for the groceries. That is what the Government is asking this House to do again today. It is a shame what this Liberal Government has done to the Canadian people. It is a shame that today, other than health care costs and post-secondary education, the largest expenditure on the Public Accounts of Canada is debt servicing. It is a shame
March 21, 1984

that Canadians yet unborn will have to pay for this debt. It is a shame for Canadians who want to maintain social security safety nets, pensions, health care and post-secondary education. Those very programs, valid in each and every case, are today jeopardized because of the profligate spending and economic mismanagement of this Government.
The legacy of this Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker, should not be forgotten. Every Hon. Member of this House should take it upon himself or herself to remind Canadians that that legacy will be the long-term legacy of this Government, and the people who will pay for it are those who have not even had an opportunity to vote against this Government. It is absolutely inexcusable that we are looking at expenditures of some $90 billion, some $30 billion of which must be financed with money we do not have. Then, when interest rates are starting to climb, what does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) say? "Oh, I do not think we have any trend; no, I do not see any great problem". Well, Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a tremendous problem. All you have to do is look at the headlines in today's papers. We are seeing the spectre of rising interest rates.
That is the tragedy of this Government's profligate spending. In some cases people lost their businesses and homes in the interest rate crunch of 22 per cent or 23 per cent. Others survive through various means, such as restraint or personal adjustment. But if interest rates begin to rise again, and I suggest they do not have to go to 22 per cent or 23 per cent, merely to 15 per cent or 17 per cent, what do Canadians do?


Mr. Young;: Throw these guys out, obviously.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That is one thing that should happen. But what do they do to survive? They have made all kinds of adjustments, rationalized expenditures, and what do they do on the second go-round? Do Members opposite know the percentage of total borrowing by Government in this country today? I understand it is 90 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It is 93 per cent.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is 93 per cent. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how can this Government come shamelessly to this House and the Canadian people and say: "Give us another $29 billion and it will not have any effect on you. Do not worry, Canadians; governments do not have to pay debts". You have heard that argument, Mr. Speaker. But yes, they do, and you know how they pay for it. It is we who pay, through higher interest rates, when people cannot afford their homes and lose their businesses. We pay for it when people lose their farms. That is why you have farm survival groups breaking out in western Canada. They are trying to survive.
The greatest tragedy of all, Mr. Speaker, is that this Government has mortgaged away the future of Canada. When you take away the right to dream and the possibility that that dream will be fulfilled, when you remove that vision from people, then the country is desperate in the extreme. Members
Borrowing Authority Act
of this House have gone through the west door in this House of Commons. They have looked at the Peace Tower to their left as they have walked out. Over the arch there are biblical words to the effect that where there is no vision, the people perish. What has happened across the country today is that Canadians are losing their dreams and visions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mortgaging them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Their future is being mortgaged because this Government decides it knows best how to spend the people's money.
I look forward to the next election, Mr. Speaker, because I want to place the record of this Liberal Government before the Canadian people. I will dig out every one of my speeches on every one of the borrowing Bills the Government has brought forward and I will repeat those speeches in the small towns of my riding. I have found when you talk to the people, when you are square with them, they say that we must get back to economic management. The potential of this country is so great, but this Liberal Government has betrayed the heritage of Canadians. The best thing we can do is defeat this Bill and then go to an election and defeat this Government.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate I felt it might be helpful if we tried to put what we are talking about into better perspective. We can talk in terms of $20 billion or $29 billion of borrowing authority, and most of us, including me, have no way of relating to that amount of money. But I think it is important to remember that if you accept the budgetary projections of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) as tabled on February 15 in this House, it means that for every dollar of revenue the Government anticipates collecting, it is spending $1.50. In short, the Government is out of whack as far as income and expenditures are concerned by 50 per cent.
The reason I say that is that often you will hear people say that the interest on the debt alone in Canada is responsible for 20 cents of every dollar of expenditure. True, but the more significant point is that when you consider every dollar of income the Government is actually receiving, whether the revenue and expenditures are matched or not, the Government has to earmark over 30 cents of that dollar to pay interest on existing debt. We are facing a situation where the debt of this nation by 1990 will have doubled once again from its current level. That is why I agree with my colleagues when they reflect their concern in this debate over this borrowing authority Bill. The fact is, if we go on with this type of irresponsible Government spending, the world will set us straight eventually. The world will only accept so much of our debt and then they start asking questions.
That has already begun. A few months ago, for the first time in many years, we found that an issue of the Government of Canada did not sell well on international markets. The result was that the current issue announced only yesterday, maturing in the year 2004, was sold to yield 13.6 per cent. Imagine, the Canadian covenant is now such that to raise

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
money we have to pay the lender over 13.5 per cent. In a little over five years the cumulative effect of that interest rate doubles the debt. Just divide 13.6 into 72 and you get the number of years it takes to double the debt.
In short, if this nation persists with the type of gang which has been running the country to date, with its irresponsible handling of our finances, we are headed for the bankruptcy world courts. This is completely inevitable. The IMF is what we call the bankruptcy world court. It is the one that calls you in. It tells you that until you sober up there are certain terms and conditions which you must live by in order to get bailout credit. That is not a nice experience for any people to have to live through.
The forerunner to this may be a questioning of our current credit rating. We have a high credit rating now but the first step will be to move it downwards. That makes it more difficult and costly to raise money. If you do not correct the outflow and arrest the demand for the borrowed funds, eventually some outside group such as the International Monetary Fund has to come in. You are a basket case and they have to bail you out.
Why did we get into this position, Mr. Speaker? Why are we in a position where an irresponsible government now feels there is nothing it can do to correct the matter? Most of the Members who were in the House from 1972 on will recall where this began. It began when we had a Minister of Finance who is sometimes referred to as "blue eyes", John Turner. He introduced the country to the concept of peacetime deficit financing. Up until 1972 we had a relatively balanced position at the federal Government level. We were even in surplus some years prior to 1972. He took that record of a relatively balanced position and plunged us into deep deficit financing to the point that when he left in 1975 the deficit was $5.5 billion. Before he left he also indexed income taxes. However, he forgot to put the other side of the equation in place. He forgot to listen to our then Leader, Mr. Stanfield, who said that indexing of income taxes would cut off the tax dividends which they had been relying on, but would also ensure some type of restraint on the part of government. No government would responsibly bring in an indexed income tax system without having a corresponding program to keep costs under control.
By cutting off our revenue, Mr. Turner cut off the revenue that was then mounting every year, but he did not cut off the expenditure growth. From 1972 to 1975 there was a systematic putting into place of spending programs which was aided and abetted by the socialists to our left. No costing in a five-year sense was ever made of those programs. As a net result costs have soared, there is no revenue to cover them and we have the scenario which I indicated at the beginning of my speech where we are now spending $1.50 for every $1 of income. This means we have to borrow and ask future generations to pay for our irresponsibility in the late 1970s and 1980s.
This gang must be swept out of office. It does not matter what Leader they choose, they have all had their hand in this
mess. None of them knows how to get us out of this and it is time they are all swept out of power.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85. I am also pleased to have been able to second the amendment to this Bill before us which was moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). This amendment would effectively reduce the amount of money the Government is asking for from $29.5 billion to $18 billion. We feel that the total amount being requested by the Government is outrageous, but if it were reduced by the sum of $11 billion it would be brought into manageable proportions at least.
In our view the Government is asking the House to buy a pig in a poke. It has given no indication of how it intends to spend this $29.5 billion. I was particularly interested in the rather disparaging remarks made by the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). He stands and complains about the spending of the Liberal Government. He uses the old saw of trying to blame the NDP for that. I would like to hear the Hon. Member for York-Peel tell us which social programs he would be prepared to cut in order to reduce government spending limits.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about your salary?


Neil Young: It is all very well to blame the NDP for all that is owed in the country. If I were a millionaire like the Hon. Member for York-Peel, I might be prepared to consider salary cuts all around. However, I am not.
We would be particularly interested in having the Government come into the House and tell us specifically how it intends to spend this money. We would like to know whether it intends to spend the money for socially productive uses or whether, as the Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) indicated, it is going to use part of that $29.5 billion as a slush fund for the Liberal Party to re-elect some of its own Members. If the Government were to indicate that it intended to spend some of that money to alleviate the tremendous problems in the country with providing adequate, reasonable and affordable housing to the many Canadians who are in such desperate need of it, that would be acceptable.
The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto has recently released a report entitled "A New Housing Agenda for Metropolitan Toronto". In that report it is pointed out that there are some 70,000 households which already require some form of rent geared to income housing or will require it within 15 years. The report advocates an assisted housing target of some 4,500 units per year to address this need. Through CMHC in the past year the Government has actually reduced the amount of funding that would be available to municipalities to provide adequate, affordable housing. It is having a terrible effect on areas like Metropolitan Toronto and other major urban centres across the country.
March 21, 1984

If the Government were to look at providing a real stimulus to housing construction in this country, even as a job-creation measure, it would go a long way toward alleviating the terrible unemployment that exists. It has been proven by government figures which are available that for every one job that is created in housing construction, another four jobs are created in spin-off industries, such as electrical manufacturing, the plumbing industry and the oil industry. Any industry one could think of would be affected by a substantial increase in the amount of subsidies that we would be prepared to give for housing construction. If the Government were going to put the money it is asking for to that type of use, I think we would be less reluctant to provide it.
Another area to which we believe the Government should pay more attention is the needs of senior citizens in this country. The Government consistently tells us that it recognizes the problems facing the seniors of this country and has studied them. In fact, it has studied the problem to death. However, it says that until the economy improves it cannot do anything for the senior citizens of the country. In its last Budget it provided pensioners with $25 in June and $25 in December in the hopes that the problem would go away. The problem will only go away to a small degree for single elderly persons who are already living below the poverty line.
There is absolutely no reason why the Government could not have increased their pensions immediately by $50 a month as of January 1, 1984. Instead of doing that, its Budget increased the tax giveaways to those who do not need it, the large corporations and the wealthy in this country. If the Government could do that for that segment of the population, there is absolutely no reason why it could not have done so for single elderly women over the age of 65 who have incomes that are well below the poverty line. They are the ones most in need in this country.
The Government could use some of the $29.5 billion it is seeking to do something about the thousands of disabled and handicapped people across the country who are unable to work because of their disability or discrimination in the work-place, and provide them with decent incomes on a monthly basis. However, it chooses not to do that because the economy is in difficulty and the Government says it does not have the tax revenue to provide those people with the means to follow a decent lifestyle in the mainstream of Canadian society.
The other area in which the Government could have taken serious action if it had been well intentioned is the unemployed in this country. The problem of unemployment was hardly dealt with in the Budget. In fact, it did not even make a dent in that massive problem which faces our country. In my opinion it is a national disgrace that the over-all unemployment rate in this country is in excess of 11 per cent. It is a further disgrace that the Government refuses to do anything meaningful about it.
Youth unemployment in Canada is in excess of 18 per cent. These are the very people in our country who are our most valuable resource. The Government is allowing them to waste
Borrowing Authority Act
away without providing them with any meaningful employment programs. It goes even one step further by attacking the post-secondary system in the country through further reductions in funding to support these educational facilities. This affects research and development capability in Canada and the accessibility of young people to these institutions. If the Government seriously considered putting the amount of money for which it is asking into meaningful, useful, productive and socially beneficial programs, then we may have a change of heart and perhaps would be willing to consider providing that amount of money.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I cannot resist making a few comments on this borrowing authority the Government wants to shove down our throats and down the throats of all Canadians. Considering the deplorable performance of this Government's administration, Mr. Speaker, once again, it is very difficult for us to approve, on behalf of the Canadian people, what the Government is proposing to do, especially in view of the shocking circumstance that the Government is asking for a borrowing authority which exceeds its needs by four billion dollars. I think it would be in order to ask the Government very seriously why it wants the House to support this request for four additional billion dollars.
It is really very difficult to give a positive response. It would seem that the Government-and of course it is not going to say this to Canadians-first has to correct its mistakes, the results of its administrative incompetence. That is one of the reasons why it is coming back to the House for the seventh or eighth time with a Borrowing Authority Bill.
Mr. Speaker, they are adding insult to injury by asking for more than they need. Are we to understand that this Government is incapable of telling us exactly what its needs are? It is true that its previous forecasts were so erroneous that today they are downright embarrassing, and the Government is certainly doing its best not to emphasize this request for borrowing authority, even if it does involve four billion dollars it will not be needing at first. But this is very serious! I wonder how long they think the Canadian public will trust them when they are incapable of telling us exactly why they need this borrowing authority.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker. We all know that an election campaign is imminent. Why does the Government want a borrowing authority of $29 billion, when according to assessments that are not necessarily reliable, its needs do not exceed $25 billion? Four billion dollars for the Government, give or take a few dollars, I know that may seem insignificant to our administrators. Canadians listening to us, however, know perfectly well that in this day and age, considering the interest rate and debt costs, four billion dollars is a lot of money!
What is the Government hiding in its request to the House today? Is it perhaps preparing for the next election campaign and planning to make promises without end to win the support

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
of Canadian voters once again? Does the Government want to use these billions of dollars to deceive Canadians or buy their votes with all kinds of projects, in a manner that is most irresponsible, Mr. Speaker? These are questions we must ask ourselves. We must bear in mind the financial situation of the Government and its commitments concerning a whole range of projects, because it will probably not act responsibly in the next six months, as we know very well that there is indeed a good chance that this Government will be defeated in the next election. Besides showing disrespect for the Canadian people, the Government does not hesitate to increase its spending, but it even refuses to rationalize them. These $4 billion in additional borrowing, about which we intend to move an amendment to force the Government not to borrow more than it needs, could be used by the Government to make electoral promises, and since it knows that it is very unlikely to continue governing the country, it could not care less about proposing such huge expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not taken in, they see their Government sinking deeper every day, they realize it has no intention of controlling the expenses of its own corporations, they are aware of all that and have to pay for the waste of public funds as a result of mismanagement. Instead of taking corrective measures and making drastic changes in the management of some of those corporations, the Government looks the other way. And, of course, Canadians will pick up the pieces and pay for the deficits of those corporations as though it was the normal thing to do. But the men and women appointed to run those corporations are not going to be replaced, although they are almost as incompetent as the Government.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, how can we have a positive response while our colleagues opposite remain silent? On behalf of the Canadian people, we are still asking this Government to be more reasonable and to cut down our national debt.
We know quite well that this Government is acting rather irresponsibly, as though the capacity to pay of individual Canadians were an unlimited source of funds. They operate as though there were no limit to the capacity to pay of Canadians; this is why the Government is running up its debt. We cannot overemphasize the fact that this is getting the upcoming generations into debt and mortgaging their future.
In view of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we must ask this Government to assume its responsibilities to the Canadian people and the nation. It must act responsibly when the boards of Crown corporations make certain decisions. Here is a small example which may help the Hon. Members and the Canadian public to better understand the situation.
Recently, a former Minister and Member of the Senate was appointed Chairman of the Transport Commission. What kind
of comfort is this to Canadians since, in 1967-68, this same Minister was responsible for the white elephant called Mirabel in Quebec? Of course, Quebec had to have an airport which could provide the necessary services. That was obvious. However, and the Members opposite know this as well as I do, we now realize the tremendous extent of this expropriation operation. This was all done under the new Chairman of the Transport Commission.
What comfort can this be to Canadians? At his age, what is he going to do in the Transport Commission? I doubt that he wil be able to stay in office for long. Whatever anyone may think, Mr. Speaker, this will not restore the confidence of Canadians in a Government which is unable to make better choices. Having an unqualified person replaced by another one is not a solution.
In these circumstances, it is easily understood why we simply refuse to trust this Government when we are asked to get the country deeper into debt and to increase the feeling of despair which exists not only among young people, but in the population at large. This is asking too much, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity to pass judgement on the incompetence which this Government has demonstrated for too long already.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, this is an important Bill. It is important, I would submit, because it asks that we pass borrowing authority that really is a tax on future generations. It is one thing to have a taxation Bill in front of the House for Members to consider so we know precisely what we are asking the people to do, but when you have literally a piece of paper, which is not very substantive in any form, containing basically three clauses, which asks for authority to borrow nearly $30 billion, it becomes a very serious matter.
An amount of $30 billion is almost impossible to relate to. One of the ways people can relate to an amount like that is to talk about what a billion dollars means. It means $40 per capita. In other words, for every person in the nation we are being asked to approve $1,200 in borrowing. To go on a bit further, if you relate that to an average family of four, if four is an average, each family's share of this Bill, in the form of one piece of paper, is $4,800.
I want to impress the meaning of this borrowing on Members opposite so that when they vote-and eventually we will get to a vote-they will know exactly what they are doing. This is one borrowing Bill in one year, Mr. Speaker. We know the Government has had many borrowing Bills before this House in the past, but it would be very irresponsible on the part of the Opposition if we blindly went ahead and approved this Bill without question.
Most people when they go to a bank to borrow money have to do it on the basis of some kind of equity, reputation, or some kind of plan of action that will return the money borrowed. But if you look at this Government and its record, its record
March 21, 1984

certainly would not instil confidence in any banker that I know to lend it money in view of the way it has managed money in the past. One can go through many things as far as the record of this Government's spending is concerned. There is really not much room for much confidence that the Government will manage this new borrowing properly.
Let us take a look at some of the Government programs. As far as I can see the Government does not have any concrete plan to get us out of the financial mess we are in. The Hon. Member for York Peel (Mr. Stevens) talked about how bankrupt Canada is. In many ways this is true. The more that is the case the sadder it is. If there is one country that should not be bankrupt, it is Canada. Canada has more natural resources per capita than any other country in the world. Surely, when we have the resources we have we should be able to manage our affairs in such a way that we should not have to borrow so much money.
We are not objecting to the Government borrowing money. We all know that in the normal course of events, whether you are a housewife, a businessman or anyone managing an economy, you have to borrow money. There are times in a fiscal year when you simply do not have enough money coming in to meet your current requirements and that necessitates borrowing. We know that. We are not objecting to the fact that the Government is borrowing money. What we are objecting to is that based on this Government's record, on the plan it has to put in front of us and knowing the Government will use this money, it engenders really no room for any kind of confidence or benefit of doubt that the money will be used properly.
Again, when you relate this amount to an average family of four, we are being asked literally blindly to approve almost $5,000 worth of borrowing. I hope Hon. Members know that. It is a massive debt load to put on every family in this country in just one Bill, and we are likely to get another one before this session terminates.
Let me expand on the size of this borrowing. The amount of money this Government will have to pay this year on the accumulated debt of its past spending is $20 billion. This means $800 per capita for an average family of four, or a little over $3,000 per family. If you think about it, Mr. Speaker, of the share of the debt for an average family, which is a little better than $3,000, almost two-thirds will go to service past debt, the total accumulated past debt. That is one way of putting the amount of money involved into perspective. Those of us who deal in much smaller numbers and try to manage our affairs more prudently than this Government want people to understand why we are concerned about the amount of money this Government is borrowing.
I want to make another point. It is important to realize that in many ways money is now like a commodity. It is no longer simply a medium of exchange; it is a commodity with a price on it. The more demand you put on the commodity, the higher you drive up the price. It works in many ways like any other commodity. For example, if there is a shortage of automobiles,
Borrowing Authority Act
the price goes up. This is because there are not enough automobiles to satisfy the needs of everybody.
The same happens with money. Instead of price, it is interest rates that go up. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Clarke) pointed out that the total amount of personal savings in this country is almost equal to the amount of money this Government will run in deficit this year. That shows the magnitude of the amount of money this Government is attempting to borrow.
The more you borrow, the more you drive up the price of money, namely interest rates. Regrettably, we have seen that happen in the last days and weeks. We are seeing a movement in the United States and here. That cannot help but have absolutely horrendous effects on this economy. The more you drive up the price of money, which is interest rates, the more you hurt those in business for themselves. When you hurt them, you take people out of jobs and put them on some sort of social assistance, which again hurts the deficit.
I have a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Where in fact is the balance between using interest rates to protect the value of the Canadian dollar and letting the Canadian dollar go and seeing interest rates stay at a level that keeps people in business? Many businessmen in this country have gone broke as a result of high interest rates. Tell them that you are proud of what you are doing to protect the Canadian dollar. I know of no small businessman who would make that kind of statement. In many ways that is what the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are doing when they use interest rates to protect the value of the Canadian dollar.
We have to import fruits and vegetables out of season. Because we live in a northern climate, we must import our citrus fruits. We do not grow them basically. If you let the value of those commodities rise, a consumer will back away from them. That is the way the system is supposed to work. The Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada say they know best. If the value of the Canadian dollar falls and imported fruits and vegetables out of season cost more, they are going to protect the consumer from buying them, even though the price may be up. Surely that should be up to the consumer.
I am not suggesting that I want to see the dollar go to 39 cents, 50 cents or 70 cents. I am saying the Government should stop trying to have it both ways. Stop trying to use interest rates to protect the value of the Canadian dollar and rely a little more on the common sense and good judgment of the average consumer. You could look for the value of the Canadian dollar staying at a level that makes sense as far as productivity in this country is concerned. The Government would not have to intervene in the market. The Bank of Canada would not need to worry about interest rates as much as it does.
When Government spending is out of control and the Government has to borrow to the extend that it does-and the evidence is in this Bill-it causes many problems throughout the whole economy. If we had better control of Government spending, we would have better control of the amount of

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
money this Government has to borrow. This would have tremendously beneficial effects throughout the country.
If we continue the way we are going, more and more people will be out of work, less and less tax will be generated and more and more government spending will be required. It becomes a never-ending circle. We must have more responsibility in terms of government. We have not seen that across the aisle. Unfortunately, I have to vote against this Bill. Hopefully we will have a chance to defeat this Government quickly at the time of the next election.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to carry on the same rather serious tone set by my colleague from Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer). I want to express my surprise that so few government members are participating in this debate on a Bill of such fundamental importance to the future of our children and their offspring. It is important and fortunate that the Canadian people have the opportunity to witness this debate over national television. It should have a strong bearing on decisions they will reach before entering the ballot booth some time next November.
I want to put in context the magnitude of the amount of money the Government is asking this Parliament and Canadians for authority to borrow. The Government is asking for authority to borrow $30 billion in one year. That is more than $1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. The deficit already approaches $16,000 for every taxpayer. This Bill will increase that amount by some $3,000 in one year for every taxpayer in Canada.
That does not make too much of an impression on the average viewer or voter. Let us look at it this way. Out of the close to $100 billion that this Government will spend in the coming fiscal year, which incidentally is nine times as large as the Government budget when the outgoing Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office, 40 per cent will be expended under the authority of one Minister, the Minister responsible for the social policy envelope. These programs of social assistance and support in terms of pensions, family allowance, unemployment insurance and other important programs devised as the so-called safety net for Canadians are now in jeopardy.
We have forgotten about the basic dynamo of our economy. That is our industry, the exploitation of technology and the productive work that the majority of Canadians, particularly young Canadians, will have to engage in if in future we are to get rid of this enormous albatross that our Liberal friends are hanging around the necks of future generations. Out of that budget, $40 billion will be spent on social programs. Today we are borrowing $30 billion, three-quarters of what is required to pay for social programs. I doubt that the average Canadian realizes that in this year's budget, $20 billion will be spent on interest to service that debt and only $10 billion on economic development.
Out of a $100 billion budget, $40 billion will go to social policy and programs, $20 billion to debt servicing, $10 billion to economic development, $5 billion to defence and a few other
small amounts. The important point that Canadians must realize is that if we were not paying $20 billion worth of interest to carry the debt each year, we would have $30 billion to spend on economic development. We could move into the higher areas of technology and fund the necessary retraining programs. We could pursue international markets with a whole host of attractive and challenging products. This country could be engaged in manufacturing, producing and selling to people around the world. Instead, we are saddled with a deficit which is costing the Government $20 billion this year, half of the amount that will be spent on social programs. The Government wants to add another $30 billion to the gross deficit in order to balance the budget. That is a measure of how serious the problem is.
The Government is asking us through Bill C-21 to authorize the borrowing of that additional $30 billion even though the Budget which was tabled in the House a few weeks ago only projected a requirement for some $25 billion. Why, Mr. Speaker, is the Government asking for $30 billion? Indeed, the budgetary deficit is $30 billion but the Government, in the Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) a few weeks ago, indicated that it did not really need that extra $4 billion.
Do you know why the Government did not need that extra money, Mr. Speaker? It did not need it because most of it is taken out of the hides of the public servants of the country. Most of the non-cash requirements shown as federal revenue come from the pension contributions of Public Service employees, whether they be members of government service generally, the armed forces or the RCMP. The Government is pretending to take those revenues and entrust them to a pension account when in fact it is using them to offset its borrowing requirements to the tune of some $3 billion this year. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, the Government is stealing from its own employees to make up its cash requirements. It then has the gall to come to the House and ask for $5 billion more than the Budget indicates is required. Is that not appalling, Mr. Speaker?
I was watching the person who most recently announced his candidacy for the Liberal Party leadership on television last evening and he was talking about deficits. I cannot speak in his dialect, but he said something to the effect that Canada is structurally a different country from other countries and deficits are a way of life in Canada. He told us why we had deficits, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the latest declared candidate for the Liberal Party leadership, said that we have deficits because Canadians are great savers. He said that if we did not have deficits, there would be no Canada Savings Bonds in which Canadians could invest their money. He said that quite clearly. He was trying to justify the deficit by saying that Canadians needed to have somewhere to put their money.
That Minister said he agreed with what other Members in the House have pointed out, which is that personal savings in
March 21, 1984

Canada amount to some $32 billion. We have a deficit of $30 billion and the Minister who wants to become the Prime Minister said that we need to have high deficits so Canadians can have somewhere to invest their money. That is not a solution to our problem, Mr. Speaker; that is the root of our problem.
If Canadians were not encouraged to invest in short-term savings bonds and long-term government bonds with maturity beyond the beginning of the next century at interest rates of 12 per cent and higher, then future generations would not be carrying debt-servicing charges amounting to $20 billion this year and growing in future years in order to meet the escalating deficits.
The man who pretends that he wants to become the Prime Minister said that the deficit is unimportant because Canadians are great savers and the Government gives them a place to put their money. All they have to do is invest in Canada. Would it not be better if Canadians were investing in themselves, their businesses or even in other parts of the world to earn a return on that investment for Canada? Canadians could invest in resource development and in technology.
What have some of the other famous Liberal leadership candidates been saying, Mr. Speaker? The Hon. Minister who is responsible for economic development and was the first declared candidate said in a public statement on March 9 that he thinks all Canadians understand that governments have to live within their means and that the only way of getting at the deficit is either through more taxation, cutting programs or even inflation-because that is another way governments traditionally have gotten rid of deficits in historic times. By the way, the Liberal leadership candidate from outside this House who wants to become the Prime Minister started inflation. His budget created the concept of a massive and escalating deficit.
The Minister responsible for economic development is running full-page newspaper advertisements in every national newspaper to the tune of thousands of dollars. These advertisements are asking Canadians if they want more information about the Special Recovery Projects which the Government is financing. The programs are to be financed with $2.4 billion of public money and supposedly with $2.4 billion of private money. The advertisements ask the people if they want more information about this. It is absolutely unnecessary to do that kind of advertising.
The advertising budget alone for the Special Recovery Program amounts to some $15 million. What the Minister is not telling Canadians is that the Budget of last April said that the new costs of the Special Recovery Programs will be covered by a special recovery tax. It is a special recovery tax with which all of the Liberal leadership candidates intend to hose Canadians. They intend to introduce in next October and try to sneak it past the Canadian taxpayer in order to cover the expenses of the foolish extravagances in which they are engaging these days.
I wish I could say more, Mr. Speaker, but it is obvious that you wish to hear from someone else as well this evening.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said earlier this afternoon, it is not one of my pleasures to have to speak on this Bill. I happen to be one who rather cherishes the institution of Parliament. Earlier this afternoon I had occasion to walk to my office with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis). One of the issues which he raised as we were walking was the image that we as parliamentarians have. As we discussed the issue, it soon became evident to us that there is a cynicism in the country right now which I think is to be deplored. Probably one of the major reasons for the existence of that cynicism is the way the present Government has been handling Parliament and the unreasonable demands it has been putting on Parliament. I think that the people of Canada as well are beginning to realize that these demands are unreasonable and are dangerous to the institution.
At this moment, Mr. Speaker, six Liberal members are present in the House of Commons. There are three or four Liberal members who are behind the curtains sneaking a look. Yet Government members are asking Parliament to grant the Government borrowing authority, for $30 billion. When our constituents go to the Farm Credit Corporation or to the bank in an attempt to borrow money, they are asked to justify in some meaningful way how they are going to spend that money. Our constituents see us here in Ottawa debating the authority to borrow billions of dollars, yet only five men and six women from the government side are present to support that request.
I will not repeat all of the facts and figures which my colleagues have brought to the attention of the House in the course of this long debate. I would certainly like to indicate my support for the subamendment we heard this afternoon and for the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). It is obvious that those two motions should be supported. I first wish to refer in general terms to the track record of the Liberal Government.
It is certainly deplorable to realize that it is only in the last 15 years that we have fallen into this rut. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the cynicism which Canadians are harbouring for us and our institution began in the last 15 years with a Prime Minister and a Government prepared to borrow money to this great extent simply to ensure re-election. In my view, that is the shameful part of this whole exercise.
There is one other point which I think must be stressed. It is even more shameful and it is an even greater cause for cynicism on the part of Canadians that they were told this afternoon that each and every Canadian will be responsible for a debt of about $7,000. Every Canadian inherits that debt because of the actions of an irresponsible government. I am not surprised that we see that kind of response from Canadians. However, it bothers me to think that that is happening. The feelings that Canadians have towards this very cherished institution of ours gives me some real cause for concern.

March 21, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) raised an interesting question about whether this borrowing was the cause of the economic malaise we are suffering or the result of it. While acknowledging that some of it was a cause, he came to the conclusion that largely it was the result of economic mismanagement. In a way he is right, although he missed the crucial question that should be asked when one is assessing the significance of a borrowing.
Some Members mentioned this afternoon-as I have in a previous speech-that there are really two kinds of borrowing. For instance, I can borrow money to finance a trip to Florida or around the world. That would not bring much economic return to me or to the country. On the other hand, I could borrow money in order to establish a farm or a commercial enterprise. In return that would bring economic dividends to the country.
The Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) put on record that we spend $40 billion on social programs, $20 billion to service the debt and only $10 billion on economic development. That shows the problem we have with borrowing. It is not done to advance the economy but to finance social programs. These programs are good in themselves and I can support them. I have no problem with them conceptually or philosophically speaking; the problem is that they are like my trip to Florida-if I have to borrow money for that and keep on doing it for other things, I will run into trouble.
The drop in the dollar and the high interest rates are a reflection of the economic community's assessment of the wisdom of this country and its reasons for borrowing money. There are some good reasons for borrowing money, however. When I came to this House just under 10 years ago, the Minister for Science and Technology at that time, Mr. Drury, had the gall-although perhaps he did not know any better- to say that we did not have to invest money in research and development for science and technology because we could buy it from the United States or Europe. That kind of thinking got us into the difficulties we are experiencing now. We have not recognized the importance of spending adequate funds on science and technology research and development. If we were to borrow money for those purposes we would reap significant returns in the years ahead.
Some of us have had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Larkin Kerwin, the Chairman of the National Research Council, who has pointed out very frankly that a number of years ago we made the choice to spend money on our own enjoyment. We did not take the route taken by the Germans and the Japanese. They borrow money for the advancement of science and technology in their country and they reap the dividends while we sit here with a fair degree of economic distress. We should deplore the Government's asking for this kind of borrowing again when it has not been able to demonstrate that it will put the money to effective use.
There are some interesting concepts in taxation that we should consider seriously, Mr. Speaker. We should get away from the concept of taxing effective and efficient businesses.
We tax their profits and discourage them. We should look for a new tax philosophy where people would be taxed more on net cost. This would make them more efficient and less wasteful. We would then have an economy where people would be encouraged to invest in this country rather than being discouraged as they are at the present time.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) earlier today concerning the procedural acceptability of vote lc under National Revenue in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984.
The Hon. Member argued that Vote lc, which would increase the program expenditures for Customs and Excise by an amount of $434,000, seeks to appropriate money for purposes, in part, not authorized by Parliament, namely an amount of $225,000 for the offshore extension of Customs and Excise jurisdiction. The Hon. Member submitted that the Vote anticipates a decision by the House with respect to Bill C-16, an Act to apply the customs and excise jurisdiction of Canada to the continental shelf of Canada and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof, which is still on the Order Paper for second reading.
The Chair has now had the opportunity to examine Vote lc in relation to Bill C-16 and agrees with the Hon. Member that it would authorize a new program without the appropriate legislative authority. The rulings of the Chair since 1974 clearly emphasize that it is not procedurally correct to use an Appropriation Act to establish a new program.
May I quote Speaker Sauve to that effect, who said on June 12, 1981 and on March 21, 1983, that "the Appropriation Act should only seek authority to spend the money for a program that has been previously authorized by a statute".
Since the required expenditure for offshore extension of customs and excise jurisdiction has not yet received legislative authorization, I must find that portion of Vote lc out of order. Accordingly, Vote lc-Customs and Excise-Program expenditures udner National Revenue, in the Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, shall be reduced by an amount equal to that required for the offshore extension, namely $225,000, and I so order.
The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence).


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, was I recognized by the Chair or was the Hon. Member recognized before me?


Mr. Speaker:: I recognized the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence).
March 21, 1984


Yvon Pinard: I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Out of deference, I shall let the Hon. Member deliver his speech.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment of Mr. Darling (p. 2292) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 2299).
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are talking about the borrowing Bill. We need a borrowing Bill of such an amount because of the waste and extravagance practised by the Government. I should like to bring to the attention of the House one small example of unnecessary expense in the Supplementary Estimates. We will have to register an objection to it by tomorrow if we want a vote on it. Last night at the Standing Committee of Justice and Legal Affairs, Supplementary Estimates (C) were dealt with. I noted a small item in Vote lc of those Estimates which just carries the blunt heading "Information". A $45,000 estimate was put down for that.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I inquire from the Hon. Member if I understood correctly that he is referring to a matter that is now before a committee of the House?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No, Sir, it is not before a committee of the House now. I wish it were. This is the only means I have to publicize some of the expense, extravagance and lack of explanation given to Members regarding these things. That is why we have a borrowing Bill and that is my complaint.
After a great deal of heeing and hawing and hooing by civil servants, this turned out to be an expenditure of $32,500. That is not a large amount as far as expenditures are concerned but it turns out that this is a one-tenth share of the Department of Justice in regard to an over-all bill by the Canadian Unity Information Office. When we asked what that referred to, we were told that they really did not know, except that it was a special advertising campaign. They did not know what that covered nor did they know how it was figured out that the Department of Justice should have a one-tenth share of it. That is why we will object tomorrow to Supplementary Estimates Vote lc, Department of Justice.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 22, 1984