1984-11-28

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, small business leaders unanimously agree that payroll taxes are high in this country. They also agree that such payroll taxes penalize the future of small business. Small businesses are not encouraged to hire people when the Government taxes them whether they are profitable or not. During 20 years in opposition, and particularly during the last election campaign, the Conservative Party advocated less government intervention in Canadian business. The first thing this Government did was to increase UIC deductions which are a payroll tax. An increase in payroll tax is a typical example of government intervention.

Based on the steps it has taken so far, Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that this government says one thing and does something else. How could the Canadian public trust such a government when they daily break their promises?


FORESTRY
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, more than 500 groups, including environmentalists, native groups, and tourist associations, are desperately trying to preserve the rain forest on Meares Island off the west coast of Vancouver Island. Given the area's immense natural beauty and potential for tourism with Canada's largest red cedars, some more than 1,000 years old, and many native heritage sites, we in the NDP call upon the federal Government to assist these groups as well as approach the B.C. Government in an attempt to have the logging stopped.
North of Meares Island is South Morseby, a cluster of 140 islands, part of the Queen Charlottes. This area contains large rare bird colonies, and the plan to log this area but leave
enough trees standing to preserve the view from the water is unacceptable.

Environment Canada has provided some help in that last case but we ask the Department to take a stronger position to ensure that South Morseby remains in its natural state.


FISHERIES
Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, now that a new Progressive Conservative Government has been elected in Ottawa, expectations among people working in the fisheries industry in Eastern Quebec and on the North Shore are running very high.
The House will recall that, in recent years, fishermen have suffered the consequences of a battle for jurisdiction over this sector, a battle instigated by the Liberal Government which was futile and paralyzed the industry. After recent meetings with many members of this industry, I must say I am very anxious to see a new era of consultation and open dialogue with the Government of Quebec regarding this vital sector of our regional economy.
There are many problems in the fisheries industry, including fishing zones, resource definition and management and licensing. All this requires consultation.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge my colleague who is responsible for this vital sector in Ottawa to meet his Quebec counterpart as soon as possible, in order to make proposals in the best interests of fishermen and the development of the fishing industry in Eastern Quebec.


HIGH PRICE OF GASOLINE IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, it is very gratifying to see how interested the Opposition has become in the price of gas, in the last two weeks. I am referring more particularly to the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi).

November 28, 1984
I would like to draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that the problem is not the 2 cent increase. He may not be aware of the fact that there is a difference of 13 cents per litre between the price of gas in Quebec and Ontario. I have been looking at the problem for many years.
If his Government had bothered to read my proposals in this 725-page book ... It is because of the previous Government's energy policies that Quebecers no longer understand the importance of the petrochemical industry for Quebec, and more specifically Montreal East. I am referring to the Montreal East refinery complex, which used to rank first in Canada and second internationally. Gas is so expensive in Quebec because of the rigidity of the Liberals' energy policy.
Soon we may have to form a buyers' consortium to get any of this precious stuff in Quebec. Where was the Member for Bourassa? Where were the Liberal Government and our Liberal friends, at the time?


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I might say in passing that the Hon. Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce) ought to do something constructive instead of beating his gums in the House. He should look after his riding instead of making empty statements in Ottawa.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) told the committee that the First Chance Program has been scrapped. Launched by our government, this program was designed to help youths find jobs and add experience to their curriculum vitae.
On the eve of the International Youth Year, we are rightfully concerned about Canadian youths, because not only will those looking for a first job be penalized by the Progressive Conservative government, but so will others seeking summer employment since the Progressive Conservatives have also axed the Summer Canada-Student Employment Program which enabled thousands of our students to work during the summer. They could thus pay their tuition fees and make their parents' financial burden that much lighter.
I suggest that all Canadians ought to denounce those ill-advised decisions of the Progressive Conservative government with respect to young Canadians, and to ask themselves just what the Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne) does besides standing by the door listening to her Cabinet colleagues argue among themselves.



Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to call upon the Government to provide a large increase in the funds granted for Winter Works projects. Many of us were concerned about the announcement in September by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that only $200 million was to be allocated for this winter's projects. Allotments of only $100,000 for many ridings are clearly inadequate in the present circumstances of high unemployment. Grants of more funds for other ridings are just as inadequate when one recognizes that unemployment figures are underestimated because of the Government's refusal to use all of the information available to it.
The people of Canada have now been informed that the applications for Canada Works projects total $1.2 billion, or six times the funds allocated for such job-creation projects. Clearly the supply of potential employees and of valuable projects is very large, and the new Government has equally clearly underestimated the need. It is imperative that the funding decision of September be reconsidered and the Progressive Conservative Government authorize a large increase in funds for Canada Works. If it does not, we shall all shortly be rejecting entirely worthy projects in our ridings across the country.



Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Temiscamingue which I represent in this House has one of the highest unemployment rates in Quebec according to the latest Statistics Canada figures, and ranks among the five hardest hit areas in Canada. The situation is especially dramatic for young people between 18 and 25, who in ever increasing numbers no longer trust the government to get their problems solved. This sad situation is mainly due to the nearsighted employment policies put forward by the previous government, which are largely responsible for destroying and depreciating work ethics among our young people. It was that kind of cheap political programs that helped unseat 58 Liberals in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that this Government during its term of office will develop genuine employment programs that will prove to be lasting and permanent and will put Canadians back to work. Further, it is my wish that the Minister of Employment and Immigration will affect large sums of money to job creation where the unemployment rate is indeed a human tragedy.
November 28, 1984


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, over 50 per cent of senior citizens in Quebec live under the poverty line. We must ask ourselves what we can do to improve the situation of these venerable Canadians, who have always sacrificed so much so that we would have a country with a great potential for the future.
Last October 10th, Mr. Speaker, I informed the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs of my great disappointment upon learning that, last July, he had allowed the specialized institutions housing these needy people to squeeze out of them most unfairly nearly all of the $25 increase in the old age security pension provided by the Canadian Government. The reason given was the increase on the cost of accommodation and board.
In a few days, our Government will provide a new increase of $25 a month to our senior citizens and we want to avoid a repetition of such a despicable and odious action. Mr. Speaker, we, of the Progressive Conservative Government, should like the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada (Mr. Epp) to ask his Quebec counterpart to agree to this.


INDUSTRIAL AND LABOUR ADJUSTMENT PROGRAM
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Government is aware of the dismal unemployment situation facing many older Canadians, particularly the former employees of Consolidated Bathurst in my riding. The Government has put up a number of Members in the House today who spoke about government programs. In fact the first actions of the Government have been to harass older unemployed people, and to develop a system whereby 700 jobs will be created to harass people between the ages of 50 and 65 who have been unemployed.
1 hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) will respond to a request by the former employees of Consolidated Bathurst that an 1LAP designation be given to that particular industry in order that these workers, many of whom had more than 30 years of service, can finally get financial relief, which was not forthcoming in the recent budget statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson).


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: On
September 24th, 1984, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration earmarked $430 million for the Canada Works Program, including $582,000 in my riding where the unemployment rate was estimated at 8.9 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that the unemployment rate in my riding far exceeds 15 per cent, but the rate was set according to the then-Liberal government formula, which assumed that people had lost every hope of finding work.
So far, Mr. Speaker, I have received $4,316,000 worth of applications under the Canada Works Program, which goes to show that Canadians now feel confident that their chances of landing jobs are better with a Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I have urged the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider the fund allocation formula so as to make it more equitable towards remote areas and to give people who do not draw unemployment benefits a fighting chance to return to work some day.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday representatives of 600 Barrie Black and Decker workers presented hard information which conflicts with company information submitted to FIRA. The only safeguards for their 600 jobs are the promises made by Black and Decker to FIRA and, through FIRA, to the Minister. Without FIRA there would be no chance to save these 600 jobs.
This situation clearly demonstrates the value of a tough and strong FIRA. Only FIRA can assure that multinational corporations do not have a completely free hand here, and that Canadian communities have a voice in their future.
We need a FIRA that will protect jobs, the "jobs, jobs, jobs" that once were so important to the Conservative Party. We urge the Minister to respond quickly to the plea by these workers, and to see to it that FIRA gives them the protection which they need and deserve.

November 28, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will be aware by now of the very deep sense of outrage that is occurring in Manitoba over the indiscretions, or gifts, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs calls them, that have been perpetrated by the Minister of Finance, along with the apparent deception and sense of injustice that appear to be applied to that province.
In the spirit of trying to clear the air and provide some rebuilding of this breach of trust and confidence, would the Prime Minister tell us whether he has responded to the Premier of Manitoba and invited him to come and meet with him to discuss the transfer payment problem and other economic injuries facing the province?
As a further step in that reconciliation, would he agree that the background papers that provide the rationale and evidence used by the Department of Finance to advance certain policies, should be made public and therefore tabled in the House and made available to the provinces?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the deep sense of outrage to which my hon. friend makes reference was not apparent in the very civilized and productive conversation I had with Premier Pawley earlier today. We discussed at great length matters of importance to the Government and the people of Manitoba.
Indeed, my hon. friend is quite right. We did spend some time on the question of the injustice to which he refers, an injustice that I hope we will be able to deal with, one which, as my hon. friend knows, was the result of a unilateral cut-back by a Government of which he was a member.


Lloyd Axworthy: Without debating the merits of that, since we discussed it fully yesterday, he knows there was a review under way.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENTAL DOCUMENTS BE TABLED
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in light of the quote that I read from the Prime Minister's book entitled Where I Stand, which is available at all retail book counters, incidentally, recommending that the Department of Finance make such matters available, is he prepared to table those documents and background papers? Is he also prepared to table the letter that he sent to the Minister of Science and Technology in which he said there should not be any review of the cut-backs affecting that province?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the documents have apparently become
public-even though they ought not to have-I will review those questions with my friend, the Minister of Finance, when he returns at 4.30 this afternoon.
The Minister is absent. He is making a speech in Toronto, and he is not using notes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I should ask the Prime Minister if that omission and ban also includes tapes, considering other indiscretions.


QUESTION OF PRESS ETHICS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made the comment in the tiouse yesterday that the reports of the Minister of Finance were pilfered. He essentially called into question the ethics of the press person. Now that he has had the opportunity to check the record, and recognizing that the press person in question was only living up to the standards for open communication by the Government, which the Prime Minister has called for, is he prepared to apologize for that remark and begin to repair the breach of trust he has with members of the media?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I have offended anyone, including the Hon. Member, I apologize.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS FORMULA-POSSIBLE LOSSES FOR QUEBEC AND NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Because of that indiscretion, the Winnipeg press was able to announce a few days ago that the Province of Manitoba may stand to lose $72 million if the guarantee formula for equalization payments to the provinces is dropped. Could the Prime Minister inform the House what amounts are involved in this formula and thus what Quebec and Nova Scotia may stand to lose in 1985-86?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member is referring to dropping the guarantee formula for equalization payments. If I am not mistaken, that refers to the radical change in policy implemented by the former Liberal Government. It led to the problem that now exists between the Government of Manitoba and the Canadian Government. The Hon. Minister of Finance is now, as I myself tried to do today in a conversation with Premier Pawley, proceeding with consultations in order to conclude an agreement that will satisfy the legitimate demands of Manitobans and the Government of Canada.
November 28, 1984


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if I understand Prime Minister's comments correctly, he is proceeding with the review of the equalization formula that was undertaken by the previous Government. Incidentally, could the Prime Minister inform the House whether the figure I was given in an "off the record" conversation, according to which Quebec would lose 229 million in 1985-86 if the formula is not revised, is correct?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, provided my hon. friend identifies his "off the record" source. In fact, we have started negotiations with the Government of Manitoba. The Hon. Minister of Finance will be meeting with other provincial counterparts in the near future, and we shall try to find an equitable formula in this respect.


ALLEGED TAPING OF MEETING BETWEEN FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It relates to the meeting between the Minister of Finance of Manitoba and the federal Finance Minister. Does the Prime Minister condone the fact that federal government officials taped that meeting between representatives of the federal Government and of the provincial Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend that I was just given an indication that that may have happened, and I can tell him that I can see no circumstances that would justify that.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLEGED TAPING OF CONVERSATION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister admit that either the Minister of Finance or his assistant made a very serious mistake, which is completely unforgiveable, by secretly taping a conversation between the federal Government's representatives and the representative of a Government of a province?


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: And that is civility?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the details, because I have yet to have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the Minister, although 1 shall later on in the day, I have no hesitation in telling my hon. friend that at any time or in any circumstances the taping of a private conversation without prior approval is unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUTURE CONSULTATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us, this House, and the representatives of each and every provincial Government, that this occurrence will never happen again, that open and honest consultations and
Oral Questions
conversations will from now on not be taped by federal government representatives, and, if it ever happens again, that there will be a request for the Minister to resign?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in invoking an important precept in regard to civil liberties, my hon. friend would not want me to violate another, namely, the presumption of innocence. 1 have not heard firsthand from any of the participants as to what may or may not have transpired. However, I could tell my hon. friend that I find that kind of conduct in any circumstance to be repugnant and unworthy.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister has a personal dictionary in which government aircraft become sacred instruments of travel, and open Governments become closed Governments. My question concerns the role of critics. We critics in the House, both in my Party and the Party to the left, have had access for background briefings to senior officials of Departments. Will the Prime Minister revert to the wonderful days of "closed" government so that we will be able to have those briefings? Or, must we go to "open" government and have to prove exceptional circumstances, as I recall the release, and also have to obtain ministerial approval? If we have to prove exceptional circumstances, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he issued directives to his 39 colleagues as to what criteria should be applied in determining those special circumstances?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend was busy outside the Chamber playing the piano, and was not listening to the answers we have been giving here. It is widely accepted that he is a better piano player than questioner. All the answers in response to the question of my hon. friend have been given many times in the House, most notably during his absence last week.


Donald James Johnston: There are a number of piano players in this caucus. If we could get together with the brass and the wind on that side of the House, we might do well together.


REQUESTS FOR OFF-RECORD BRIEFINGS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would he assure the House that these "exceptional circumstances" will be applied objectively, whether they be journalists who are friends of the Party, such as Dalton Camp, as opposed to the elite journalists to whom the Secretary of State for External Affairs made reference? Would he agree to

November 28, 1984
Oral Questions
table in the House on a periodic basis the requests which have been made for off-the-record briefings with senior officials so that we will know exactly what exceptional circumstances apply?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to give my hon. friend the assurance of reasonable and thoughtful application of guidelines which are only designed to be of assistance in making the truth available to the Canadian public. Inasmuch as he referred to distinguished members of the Press Gallery, I point out to him that we received a letter from the President of the Press Gallery who was inviting Members of Parliament to join the Press Club. It says: "The Club is an ideal place for parliamentarians to relax and make contact with members of the media, particularly in view of the fact that the premises are strictly off the record".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ANSWERS GIVEN BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Like all Members of Parliament we were pleased with his announcement that this would be an open Government. When we received an offer from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to be briefed by senior officials, we accepted that offer. We spent an hour and a half with senior officials of his Department yesterday. We went there asking for factual information on important issues such as the competition policy, metrication, and so on. After an hour and a half, not only could we not receive any useful answers about future policy, but we got no answers on facts. What was the point of the offer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say, with respect, to my hon. friend that it would be unlikely that any public servant would want to explore future policy with a member of the Opposition. It is the role of the Government to develop policy. Once that policy is developed, it is the role of the Public Service to explain it.


REQUESTS FOR FACTUAL INFORMATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Prime Minister understood the question I was asking. I understood that we would not get future policy advice. We were asking for factual information, whether there were new updates on competition policy and so on. Nothing came forward. We wondered if the reason we could not get any information was because the legislative secretary to the Minister was there taking notes and the public servants would not answer. They were afraid that the guidelines would get them in trouble.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly nothing in the guidelines that would
inhibit the kind of legitimate information to which my Hon. friend seeks access. With regard to the reluctance of public servants and others, the answer may be that the normal course is for the Public Service to refine the ideas as indicated by the Cabinet, and bring them forward. Once Cabinet approves, they are introduced in the House as legislation.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DISRUPTION OF SHIPPING CAUSED BY DAMAGED LIFT BRIDGE
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the shutdown of the St. Lawrence Seaway system at Valleyfield, Quebec. The Minister is aware that as of this morning 85 ships are tied up waiting to enter the Seaway system, and that an additional 117 ships are inside the Seaway system waiting to get out. In light of the fact that the Valleyfield Bridge No. 10 will not be repaired until December 7, and that the Seaway officially closes on December 15,- December 20 at the latest-will the Minister inform this House what measures are being contemplated by the Government of Canada to avoid what appears to be the inevitable bankruptcies which will occur as a result of the tremendous losses that have already been experienced by the companies involved, and by those companies whose vessels will be frozen both inside and outside the Seaway system this winter?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I know that all Members are concerned about the unfortunate mishap which occurred at the Valleyfield Bridge. I want to assure the Hon. Members, and all Members, that everything possible is being done to restore the bridge to operation. There are some 100 vessels currently being affected. The men and equipment are on site, repair is on schedule and is to be completed by December 6. There are some very important incentives incorporated into the contract which could conceivably result in the work being completed before then. With respect to other contingencies, we have assured the shippers that an extension will, in all likelihood, be made to the Seaway Season, with adequate icebreaking and back up facilities being provided.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Everyone in this House recognizes that the matter is being rectified as quickly as possible.


CONSEQUENCES FOR SHIPPING COMPANIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Ships will be caught in that system this year and tremendous losses will be incurred. We know that some companies will go bankrupt and that there is a limited liability by the Seaway. What measures are being contemplated by the Government to prevent bankruptcies and the loss of jobs throughout the length and breadth of the Seaway system?
November 28, 1984


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there are no ships caught in the system as of now. We will do everything in our power to see that there are no ships caught in the system. The Minister of State for Transport will personally visit the site, either tomorrow or Friday, to ensure that everything is going well. I can assure the Hon. Member of that.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Considering the Government's concern with our deficit, the Minister put forward a most novel proposition in Toronto the other day. He believes that business people are spending too much time looking for tax loopholes. The Minister's solution is to let the experts at Revenue Canada find the loopholes and determine the legality of setting up dummy companies, at the expense of the taxpayer of course. Will the Minister agree that the job of Revenue Canada should be to help close loopholes in the tax system which do not have a socially useful purpose such as creating jobs or doing research and development?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is a happy day for me. I have finally had a question from my hon. colleague opposite. First, I thank him for his question. Second, I want to indicate to him that setting up dummy companies is not appropriate, now or ever, under the Income Tax Act, and would never be condoned by my Department. We are saying that the Income Tax Act is 5 lbs. of some of the most incomprehensible legislation ever passed by Parliament. We think that the Government has responsibility when a taxpayer comes to us and asks what the law is. We have a responsibility to answer in a forthright and complete way. This is consistent with the Prime Minister's commitment to open government.


USE MADE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT SCHEME
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Tax scams like the R and D tax credit scheme introduced by the Liberals will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. It is called a quick flip scam. We now learn that the moratorium the Government placed on the scheme is meaningless because of a special grandfather clause. Will the Minister tell us what the damage will be when this scheme finally comes to an end, and will he place an immediate moratorium on the grandfather clause?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it is not a scam. It is a proposal that was written into the law by the Liberal Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Henry Perrin Beatty: I do not know whether the hon. gentleman wants to shout me down, or wants an answer. I will be glad to give him an answer. Members opposite wrote this provision into the law. The Government is very much concerned about the way in which quick flips have been used. As a consequence, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, put the lid on that and said that we wanted to have that provision looked at again. What we did was opt to stop what we thought was a loophole in the system. We thought that this sort of appropriate action was justified. I am surprised the Hon. Member did not support us in that.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Transport).
Can the minister tell us whether there are discussions now under way with the Quebec Government for the purpose of renewing the blanket agreements for the construction of freeways? If so, will the Alma-La Baie freeway project, which is vitally important to the people of the Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean area, be covered by those agreements?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, there are no discussions under way with the Quebec Government. The new Quebec Minister of Transport was appointed only very recently. We will give him time to settle down in the Quebec government. Later, we will consider entering discussions. This is not to be taken up immediately. I think this answers the second part of the Hon. Member's question. There being no discussions, the highway referred to is not on any agenda of any non-existing discussions.


SMALL BUSINESS
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses.
The increase in unemployment insurance contributions announced by the Government will mean a higher tax on wages as it will add to the tax burden of the small businesses which are responsible for creating most of the jobs in Canada. Can the Minister explain to the House the position of his Party, which on April 7th, 1984, was willing to consider unemployment insurance contributions as tax credits rather

November 28, 1984
Oral Questions
than expenses but, now it is in power, has decided instead to raise those contributions?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou on his appointment. 1 find his question very interesting. This matter is now under consideration and I shall probably be able to provide an answer personally to the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou within a few days.


SMALL BUSINESS CONFIDENCE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, can the Hon. Minister tell us what his plan of action is to restore the confidence of small business in this two-faced Government?
[ Translation]


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sorry, but I did not understand the question. If the Hon. Member could repeat it either in French or in English, I shall be happy to answer it, but I did not understand him the first time.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
Could my hon. colleague advise the House why he has hired an accounting firm to investigate the administration of the Vieux-Port de Quebec? Has the accounting firm already started its investigation and when does the minister expect to table its findings in the House?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for his concern over the interests of Quebec City's Old Port. Why this investigation? You will recall that a great deal has been written about Quebec City's Old Port, and that major cost overruns have been incurred in conjunction with the projects that have been carried out in the Old Port of Quebec.
Under these circumstances and in view of the comments we had received from various quarters, I suggest that a full assessment of the administration of these projects was urgently required in the public interest, and so I ordered one made and 1 have so decided; I hope I can table within the next few months a full investigation report, so that the general public may find out why and how public funds were spent.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. I am sure she shares my dismay that some senior business executives said on The Journal last night that the Government's confidence building program will not create many jobs for at least one year. In light of the fact that the Minister confirmed in committee yesterday that the $1 billion which has been allocated for creating jobs will not, in her words, be made up of any new money whatsoever, could the Minister go to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet to see whether or not they will allocate several billion dollars to create jobs in the immediate term?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that since I came into office, a short period of just over two months, we have allocated $430 million for direct job creation this winter. That means some 70,000 jobs are to be created. We have also re-allocated $1 billion from other programs to job creation and new job opportunities. I would think that the allocation of $1.5 billion toward job creation, new job opportunities and human resource development, in just over two months is really a pretty good record.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT OF EXTRA STAFF BY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in committee yesterday the Minister said:
-I suppose one would say none of it was new money-
In light of that, I wonder if she could tell the House that, instead of spending some $30 million on the 700-person force designed to persecute people on unemployment insurance, she will now spend that $30 million trying to create jobs for people.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member's question indicates that there is a very fundamental difference between members of the Conservative Party and members of the New Democratic Party. There is a very fundamental difference between the two.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Minister would like to finish her answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The money to which I have referred is not new money in the sense that we have not dipped into the pockets of the taxpayers, as members of the NDP might wish to do. Equally important, the money that will be allocated to intensive interviews will be used to
November 28, 1984

encourage people to return to the paid labour force. We feel that Canadians would prefer to have jobs. Obviously members of the NDP would prefer to have Canadians stay on unemployment insurance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General of Canada. No doubt the Attorney General has by now been briefed on the nature of his prosecutorial discretion-the fundamental principle that he should decide, without politics, such things as whom to prosecute, whom not to prosecute, and whether or not to launch appeals; and that this is a discretion that should not be shared with Cabinet, caucus, or even with the Prime Minister. Yet on November 27 a government back-bencher announced a stay of prosecution against unlicensed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to ask the Attorney General if the report in The Globe and Mail, which reveals that he himself had decided to go ahead with the prosecutions of the cable t.v. operators but that his decision was overturned by caucus and that the final word came from the PMO, is true. Did the Attorney General accept direction or advice from his caucus, or the Prime Minister, in the exercise of that discretion?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I always accept direction and advice from the Prime Minister. If that was not the case, I would not be a Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: However, contrary to the actions of members of the last Government, if I think the Prime Minister's advice or direction is wrong, I give him my advice in return. It is a two-way communication.
In connection with the prosecutions-


Brian Vincent Tobin: What did you tell him about finance just before you went to justice?


John Carnell Crosbie: I will deal with the question of the other gentleman later.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: In connection with the prosecutions that were requested by the Minister of Communications, the Department of Justice acts as a legal agent of the Department of Communications. If the Department of Communications decides
Oral Questions
that it is reviewing policy and does not wish to go ahead with prosecutions, we naturally accept those directions. That Department is our client and we are its legal agents. What could be simpler for anyone to understand?


MINISTERIAL DISCRETION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, does the Attorney General not recognize that the discretion which he has in prosecutorial matters should not be submitted to caucus or to the Prime Minister? Does he not realize that that is a fundamental principle of our system of justice?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have not said that this was ever discussed in caucus. We cannot reveal what is discussed in our caucus. As the hon. gentleman knows, we are leak-proof at the moment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing. Given the Government's announcement of a $9.6 million cut in the CMHC social housing units program, and the fact that only 53 per cent of the planned CMHC housing allocations have been taken up so far because some groups were unable to use them, will the Minister tell the House whether all of the planned but unused allocations will be re-assigned for starts in 1984, or whether he intends to cancel allocations not yet taken up, in order to achieve his $9.6 million budget cut?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on his appointment as housing critic. As the Hon. Member will recall, in the committee last evening I explained to him the phasing of those take-ups which had not been committed. It is not unusual that only 53 per cent of the take-ups in social housing are taken up at this time of year. Those units which have not been taken up for reasons of rezoning, and because of the inability of the client groups to make their financing available, will be reassigned this year. However, those units and those groups will become eligible for those same units in the corporation's 1985 fiscal year.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR CO-OP HOUSING
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his part answer. What he has left out is that it is unusual to arrive at the end of November with no word about the reallocations. In light of the Prime Minister's condemna-

November 28, 1984
Oral Questions
tion of the Liberal Government two months ago for cutting the co-op housing allocations almost in half, would the Minister tell us whether he intends to reassign the allocations which cannot be taken up, so as to fill the very serious gap in the co-op housing program which was left by the Liberals?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member, through you, that it is not the intention of this Government to reduce co-op housing by some 41 per cent, which was the direction taken by the previous administration. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that co-op housing be the only commitment and the only direction under public housing which this Government takes in reallocation of those units, the Hon. Member and I do not share the same view.


DENIAL OF INSURANCE TO SUBDIVISION IN FORT McMURRAY, ALTA.
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Labour and has to do with his duties with respect to CMHC. Would the Minister tell us when he will direct CMHC to stop the discriminatory practice of denying whole subdivisions within Fort McMurray CMHC insurance? I refer to the Abasands subdivision which is less than 10 years old.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has my assurance that my officials in CMHC are aware of the concern he has expressed. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it very strange that the Hon. Member takes up the time of his colleagues in the House when he could speak to me at other times about these matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: However, on a serious note, Mr. Speaker, I do share the Hon. Member's concern. The officials in CMHC have been made aware of the problem, and the subdivision within his constituency to which he has referred will, I hope, be able to become again a client of CMHC in the mortgage insurance fund.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. The Government has promised to establish a red meat stabilization program this year for hard pressed farmers, many of whom are facing bankruptcy this winter. In the agreement reached by the federal and provincial agricultural Ministers last July, only the three prairie provinces and Ontario agreed to the program. Would the Minister tell us whether the federal Government is going to go ahead with the establishment of this red meat
stabilization program without the participation of the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, and Quebec?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government intends to proceed with enabling legislation. Presently there are agreements between the four provinces to which the Member refers. The legislation will be enabling and, hopefully, after a period of time other provinces will see fit to join.


INTRODUCTION OF ENABLING LEGISLATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Acting Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Government will bring in that legislation within the next few weeks so that the enabling legislation can be in place by the first of January. Otherwise the Ontario Minister of Agriculture has indicated that he is going ahead unilaterally to establish a program in that province which will further fragment the whole situation across the country.


Charles James Mayer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government intends to introduce that legislation very shortly. I would like to add that, from the tone of the Hon. Member's question I take it that he would actively support that legislation. Let me say that the legislation will be introduced within three months, or thereabouts, of our new mandate. The Hon. Member's Party was in power during the last four years and did nothing on that matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Keeping in mind that the Province of Ontario has been somewhat ham fisted in its dealings with Ontario's commercial fishermen, would the Minister indicate what agreement, if any, he reached last night during his private meeting with Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources regarding the jurisdictional dispute over fish quotas on the Great Lakes?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. I am very pleased to see that, from the conversation which we were able to have last night, the Hon. Member has taken this opportunity forthwith to ask a question. It is a serious and important question.
I met with the appropriate Minister of the Government of Ontario last night to discuss further the difficulties which he has had in the administration of the fishery in the Great Lakes, which is, of course, a responsibility of the Government of Ontario. We clearly understood that there has been some
November 28, 1984

misconception as to where the authority and responsibility lie for the administration of that fishery. We are going to have further discussions so that the arrangements between the federal Government and the Ontario Government are clearly perceived and set out.


HARDSHIPS TO FISHERMEN
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister indicate whether there was discussion about conditions which the federal Government might include in any agreement with Ontario to ensure that any of the hardships which have been created, because of the manner in which the quotas have been implemented in Ontario, will be eliminated?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the federal jurisdiction in this regard is primarily and fundamentally to ensure that the stocks of fish are maintained and enhanced, and it is most clearly not, in view of the delegated authority to the Province of Ontario, the administration of quotas or other arrangements which are directed by the Government of Ontario with respect to the fishermen. Therefore, we agreed that that distinction must be very clearly understood by all fishermen and by the public generally, who, of course, have a very understandable concern in the matter.


THE CENSUS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it concerns the "great hotel caper" which informed us that Manitoba was not to build its hopes on getting an extra $72 million in federal equalization payments which had been previously requested. Recognizing that the census is used as the base for establishing equalization payments, will the Prime Minister tell us whether the cancellation of the census was in fact part of a scheme by his Minister of Finance to reduce or shortchange payments to the provinces?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could address the answer to my hon. friend. I would like to indicate to the Hon. Member, as I have indicated in the past, that we are well acquainted with the fact that the Government requires certain data and information in order to make its decisions, including provincial population data, and so forth, for the Minister of Finance.
We have great confidence in the professionals at Statistics Canada to use a variety of techniques in order to gather this information, be it statistical surveys, polling, administrative data, census or a whole lot of other areas. We will guarantee that the Minister of Finance, and other Ministers who require such information, will obtain the information as accurately as
Petitions
possible and in a most cost effective method, so that the concerns of the Hon. Member will be addressed.


STATISTICS CANADA REPORT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister give the House this answer today, when a Statistics Canada report dated August 1983 says the following, and I quote:
He concluded that it was not feasible and that there was no other solution but to hold the 1986 census.
Could the Minister explain the apparent contradiction with the StatsCan text?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that, after much consultation with some very able StatsCan professionals, they have assured me, and I have great confidence in them, that all of the information the Government requires to make proper policy decisions will be obtained. The Hon. Member has my assurance on that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition.
To the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled:
We the undersigned residents of Canada now avail ourselves of our ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
We humbly sheweth:
That the Via Rail Company having chosen to make changes in the services provided to the community of Casselman, Ontario, that the same company having neglected to provide adequate notice to the population and its Member of Parliament and that such changes-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, when I rise the Hon. Member should wait until I have something to say. 1 have to advise him that the explanations for petitions-

November 28, 1984
Order Paper Questions

-the explanation has to be very short. This is our practice and the explanation given by the Hon. Member is somewhat overly detailed. I think that it is enough.
Does the Hon. Member have a second petition?


Don Boudria: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Very well.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the petition which I have just presented was signed by 786 people.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present another petition with a similar text asking that a moratorium be placed on the cancellation of another VIA Rail service, this time in Glen Robertson; this petition was signed by 300 people.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents of the City of Toronto, asking Parliament to change the appropriate laws in 1984 so that in 1985 large corporations will receive tax breaks only in proportion to the new jobs they create, and that the new jobs and tax breaks be reported quarterly to Parliament.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and duty to present a petition today signed by approximately 1,000 residents of the Beaverton area of my constituency of Victoria-Haliburton. These petitioners believe that the Government of Canada must allow a return to capital punishment. They have been thoroughly disgusted, as have I, at the senseless murders of police officers in recent days, especially in the Province of Ontario. We must have a strong deterrent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 18.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: There are five lawyers assigned to the Department from the Department of Justice.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would ask that all other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, can the Parliamentary Secretary indicate when the answers to Questions Nos. 96 and 97 will be forthcoming?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, so far there have been 99 questions put on the Order Paper. Obviously his are the most recent. We have answered-


Some Hon. Members:: Four.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -which is a higher percentage of answers than were given in the Thirty-first or Thirty-second Parliament at this stage.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, I have tabled a number of Order Paper questions, including a four-part series which involved 27 responses. To date I have heard absolutely nothing from the Government even though they included such "private" information as the number of housing starts predicted for Canada in 1985. I think the Government's record should be better. I want to hear why he has not answered Order Paper Questions Nos. 12, 24, 27 and 18?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that the information is coming forward, and it has come forward faster than it did in either of the last two Parliaments.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), her office has been in contact with my office. We have discussed it with her and informed the Hon. Member that the Department is working on the answers to her questions and they will be available as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, I understand what is going on but neither the Hon. Member for Hamilton East nor the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) actually had a point of order. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about when a question will be answered because we are at that stage. It is not in fact a point of order because we are at the stage of a motion concerning whether the remaining questions shall stand.


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I have 12 questions on the Order Paper and I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary when I can expect some answers to the questions?
November 28, 1984


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has listened to my last two answers, he would have a better understanding.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 tabled a question in the House on November 5 concerning such simple matters as what did it cost to change the carpeting in front of the Prime Minister's office. I am sure you will agree that such questions can be answered in less than a month.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, the bill may not be in yet.


Mr. Speaker:: The question indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would 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


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-11, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present this House will Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority. The practice of obtaining new borrowing powers for the Government has always been at minimum an annual event, and Parliament has examined these Bills on many occasions in the past. Consequently many Hon. Members are familiar with the details of borrowing authority Bills. However, there are many new members of the House who are not so familiar and therefore 1 will present the new Bill in some detail and briefly explain the need for borrowing authority.
I bring forward this Bill on behalf of the Government fully aware of the increased pressures government borrowing authority puts on capital markets. However, this Bill is guided nonetheless by our efforts to restrain government spending in
Borrowing Authority
order not to affect adversely capital markets. Under the Financial Administration Act, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament in order for the Government to increase its outstanding debt, and Part IV, Section 36 of the Act, requires that no money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament. This refers to new money only, Mr. Speaker. That is because under Section 38 there is continuing authority to borrow funds to repay maturing debt. Thus for the Government to implement a regular debt program to meet its financial requirements, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament.
As some Hon. Members will recall, Parliament has already granted borrowing authority amounting to $24.6 billion for the present fiscal year, an amount based on the previous government's financial requirements of $25.5 billion. However, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) pointed out in his economic statement, our Government's inherited financial requirements for fiscal 1984-85 have increased to $29.9 billion. Therefore, because of the sorry plight left us by the previous government, our Government will require supplementary borrowing authority for the current fiscal year.
In addition, the financial requirements for 1985-86, inclusive of the new expenditure and tax initiatives which the Minister of Finance announced in his economic statement, are now projected to be $29.2 billion, almost $6 billion higher than estimated last February.
I would now like to discuss the Bill itself and how the amounts requested were arrived at. Part I, Clause 2(1) of this Bill, seeks additional borrowing authority for 1984-85 of $7.3 billion. This amount is made up of $5.3 billion, an amount equal to the increase in financial requirements for 1984-85 of $29.9 billion less the $24.6 billion already granted, plus a reserve of $2 billion.
Clause 2(2) states that all borrowing authority conferred by the above section that remains unused, to the extent that the unused portion exceeds $2 billion, shall expire on March 31, 1985. The intent of this provision is to enable the Government to carry forward the reserve. Thus, we are not requesting a further reserve for 1985-86. This clause also ensures that not more than $2 billion will be carried forward.
The request for a non-lapsing reserve is intended to cover unpredictable changes in the financial requirements. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is money for a rainy day. It does not permit spending beyond what has been approved by Parliament or that has been given ongoing authority by Acts of Parliament. The reserve amount is designed to accommodate the impact of unpredictable changes in financial requirements caused, for example, by foreign exchange operations. When the Canadian dollar is under upward pressure, for example, Canadian dollars are sold into the market and U.S. dollars are purchased in order to maintain an orderly market in the Canadian dollar.

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
Because of these stabilizing operations, the Exchange Fund Account accumulates U.S. dollars. To finance this increase in official reserves, Canadian dollars must either be taken from cash balances or borrowed and charged against the borrowing authority. On the other hand, when the Canadian dollar is under downward pressure, U.S. dollar reserves fall. The depreciation may need to be supplemented by drawing on the standby credit facilities the Government has. These are held at Canadian and international banks. In the alternative, Mr. Speaker, the need must be met by other types of foreign borrowing. I should make it clear that any of these borrowings must be charged against borrowing authority. Insufficient borrowing authority could limit the Government's ability to maintain orderly conditions in the foreign exchange market and disrupt the domestic borrowing program.
In Part II of the Bill, Clause 4(1) requests borrowing authority of $16 billion for fiscal 1985-86. The amount should be sufficient to meet borrowing requirements through to the fall of 1985. The Minister of Finance will introduce further borrowing authority legislation following his Budget next spring seeking the remainder of borrowing authority for the full 1985-86 fiscal year.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, Clause 5 states that the borrowing authority granted in Part II of the Bill will come into force on April 1, 1985, the date on which the fiscal year commences.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that borrowing authority permits the Government to implement a regular financing program. I should make clear that the Government has made cost reduction one of the major goals of its new administration. Given the relative importance of public debt charges in total government expenditures, it is a primary goal of the Government to minimize these charges.
As Hon. Members are no doubt aware, Government of Canada securities currently outstanding amount to more than $155 billion. The financial requirements are such that the level of outstanding debt will increase by over $2 billion every month. In addition, previously issued debt is coming due and must be refinanced. Consequently, each new issue is carefully tailored to meet the prevailing market conditions and investor demand, and to avoid, wherever possible, pressures on the capital markets.
Thus, another important objective of debt management is to promote the smooth and efficient operation of the financial markets. Besides being cost effective, this helps to ensure that federal borrowing operations do not interfere with borrowing activities by other levels of government or the private sector.
As a matter of interest to Hon. Members, I would like to outline how the Government has made use of the borrowing authority that was provided by Parliament for the current fiscal year. The total amount of authority provided for 198485 was $24.5 billion. To the end of October domestic borrowing operations used about $13.8 billion of borrowing authority; $11 billion through the issue of Treasury Bills, $7.3 billion through the sale of marketable bonds, and net redemptions of $4.5 billion of Canada Savings Bonds.
Foreign borrowing has added a further $ 1 billion to the use of borrowing authority. The impact of foreign borrowing on the borrowing authority was the net effect of a one billion borrowing in the Swiss franc market in May, a 120 billion yen bank loan in the Japanese capital market in July, and a redemption of a 500 million Deutschmark private placement in May which reduced the total use of borrowing authority.
As a result of these domestic and foreign financing operations, the total use of borrowing authority to date in this fiscal year has been $14.8 billion. At the beginning of November there was about $9.7 billion of unused authority remaining. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this borrowing request is greater than we would have wished, but it is indicative of the fiscal situation we have inherited from the previous government.

Mr. Speaker, the additional borrowing authority will enable this administration to manage the affairs of the Government more effectively. I would therefore urge all Hon. Members to expedite the passage of Bill C-l 1 so that this Government can go on serving all Canadians more and more effectively.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as the days progress we find more and more candidates for the television series "That's Incredible". We seem to have a new definition of arrogance in politics emerging in the House. First we had a budget boot-legged in as an economic statement. Now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), speaking through the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall), is seeking borrowing authority not only for 1984-85 but for next year in the amount of $16 billion. If parliamentarians, responsible to the Canadian people for funds borrowed, do not pause and reflect on that, I do not know whether we would be discharging our duties.
The Minister of Finance was caught without his briefs the other day. Perhaps that will add a little humility to the Minister and his Department. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon for people to forget their briefs in a hotel room. However, these were not Stanfield's. These were the briefs of the Deputy Minister of Finance. That is a luxury which the Minister of Finance really cannot afford.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are all aware in this House that when we have deficits, it is necessary to borrow to finance them. Fine. There is no problem there, except that it is altogether unacceptable for the government to seek such a borrowing authority without providing estimates for next year.
They have the impudence to ask us for a $16 billion borrowing power without providing us with estimates for next year. Therefore, before giving our approval, we should wait until the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tables in the House his budget for next year.
November 28, 1984



When there is no Budget or estimates for next year, how can responsible parliamentarians be expected to entertain a demand for $16 billion for next year? I see that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is smiling. I am aware that they deal with big numbers on Bay Street but when we are asked to approve $16 billion without one scintilla of evidence about how that money is to be spent, I ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) what he would do if he was in our position.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: I would ask the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).


Donald James Johnston: I know what he would say if he was allowed but tomorrow morning he would be out on the new carpet in front of the Prime Minister's office.
Apart from the fact that we have no estimates or Budget, my colleagues and I are still trying to recover from those extraordinary numbers presented by the Minister of Finance in his economic statement a few weeks ago, which was a mini-budget.
There is certainly no way that we could entertain a request of this kind without at least having access to the facts and data in an economic statement which indicated that the deficit for 1985-86 would increase by $9.1 billion beyond the amount presented by the same officials through the predecessor to the Minister of Finance in February of this year. There is another candidate for the program "That's Incredible". I suggest that something is rotten in the state of Denmark when one looks at the agenda and the requests presented here.
The Minister of Finance agreed when we asked him to come before the committee. We want him to appear before the committee as soon as possible because we need that explanation. We require the estimates and his final Budget before we could possibly entertain a request such as this. There are too many questions that we want answered. We want to examine the Minister and his officials in light of this demonstrated incompetence, with an increase of $9.1 billion during that brief period of time. We want to know whether the numbers presented in the November economic statement have any more credibility than the numbers presented last February. I suggest that they do not.
Why should we assume that the November numbers which presumably underlie this outrageous request are correct? There is no evidence in the Government's document, "A new Agenda for Canada", which was tabled in the House, to justify that extraordinary increase of $9.1 billion.
Let me quote some of the language used in this document to justify this change in the projections. It states that "The economic outlook is bleaker in 1984 and 1985". I would point out that in the document that was presented the real GNE in 1985 was estimated at marginally less than what the Minister of Finance had provided in his earlier documentation. The same is true for economic growth to the end of the decade.
Borrowing Authority
It is certainly not the issue of growth which has created this deficit because the numbers do not justify that. For example, let us look at the Consumer Price Index. The CPI for 1984 is estimated at 4.5 per cent in this new agenda. It is interesting to note that when one sees the CPI increases this year, we have moved from a base point of 119.6 to 123.2 for the period January to October. When that is annualized it translates into the number of 3.61 per cent. That is the real increase in the cost of carrying on government this year. Do we have inflated numbers in future years, particularly next year, which brings this deficit up to $37 billion, as we appear to have in the current year? Is it not appropriate for us to have answers to these fundamental questions before we write a cheque for $16 billion to the Government? Let us look at some of the other data.


Mr. Fennell:: That sounds familiar. We have heard this song before.


Donald James Johnston: I will deal with the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) later.
It is my submission that there is a real conflict of interest in the Government and in the Department of Finance. There is an obvious desire to bloat the deficit in order to make it look as unreasonable as possible. This is not only meant to intimidate and scare the population but to allow the Government to say later, when the real numbers come in, that it did a great job.
I have an article from which I will quote later which is probably known quite well to the Minister of State for Finance. It is a marvellous article that was written in The Atlantic Monthly in December, 1981. It is entitled "The Education of David Stockman". I suggest that the Washington connection that we have witnessed with the Government goes far beyond the relationship between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President. It would appear to go right down to Mr. Stockman. We saw the techniques that were used, the numbers that were run and the attempts that were made to change the numbers in the data. We saw how easily the numbers were changed. We saw that exercise which was celebrated at the time. It seems to me that there is a David Stockman buried close beneath the surface of the Department of Finance. There are some interesting quotations in that article which I will touch upon in the course of my remarks.
I suggest that there is a real conflict of interest and I am very suspicious of the numbers. Furthermore, we have solid evidence upon which to be suspicious. Let me draw some of the evidence to the attention of the Minister of State for Finance.
We know that one of the celebrated cuts was that of $154 million out of the Department of National Defence. Of course, this came on the heels of trips by the Minister to NATO and Washington where he said the Government was going to increase the defence budget. I am tempted to say that I suspect that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) is now regarded by his NATO colleagues as the "minister of oral rearmament", because that is all that we have heard to date. The minister of oral rearmament, when questioned in the

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
House with respect to the $154 million cut, said, as reported at page 340 of Hansard on November 19, 1984:
As a result of that decrease in the rate of inflation and of more realistic purchases by officials in the National Defence Department, a saving of $154 million was effected without interfering in any way with present or future commitments which we have made.
I ask members of the House to reflect upon the seriousness of what the Minister said. He said "as a result of that decrease in the rate of inflation". In other words, a Treasury Board reference level adjustment has been put forward by this Government as an expenditure cut.
If that is true with respect to the $154 million in the Department of National Defence, what is the situation with respect to all programs of government which are indexed through the relevant fiscal framework period with respect to anticipated inflation? We know that inflation has come down. We know that inflation is still falling. We know from the numbers that over the last several months it is something in the order of 1 per cent to 2 per cent annualized. The Minister of National Defence has told us that there is no cut here, that this is an inflationary adjustment. How many other cuts are inflationary adjustments? How many inflationary adjustments were not made in arriving at these outrageous numbers for the deficit in future years?
The Minister of State for Finance may not be able to answer that question today. I suspect we will have to get at the officials, and a great effort will be made to rationalize the numbers. One should look at the statement by Mr. Stockman when he refers to the exercise that was carried on in 1981, a similar exercise by the Reagan administration. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this article should be compulsory reading for all members of the budget exercise, the hatchet exercise, formally carried on by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), for which the Minister of Finance surely has ultimate responsibility. As Stockman said:
None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers. "You've got so many different budgets out and so many different baselines and such complexity now in the interactive parts of the budget between policy action and the economic environment and all the internal mysteries of the budget, and there are a lot of them. People are getting from A to B and it's not clear how they are getting there. It's not clear how we got there.
It sure is not clear how this Government and this Minister of Finance got from some $27-odd billion to $37-odd billion in terms of the deficit for 1985-86, never mind what happened during subsequent periods. And when I hear from the Minister of National Defence that some part-we do not know how much-of that $154 million is simply a Treasury Board reference level adjustment, it makes us suspicious. With that kind of suspicion, how on earth can the Minister come into this House and ask us to authorize a $16 billion borrowing for next year? It is a totally unreasonable request.
If that number is inflated there is a good precedent in Washington, and as I said, with a strong Washington connection the Tories may have learned something. Stockman is reviewed pursuant to having established a number of cuts and
it is reported that he was somewhat disappointed and perhaps not willing to take as much credit as many thought he deserved.
It is reported in this article:
Because he knew that much more traumatic budget decisions still confronted them. Because he knew that the budget-resolution numbers were an exaggeration. The total of $35 billion was less than it seemed, because the "cuts'' were from an imaginary number-hypothetical projections from the Congressional Budget Office on where spending would go if nothing changed in policy or economic activity. Stockman knew that the CBO base was a bit unreal. Therefore, the total of "cuts" was, too.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are confronted here with an analogous situation. We are presented with a hypothetical deficit for next year and for the following years against which we are now being asked to borrow real dollars. The analogy holds. I suggest that it is something which responsible parliamentarians, not only on this side of the House but I hope in the Conservative caucus itself, would raise. It goes right to the integrity of the role which this House has to play in terms of raising money from the public to finance public expenditures.
We all have to be suspicious of projections. Just to give some comfort to the Minister of State for Finance, when next year all her numbers and all her projections prove to be wrong, the only question is how wrong.
In the New York Times for Monday, November 14, we find 10 economists' forecasts for Reagan's second term. In 1985, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, from these established economists we find that real GNP growth ranges from a low estimate of 0.6 of 1 per cent to a high of 4 per cent. That is in 1985. Of course, this deficit number we are looking at is also based upon projections, presumably projections of our own Department of Finance. When we get the Minister before the committee with his officials, perhaps we will find out what input data was put into the model. But the fact of the matter is that the Department of Finance has discredited itself completely in terms of projections simply by moving forward with a number which is $9.1 billion higher than the number the same officials developed, presumably using the same methodology, only a few months ago.
We cannot put ourselves in a position of accepting that kind of smoke and mirrors upon which to accept a demand of this kind. David Stockman once referred to the numbers that appeared in these budgets as "political numbers". I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is what we have here. That is what we have seen in the economic statement. That is what we are going to continue to get from what I see, namely, political numbers. But the $16 billion for next year which the Minister of State for Finance stood up and asked in a short five or six-minute part of her speech is not a political number. That amount is real dollars that have to be financed through borrowings on Canadian markets.
We want to know how the Minister of Finance got to that number. I suggest that we-and I come back to the point-as responsible parliamentarians cannot roll over and play dead. We have a role to play here notwithstanding our numbers. We have to impress upon this Government at the outset of its mandate that we expect more information, more data, more
November 28, 1984

openness and more accountability. We have had none of it so far. Of course, we have seen what the guidelines have done. They have created almost a travesty of any system of open government under this gang so far. Hopefully in the next few weeks or few days the Tories will learn their lesson.
We do not want to have to get our data from briefs left by Ministers in hotel rooms. We want to get our data and our material here in the House and before the committees. So far we have been singularly unsuccessful in doing that.
1 would like to make reference in closing to one more short passage from this article in The Atlantic Monthly, which I belive the Minister has read. Everybody in the financial community read it at the time. The statement at the end by Stockman reads:
Whenever there are great strains or changes in the economic system-
This Government itself has certainly created strains and changes in the economic system.
-it tends to generate crackpot theories, which then find their way into the legislative channels.
That is what I am worried about. That is my greatest fear, that we will see crackpot theories finding their ways into legislative channels before this House. If they do, it is our job as an Opposition to ensure that those crackpot theories are not imposed or inflicted upon an unsuspecting public. We have to do that job, Mr. Speaker.

Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to propose something to amend-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member has 40 minutes-


Donald James Johnston: I do not think I will need them, Mr. Speaker, for this is nothing but an arrogant request. I do not feel I need 40 minutes to deal with such an request.
I merely ask the House to accept my amendment, which is reasonable in view of the evidence I have just given to the effect that the request before us is utterly preposterous.
1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word 'that4 and substituting the following words:
'this House will not proceed with a Bill to provide borrowing authority for a
fiscal year for which the Government has not provided complete details of
spending requirements or revenue projections*.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Blenkarn:: They can't do that.


Harvie Andre: I should like to bring to the attention of the Chair, if I am correct about what the Hon. Member is attempting to do, that I believe the amendment is out of order. A motion that the Bill be given second reading is very limited
Borrowing Authority
in terms of amendment. If the Chair will look at the precedents in this regard, I think it will conclude that indeed this amendment is out of order.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre) to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 226, under the heading 'Reasoned Amendments*, where the following appears:
It is also competent for a Member, who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move what is known as a 'reasoned amendment*. This amendment leaves out all the words in the main question after the word 'that4 to add other words. A reasoned amendment is in the form of a motion and many fall into one of several categories:
Some of the principles are that the amendment must strictly relate to the Bill and that the amendment must not be concerned in detail with the Bill. I suggest that the amendment is quite appropriate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At first blush I would like to say that the amendment appears to be in order. I would like to take it under advisement, carry on with the debate, and later this day come back with a ruling.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I had difficulty believing my ears in the last two or three minutes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I can recall absolutely crystal clearly, vividly, not many, many months ago in this same Chamber when the Party of the Hon. Member who has just spoken stood in the House and asked Parliament to consider exactly what the present Government is asking us to do. At that time speaker after speaker rose in their places and explained the need for this proposal. They explained why this was totally appropriate. Then, one after another, members of the opposition stood in their places and explained that it was unacceptable. As a result of a long battle, the then government came to its senses and realized that in fact it was not an honourable thing to do.
To see the finance critic for the Liberal Party, in just a matter of a handful of weeks, standing in his place with indignation and asking how the Government could be doing what they themselves did just a few short weeks ago is the kind of behaviour which makes people question how serious members of the Liberal Party are. They say one thing one month and something totally different another month. That is why the people of Canada, when they had a crack at them, said that they had had enough of this crazyness and two-faced politics. Having had enough of their saying one thing one day and one thing another, they said: "We are going to kick these folks out of office so far they will never come back". And that is what they did; that is exactly what they did. With this kind of behaviour they are ensuring that that process will continue.
It is unbelievable that that man, the finance critic, can stand there and smile and laugh. That is why the reputation of politicians is on the same level as, I suppose, child molesters almost in the country, or tax collectors.

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on!


Nelson Andrew Riis: That kind of behaviour from the Liberal Party, day after day, month after month-


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is outrageous.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -the hypocrisy, the two-facedness, the conflict-


An Hon. Member:: Sit down; at least have the decency to do that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do believe that it is unparliamentary language for the Hon. Member to refer to politicians as the equivalent of child molesters. I think every Member in the House would agree that he should withdraw that statement.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege-


Mr. Keeper:: We did not interrupt your speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not hear anything in that regard. If I see something in Hansard tomorrow that I feel should be withdrawn, I will bring it to the attention of the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) is rising on a point of order or privilege.


Donald James Johnston: I rise on a point of privilege. I am sure the Hon. Member, when he gets over his temporary bout of hysteria, will recognize that "hypocrite" is also unparliamentary. I believe it has been defined as such and has been discussed before in the House. I would add that to the list of withdrawals which should take place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: "Hypocrite" is on both lists; it depends on how it is used. Let me have a look at Hansard. 1 do not know whether there is a full moon tonight or what is happening here. However, we should have a little decorum. I will look at this tomorrow and I will see what Hansard indicates. I would like the Hon. Member for Kam-loops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) to carry on, but first I will recognize the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I too will be interested in hearing the results of your deliberations on that question of privilege. On a point of order, I would just like to seek clarification. I understood, subject to the rules which were brought in in the last Parliament, that speeches given in this Chamber during this time were subject to questions and answers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member please take his seat. The initial part of this debate provides for 40-minute speeches with no questions. Thereafter there are 20-minute speeches with questions and comments.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap will be able to carry on with his speech.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think enough has been said.


An Hon. Member:: Show some courtesy.


Sheila Maureen Copps: To make a comment about child molesters-


An Hon. Member:: On the level of-


Sheila Maureen Copps: To make a comment like that is absolutely-


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


Nelson Andrew Riis: I seem to have touched a nerve among those of the Liberal Party in the House today.


An Hon. Member:: That's right, a very sensitive nerve.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I certainly have touched a nerve.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Because we are concerned about that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in light of your ruling in terms of unparliamentary language, of course if you find that I did utter unparliamentary language, I would be the first to stand back from it.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It does not become you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) that this is not the Ontario Legislature.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If we are to carry on with business in this House, I would appreciate the proper decorum-


Brian Vincent Tobin: There were Members across the floor speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Thank you.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is an unbecoming comment from the Chair, I must say.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have heard the Hon. Member's remarks. I heard him yesterday too as he was getting awfully close to the point where I think it was unparliamentary of him also. I will not carry on any more as far as that is concerned, but I would like to bring it to his attention also.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to abuse the privileges of the House, but when I spoke about the issue of child molesters, I had no intention of impinging on the integrity of any Hon. Member. I frankly find it a very serious allegation, and I would have only hoped that members of the New Democratic Party would have taken that issue more seriously.
November 28, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: He has withdrawn the statement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I say that in a very serious vein.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I thank you very much.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Again I think enough has been said about the approach of the Liberal Party saying one thing when it was in office and now decrying the Government for doing exactly the same thing. It is hard to believe.
I want now to turn my attention to the matter before us, a motion asking us to consider Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority. The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) spoke for nine minutes. During that nine minutes she asked us to approve $23,300,000,000 in borrowing authority.
I recognize that she is acting on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It would have been appropriate if during the deliberations over that introduction some efforts were made to point out more clearly how these dollars are going to be used. Nine minutes for $23.3 billion is hardly the explanation one would expect from a government which prides itself on indicating that it is open and is quite prepared to share information and build confidence among the people of Canada.
Part I of Bill C-l 1 asks for authority to borrow $7.3 billion for the present fiscal year, 1984-85. What is interesting is that this amount of money includes a $2 billion slush fund or contingency fund. The Government is suggesting that some contingencies may arise and the $2 billion may be required before the conclusion of this fiscal year. Perhaps it wants to add to the 350 tax collectors being brought on staff to try and wring more tax money out of the hard pressed small business community.
Perhaps the Government wants to add another few hundred to the 700 UIC sheriffs which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is now hiring to try and squeeze all of those people abusing the UI system, that lucrative system of income. Maybe there will be more PIP grants to attempt to bribe the oil companies into doing more exploring in our frontier areas. Perhaps there will be contingencies in terms of tax relief for the hard pressed banks. Many do not pay taxes year after year. Some still pay. Perhaps the Government is worrying about those few which still pay a few dollars in income tax on an annual basis. Perhaps the Government wants to add more chiefs of staff, more Cabinet Ministers or more JetStars to jet Cabinet Ministers around the country, or perhaps create some new patronage situations of one kind or another. It is difficult to become enthusiastic about endorsing a borrowing request that includes a $2 billion slush fund.
The difficulty in Bill C-ll comes in Part II where the Government seeks authority to borrow $16 billion, not for this fiscal year in which we are operating, but for the future, for
Borrowing Authority
fiscal year 1985-86. A legitimate question that Members of Parliament who take their positions responsibly would ask is what the projections are for 1985-86. What does the Government plan to do? If it is asking authority, is it unreasonable to expect that it will lay out a blueprint, some strategies, an explanation? Is it going to provide us with projections of how it is going to use this money? It is an affront to Parliament to ask for $16 billion and not indicate at all how it is going to be utilized.
Imagine if you, Mr. Speaker, as an interested businessman, went to your banker and asked for a $100,000 line of credit. The bank would say: "We certainly are interested in your entrepreneurial ideas and so on. Could we see your projections for the next year or two? Could we see the plans you have as a small businessman?". You would say: "No, I am not telling you of my plans. I have made no projections. I am not going to share them with you. I just want you to give me a $100,000 line of credit. That is all I ask". That banker would tell you to quickly go out the door. He would not co-operate. He would not say that that is an appropriate way to do business.
It is appropriate that this House of Commons say the same thing. It is not an appropriate way to do business. It is not the way to develop a sense of confidence in this Government. It is not how you build an atmosphere of confidence in terms of Canadian investors and consumers. It is time the Government took its confidence building seriously, came clean with the people of Canada and said exactly what it is going to do before we authorize these kinds of borrowings.
I listened with interest last night to The Journal. There were four of the major spokespersons for the Business Council on National Issues, Bill Mulholland of the Bank of Montreal, Bruce Howe, the President of BCRIC, John Sheppard, representing the high-tech industries of Canada, and John Newell, the President of DuPont Canada, some of the major voices for the investment community in Canada.
Barbara Frum put it to them. She asked about the business confidence associated with the new Government. Is there going to be confidence? Their response, after some fudging, hedging and a great deal of rhetoric, was that they all agreed that, by and large, until the end of 1985 there would be very little investment. Even that was qualified. It depended on what happened in the United States, the liquidity position of the various Canadian corporations and so on. With a great deal of hesitation and some caution they said that perhaps by the end of 1985 we will see some investment in the country.
It is not surprising when you consider the kind of secrecy behind which this Government has been hiding. We found out today that at a meeting between the federal Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance for the Province of Manitoba, at which they were sharing ideas and so on as to how to co-operate, the federal Minister was secretly tape recording the proceedings. He never asked the Manitoba Finance Minister whether that was appropriate.


Cyril Keeper: Wilsongate.

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority


Nelson Andrew Riis: This is something that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has amply suggested is unacceptable. This kind of behaviour encourages one to think in terms of George Orwell and the whole concept of Big Brother. Tape recording private meetings-for what purpose? Our colleague from Winnipeg explained in the Elouse of Commons today that during the briefing sessions with his Minister and his deputies there was an individual present taping word for word the conservations that went on. This kind of behaviour does not result in open government and confidence being built in the country.
Parliament is here to represent the people of Canada. Parliamentarians are here to represent the people of Canada and to protect them from legislation that is not necessarily in their best interests. We are not here to feed a habit of a government that cannot or will not say where it is going. Considering the directions in which this Government has indicated it is interested in moving, 1 find it very surprising that we are being asked for this blank cheque, asking us to buy a pig in a poke.
The kind of directions we have seen from this new Government encourages one to ask questions and to become rather fearful at times about what it has in mind. For example, the Minister of Employment and Immigration is concerned about geting people working. However, one of her very first actions was to hire 700 sheriffs, referred to as a goon squad by one of my colleagues, to find all of these cheaters who are taking advantage of these unbelieveable UI benefits. This is probably at the encouragement of groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or the Canadian Organization for Small Business, which recently issued a report stating that 170,000 jobs are going wanting, that no one wants to work because they make all this money in UI benefits.
The average unemployment insurance benefit received by a Canadian is $153 per week. In a typical urban community such as the ones in which 80 per cent of Canadians live, a typical rental rate for a modest accommodation is probably $400 to $500 per month. When the suggestion is made that $153 per week on average in UI benefits is so generous that people are not prepared to work, I think the Government is receiving some very inappropriate advice.
When the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) was in opposition, he railed on and on about the Government's heavy hand, its jackboots and its fascist approach to tax collecting. He participated in a cross-country task force and heard story after story about how the tax collectors tried to beat tax money out of the people. What has been the response of the new Minister of National Revenue, the same person who chaired that task force? His response has been to hire 300 individuals to harass those same people who appeared before his task force. That was not quite enough though, Mr. Speaker. He had another good idea.
As the President of the Bank of Montreal said some weeks ago when referring to the corporate sector, a sector which is awash in tax incentives, many of these folks were not receiving all of the possible tax advice on how to avoid paying taxes. The
Minister of National Revenue said that he had a great idea. He is now going to set up a separate tax advice department so that those firms that are not certain that they have identified every single tax loophole can seek some advice and direction to make sure that as much tax is being avoided as absolutely possible. That is the kind of behaviour that starts to make people wonder about the motives of Ministers and the Government.
The Minister of Finance rose in his place and said that he had some great ideas about how to help people and get the economy rolling. The first thing to do was to stop thousands of students from working in the summer by cutting $85 million from Summer Canada. All of those students from small communities, rural and urban areas across the country would not be able to find summer employment. He said that that was not quite enough because now those students are returning to school so he will freeze all of the student loans and will not expand federal support for students who are going to colleges, technical schools, vocational schools and universities. He then said that a great many senior citizens take advantage of the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program by improving their homes and getting more life out of them by rewiring, re-roofing, re-siding or building a new foundation. He said: "Let us reduce that giveaway. Too many people are abusing that system". He cut that program by 25 per cent.
The IRDP was cut by $175 million and the Government eliminated Tier 1 designation. This means that 50 per cent of the areas of Canada will receive no incentives or encouragements from the federal Government.


Mr. Rompkey:: Tourism support is no longer available at all.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my colleague has said, tourism support is no longer available at all. Tourism is one of the obvious future growth areas of the economy.
I think the most peculiar part of the statement made by the Minister of Finance was the suggestion that the Government would cut back on research and development programs and funding to the forestry, fishery and energy sectors. At a time when every single western industrialized nation is expanding its research and development programs, our nation is cutting them.
The economic statement went on to kill Canagrex totally. Canagrex was the Crown corporation that was put in place to assist food producers by ensuring that they have access to overseas markets and by encouraging the development of overseas marketing. The Government destroyed Canertech, another Crown Corporation which was set up to develop conservation programs and renewable energy projects. These are obviously the waves of the future. However, the future does not sit well with members of the Progressive Conservative Party. Therefore, we will not have funding and encouragement for the research and development sector.
When looking at all of the cuts, the arts community has been identified as the one which wanted to be hit the hardest. The cuts to the arts community are twice as harsh as the cuts to any other sector. One could go on and on in an effort to
November 28, 1984

make the case that the Government has not clearly signalled the direction in which it intends to move. However, the Government did say that one of the reasons all these cuts are being made is to reduce the deficit.
The projections of the Minister of Finance indicate that the deficit will increase next year. More important, one of the main issues addressed by the 21st Report of the Economic Council of Canada is the matter of the deficit. That report indicated that the major problem in terms of the deficit was not government spending but the fact that we had not been collecting adequate revenues through our taxation system. When a question was put to the Chairman of the Economic Council, he said that there had been too many corporate tax giveaways. He was trying to tell the Government that if it is to reduce the deficit, if it will be able to obtain funds so that borrowing can be kept to a minimum while still delivering the desired social programs, it must start taxing that corporate sector as much as every other country in the world does.
In the economic statement there was very little that I could see that would be of help to small business. There was very little in terms of any action on interest rates. Everyone knows that the interest rate is the number one problem in the country, yet that problem was virtually ignored. There was nothing in the economic statement regarding real steps that the Government planned to take on affirmative action or contract compliance. The entire matter of equality in the workplace was overlooked by the statement. We did hear, of course, that the Government would emasculate FIRA and allow more foreign enterprise into the country, foreign enterprise that would control the direction of our economy. It indicated that being a renter in our own house is the best way to proceed.
The Minister indicated that he wants to privatize Canadair and de Havilland. Do you not remember, Mr. Speaker, what happened with Mr. Diefenbaker and the Avro Arrow? Do you not remember what the Conservative Government did to the growing aerospace industry when it had a chance at it? The Government is doing the exact same thing again. Conservative members are saying that there is a lot of government involvement in de Havilland and Canadair. Surely there is not an aerospace industry in the world that is not developing hand in hand with its government. If the Government thinks that the aerospace industry can be developed by the private sector alone, it is staring reality in the face and ignoring it.
Many of the Ministers are suggesting that we are going to open up our borders to free trade and that this will somehow help us. It flies in the face of the actions taken by every other country in the world. Whether the action is good or bad, it ignores what is happening in the United States. As I stand here today, 21 bills are before the American Congress and every one of them is a protectionist bill which raises tariff walls. Around the world, country after country has its own FIRA in place. What is our Government doing? Again, it is moving in a direction counter to the general forces in western society.
Borrowing Authority
I suppose that the biggest surprise of all was the reference to defence in the economic statement. I like other Members realize that the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) went to Washington to say that we are going to expand our defence budget. He then went to Europe to the base of NATO operations and said: "Watch Canada now. We have a new Government, we are going to expand the defence budget". After the economic statement came out, Mr. Speaker, we found that the Government is going to cut the defence budget by $154 million.
The point I am trying to make is that the people of Canada are trying desperately to find out what the Government is up to. They want to know in which direction the Government will take us. Today the Minister of State for Finance stood before us and asked for permission to borrow $16 million into next year. The people of Canada are saying: "If we are going to give that authority, surely we must have some idea of where this Government is going". I hope it is understood from what I have said that it is not very clear where this Government is going.
Many people refer to the ghost of Mackenzie King which still lurks around these hallways. I suspect if one looks behind certain curtains one will see the ghost of Margaret Thatcher and Bill Bennett. If people want to know where this Government is going, all they have to do is look at British Columbia. It was one of the richest provinces in this country until recently. It has been a have province since its inception. It has been a province which people have looked to as one of the most thriving and dynamic parts of Canada. But in three short years, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government of that province has turned it into an economic basket case. I believe that any Hon. Member, no matter from what political party, would have trouble making a case for the actions of the Government of British Columbia.
Just look what Margaret Thatcher is doing, Mr. Speaker. If the people are wondering in what direction this Government is going, two good examples of that are the Province of British Columbia and Margaret Thatcher's Britain.


Harvie Andre: How about Mitterrand's France?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Someone across the way tells us there are alternatives. I suspect we can look at Australia to see how the economy in Australia is going. As a matter of fact, on December 1 we will see a government re-elected in Australia, which happens to be one of the most progressive governments of the world.
The advisers to Mr. Bennett, the Premier of British Columbia, when asked for advice by a young person, said: "Go east to Manitoba. That is where the growth, the investment and the jobs are". The Government of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, is a New Democratic Government. It has a different approach. This Party sees that the country should be moving in a particular direction. Its direction now is 180 degrees different.


Harvie Andre: Thank goodness!

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority


Mr. Rodriguez:: You are moving backwards.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The confusion which exists in the country is magnified when you hear Ministers such as the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Andre), who has just shouted out, and other Ministers time after time tell us in this House, in press releases or in interviews that they have a top priority in this Government. Some say the top priority is jobs; that is the number one concern. They are absolutely dedicated to meeting that problem head on. Another Minister says his number one priority is women's rights. Another priority is interest rate reduction and yet another is the small business sector. We have a Minister saying that her priority is reducing deficits. Then, of course, there is the priority of aboriginal rights and fair treatment for Quebec. Then a Minister tells us that the agricultural community is the priority and we hear that the fishing sector is the priority. But one cannot have 15 priorities, Mr. Speaker. There cannot be 15 number one concerns on the agenda.
It is that kind of behaviour, Mr. Speaker, which causes us in the Opposition to become less than enthusiastic about giving the Government the authority to borrow $16 billion to take us some place; goodness knows where, Mr. Speaker. We wish we did know where. Perhaps it is in a good direction. That is a possibility, I suppose.


John R. Rodriguez: The Tories?


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not likely, but it is possible. We have all kinds of suspicions and all kinds of evidence which encourages us to have these suspicions.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, and I will refer later on to other amendments I would like to move. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That all of the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"that this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount which is required to meet the government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle and this House therefore declines to give second reading to Bill C-11, an Act to provide borrowing authority".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It seems to me that this is about the same kind of amendment which was initially put to the House. I will take this amendment under advisement until I have ruled on the first one. I will take both amendments under advisement and we will carry on with debate.
The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier).


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are you not finished with your speech?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two or three short statements left. I did not intend to end my speech by submitting that amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right. You are entitled to the extra two or three minutes, if you wish.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I have only two or three other points I would like to make. I wanted to say, after moving the amendment, that I move that amendment based upon the Minister's own admission that portions of the borrowing authority will be applied in the next fiscal year. It is on that basis and because we believe there is no justification on the part of this Government to have that kind of borrowing authority that I introduce that amendment.
That is a quote, Mr. Speaker, from the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), on July 19, 1982. It is found at page 19456 of Hansard. At that time the Speaker took the amendment under advisement and subsequently found the amendment, word for word, to be in order.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of this amendment the Government, through the Minister of State for Finance, will reconsider its request. This was asked by the Official Opposition in 1982, government found that the request was a reasonable one and after consideration decided to practise what it had promised, which was an openness in terms of discussion on borrowing matters. I have confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the Government of the day will do the same in this case.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that my colleagues and I feel very strongly about the principles which we have discussed today. We, as members of the New Democratic Party, however, are not the only ones who feel strongly about these principles. The present Minister of Finance had this to say about the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Yellowhead. It is found in Hansard of July 20, 1982, at page 19513:
The first amendment we offered was to decline second reading of this bill. There is a well established principle that Parliament only provides sufficient borrowing authority to a government to allow it to finance its operations within the current fiscal year. It is quite clear from the figures in the bill and from the statement by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) in response to my question yesterday that the government has every intention of this borrowing authority spilling over into 1983-84.
This is all the more reprehensible because the government has not given us any projections about what will happen in 1983-84. If things are too uncertain for it to predict what is going to happen in 1983-84, then it is too uncertain for us to give it the carte blanche freedom to go on spending money like a drunken sailor. It is for that reason that we feel the government should withdraw this bill and offer something that will allow it to live within its means. This bill is clearly objectionable. I believe that amendment must be and will be supported by other members of the House.
That was a statement made in 1982 by the present Minister of Finance. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, not too long afterwards the present Chairman of the Finance Committee, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), rose in his place and commented on the particular practice which the Government is now attempting to perpetuate. He said on March 7, 1984, and I quote:
It is unconscionable. It is improper. It cannot be supported by any thinking Member of the House. This House should rise up. Sir, and demand an end to this, not only on behalf of us as Hon. Members and of our constituents, but on
November 28, 1984

behalf of our children, our children's children and our children's children yet unborn or even thought of.
The motion that the NDP has put forward has received the time-honoured test of precedence in this House. We are simply asking the Government to reconsider what we believe to be an unreasonable request in seeking authority to borrow money for a future fiscal year for which there is virtually no projection and no indication of how the Government plans to spend the money. There is little, if any, indication of the direction the Government plans to take during that period and we, too, find it unacceptable.
My colleagues will have many, many comments to make about the Bill before us in the period ahead and I look forward to those specifics in later debates.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, being a brand-new Member of Parliament and, incidentally, this being my first speech in the important function of helping the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I am proud to belong to a national Party and Government whose senior members show us such a good example of behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, the borrowing authority legislation before the House today underlines the urgency for adopting a general and basic program like the one introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8 of this year. The Bill also illustrates the need for making a clean start. The clear verdict at the polls on September 4 was eloquent, indicating that millions of Canadians agreed there was a need for change. We feel there are four challenges that must be met by the present Government.
First, we must put our own fiscal house in order so that we can limit, and ultimately reverse, the massive build-up in public debt and the damaging impact it has on confidence and growth in this beautiful country of ours.
Second, we must clearly redefine the role of Government so that it can provide a better framework for growth and job creation and be less of an obstacle to change, development and innovation.
Third, we, as a Government that has received a mandate from the vast majority of Canadians, must adopt clear-cut policies that will foster higher investment, greater innovation, increased international competitiveness and a positive climate for the birth and control of new enterprises.
Fourth and finally, we must bring about these radical changes gradually, in a way that is fair, open and consistent with the basic sense of compassion, tolerance and justice that is characteristic of Canadian society. We shall not weaken the basic income support programs which have served Canadians so well. Finally, through stronger economic performance, we shall seek to provide even greater assistance to Canadians in
Borrowing Authority
general but especially to those who truly need it. It is up to us, as the Government of this country, to demonstrate that we are able to meet these challenges, to make them work for us in our efforts to bring about economic renewal, and to put Canadians back to work.
When we consider the need for economic renewal and job creation, we see that no other obstacle is as great nor as menacing as the federal deficit.
Today, I would like to comment briefly on the crucial and almost direct connection between reducing the deficit and creating jobs. One may well ask why the deficit has suddenly become an important priority within our national policy. After all, one year's deficit is not necessarily a major problem. In fact, during recessions, Government and industry have regularly registered deficits they could later eliminate thanks to increased revenue in subsequent periods of growth.
Canadians are now beginning to understand that during the last ten years, the former federal Government ran up deficits not only during periods of recession but also during periods of growth, while there was a tendency for these deficits to increase at an alarming rate. The deficits that have accumulated year after year have led to a cumulative debt of incredible proportions. This year, our public debt will reach the staggering total of $190 billion, representing $24,000 per family across Canada. This cannot go on.
1 have tried to establish a connection between the increasing debt load and its impact on job creation. Although indirect, the connection between high deficit levels and job shortages is a very real one. Persisting by high deficits and increasing debt loads put upward pressure on interest rates and undermine investor confidence, so that together they are a formidable obstacle to growth and job creation.
Our government's priority is to control that deficit because, first and foremost, we want to create jobs for ail Canadians of all ages. This sad situation brings to mind the case of a man who wants to renovate an older house. If I may, I should like to draw an analogy, because barely a month ago, I was actively working in my capacity as structural engineer. Before rebuilding and enlarging a house, the first thing one should do is to remove all rotting load-bearing trusses and reinforce the structure. In the case of Canada, the deficit is undermining the foundation of our economy. Reducing the deficit-that is reinforcing the structure of our economy-is the only way to give renewed confidence to the business world and stimulate productive investments which are so indispensable for economic growth and the creation of the necessary jobs.
When we first looked at that frightening balance sheet as we took office in September, it became obvious to us that we had to take drastic action about the deficit.
During the election campaign, we thought we had a pretty fair idea of what to expect with respect to the deficit, that it would go down with the diminishing pressure on interest rates.

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
We were quite surprised to find out that even if we stood still the deficit would increase next year and would even be higher than this year's, and that the situation would not improve before the end of this decade. All that, even if interest rates were to dip to more normal and more acceptable levels, and if the economic recovery were to be moderately strong. The reason for that is the elementary phenomenon of compounded interests.
Debt service charges rise by about $4 billion every year simply as a result of the annual increase in the public debt. We have reached the point where $25 billion of the $35 billion deficit will be set aside exclusively to pay the interest on the debt in the coming fiscal year, while the debt itself will continue to grow larger.
More frightening still is the fact that, under such conditions, the public debt grows faster than the economy. We have decided to curb the deficit, following a prudent and enlightened approach. The cutbacks and other measures announced in the economic statement will enable us to hold the deficit, at least for a while, at the acceptable or at least tolerable level of $34.9 billion, slightly below this year's level, but still considerably lower than the projected $37 billion deficit we were unfortunately saddled with.
That is only the first step. Our objective is to cut public expenditures down by $10 billion to $15 billion between now and 1990. We think it is a realistic, responsible and commendable objective. Cutting our expenses and reconsidering our priorities in respect of public outlays will not make it possible to create jobs for all Canadians. Once consumer, business and investor confidence is restored, a return to sensible management of the Government's business will contribute positively to a certain growth in the economy.
Of course, the problem of indebtedness could have been tackled differently. One of the easy alternatives would have been the status quo followed by the previous government. But as indicated by the most recent economic projections, we would very soon have been faced with a horrendous debt situation, with all the ensuing calamities. By 1990, public indebtedness would have reached $410 billion, the equivalent of a nominal amount of $54,000 per Canadian family. For obvious reasons that have not escaped your attention, Mr. Speaker, we did not find it very difficult to turn away quickly from that solution.
Another and just as simple solution would have been to use stimulating measures. However, nothing short of huge capital injections into the economy could have had some initial effect on growth or immediate employment. Since this year's deficit already exceeded the $5 billion mark in the February estimates, deliberate and huge economic stimuli would have left us in a rather precarious position. This country would have sunk deeper into the vicious and infernal circle of indebtedness, and the outlook for growth and long-term employment would have
been seriously eroded. Loss of consumer and investor confidence would then have resulted in the loss of stable jobs in the years ahead.
Another alternative, just as simple, would have been to reduce the deficit indiscriminately and savagely, with spectac-tular and pitiless effect right from the outset. But such a drastic approach would have undermined confidence and jeopardized our country's social fabric. The cost of adapting to such a sudden turn-about in the economy would have been high, and our collective capacity to solve our structural problems would have been undermined.
There is a growing national consensus that we have to face our deficit and debt problems. Even the Leader and the financial critic of the Opposition have called for a reduction of the deficit. They support our basic objective without reservations. The previous government left us with a financial situation consistent with the incredible state of our economy.
The economic liabilities which we inherited are high unemployment, inadequate investments, shattered confidence and unwarranted individual concerns. Between the last half of 1981 and the end of 1982, we have suffered the worst recession experienced since World War II. The recovery which began in 1983 was rather moderate compared with other postwar recoveries and considerably less strong than in the United States.
After two years of recovery, or thereabouts, business and consumer confidence is still a bit shaky. Families have become cautious spenders because of the uncertainty of the job market and the low growth in real income, but savings remain at a high level. Faced with surplus capacity, large inventories and high interest rates which make their future uncertain, businesses are reluctant to invest capital and hire employees. Investment rate is 20 per cent lower than before the recession, while employment has just gone back up to pre-recession figures. We can certainly improve our economic outlook, but only if we face this major challenge realistically and responsibly. This means that we shall have to tackle the deficit and the national debt.
A steady increase in the debt to income ratio threatens growth in three ways: first, it exerts upward pressure on interest rates by feeding future inflationary expectations and by promoting competition for personal savings; second, it restricts the capacity of the Government to meet priority economic and social needs; finally, it is symbolic of bad economic management and it undermines confidence and jeopardizes private investments, our only source for creating the jobs needed in Canada. To promote confidence and employment, interest rates must therefore be as low as possible. Confidence must be renewed. This is why action to decrease the deficit cannot wait. We must assure small and big investors in Canada and abroad that the impressive results achieved in our fight against inflation will be consolidated and maintained and that our Federal Government will not subject the domestic capital market to any excessive and prohibitive demand.
November 28, 1984

Reduction of the deficit is the only key to a renewal of confidence, and this confidence is itself the key to the creation of more jobs.
In closing, I would like to say that, while our Government made a commitment not to act hastily or lightly, its first and most explicit commitment was to see to it that the state and the economy would operate efficiently in the interests of all Canadians. The years of drifting, hedging and band-aid approach are over. The time has come for Canada to take a new direction and all of us should prepare ourselves for new growth, stable employment and new opportunities.
It is Churchill who said:

"Give me the tools; I will do the job."

-we can apply this to ourselves and say:

"We now have the tools; just watch us do the job."


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this borrowing Bill comes before us with a number of very unusual circumstances. This is a new Government, admittedly, and it has a very decisive mandate from the people of Canada. However, the Government has chosen not to introduce a budget. Instead, it introduced an economic statement during the course of the Throne Speech debate, which deprived us of the customary debate on budget measures. We have no inkling of when there will be a budget and there are some interesting changes in the timetable. For instance, before the election the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) talked as though there would be an economic summit meeting, a federal-provincial meeting, and a budget, all in the fall. Then the timetable began to change a little. The latest news is that the national economic conference will take place on March 22. Apparently the guest list and the agenda for that conference have still not been set. We are told that the consultations in this conference will be crucial to budget planning. If we take this at its face value, we can expect a budget in May or possibly June, which will be too late for a very detailed examination this session. We are being asked under those circumstances to give the Government borrowing authority for two years. We are being asked to suspend judgment, make a blind act of faith and vote borrowing authority for two years.
There are two issues I would like to raise. As my colleague has noted, the officials in the Department of Finance have much to explain about the fact that they gave one set of numbers to the previous government and an entirely different set of numbers two months later. We must have an explanation for this so that we can question those officials before we go much further.
The numbers are suspect for two other reasons, which are found in ministerial statements. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was being pressed to release the projections and
Borrowing Authority
the papers underlying his assumptions in the economic statement, he said that he would not release them because they might not be accurate. After being questioned, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates) finally admitted that the claimed reduction in expenditures in the Department of Defence was fancy bookkeeping. Considering these facts in total would indeed make any responsible Opposition believe that it is time to have much more information before it can allow this Bill to proceed.
Let us set aside those particular circumstances that are strictly related to the Bill before us. In general, the performance of the Government in the two months that it has been in office has not inspired confidence. We have seen programs slashed apparently for ideological reasons rather than on the basis of rational analysis or sensible program evaluation. We have seen programs cancelled and then reinstated, or a commitment made to re-examine them.
The Government has thrown a cloak of secrecy over its incompetence. It has even been incompetent in doing that. There have been many extra costs imposed by a Government that is claiming to save money. We are told that there is an extra cost of $250,000 to train political commissars.
We hear some unusual language from the Conservative Government and perhaps we will need a dictionary to understand it. We hear planes being referred to as vehicles of sacred trust or sacred forms of transportation. However, apparently nothing is sacred about the rights of Canadians when we see some of the programs that have been cancelled recently for which we have had little or no explanation. For example, the program for residential rehabilitation was reduced by $29.4 million. This was a good program for home owners, especially those with modest incomes. It was also beneficial to small contractors, yet the Government says that it is in favour of small business.
We have seen pressure to squeeze money out of low and middle income Canadians. There are charges for social insurance numbers, charges for immigration processing, and charges for security clearance. There are increased charges for citizenship.
We have seen an economic statement that will eliminate at least 50,000 jobs. This is from a Government that was elected on a platform of creating jobs. At the same time that jobs are being eliminated, we see threats to reduce unemployment insurance. Jobs are being created in one area by the addition of inspectors to crack down on unemployment insurance recipients. This is taking place when jobs are being eliminated.
We have witnessed an attack on cultural programs and institutions such as the Canada Council and the National Arts Centre. The CBC was given two weeks to cut $750 million. How can intelligent and wise decisions be made in such a short time?
We have seen cuts in research and development, including $34.6 million from the National Research Council. We have seen the health and safety of Canadians put in jeopardy as a result of weather stations being closed. The toxicology centre

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
in Guelph, which does some unique work, is being closed. We have seen a $9.6 million cut from the social housing program. This is from a Government which says that it is concerned with the quality of life for Canadians.
The motto for students seems to be "wait until spring". The existing student programs that create jobs for students during the summer are gone. We are told that there will be a new program to replace it but we are not sure when that will be.
The record of the Government thus far is disturbing. In the face of that record, it is not possible for us to agree lightly to giving a blank cheque to the Government to do more of the same. We must have our questions answered about the intent of the Government in many areas and we certainly must have the discrepancy in the figures explained by the Department of Finance.


Mr. Mclnnes:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that in her learned opinion, which I respect, she considered that this Government has been incompetent in the two months it has been in office. Would she give the particulars on which she bases that statement?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I have already listed many examples of what I consider incompetence, because the Government attacks the quality of life of Canadians without producing the savings and costs that it claims will result.
However, I am delighted to have the opportunity to add a further example. It is the matter of the cancellation of the census. As a result of this cancellation, the Government has eliminated more than 500 person years of employment. It has eliminated a source of data which is essential to the shared programs legislation. In fact, census data is built right into the formula for the equalization Act. Two provinces, and possibly a third, have a constitutional requirement for a census. Therefore, the Government will have to do a partial census, which makes the figure which it gives us as a saving in the census also suspect.
Furthermore, small businesses which rely on census data will be deprived of that information. They will have to find their own money to do these studies in some way. Big business already has in-house facilities and will not suffer.
When one considers the equalization payments which constitute such a large part of the Government's expenditures, I do not believe that it knew what it was doing when it wiped out the census. Without the proper data, how is it possible to plan schools, manpower training and transfers to the provinces to support these programs? I do not believe the Government knew what it was doing when it axed the census. I am glad to see the Prime Minister has in fact admitted that and is prepared to reinstate it.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). I found her speech to be most informative. I have a general question for her. the
Hon. Member for Trinity was here when the finance critic for the Liberal Party introduced an amendment to the motion we are debating condemning the Government for bringing to the House a Bill requesting borrowing authority into the next fiscal year. Can the Hon. Member explain how this Bill, making that request, differed from the Bill her government brought in on a number of occasions which, to my recollection, did exactly the same thing?


Aideen Nicholson: Perhaps the Hon. Member was not here when I began my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because I explained that it was a matter of a number of factors coming together. There is the request for moneys over two years. Added to that there is the fact that this is a new government. We have not had a budget. We had an economic statement bootlegged into the debate on the Speech from the Throne, which deprived us of the normal opportunity for debate. It appears now that we are unlikely to have a budget before May or June.
Another factor was the discrepancy between the figures provided by the Department of Finance to our government a couple of months ago and to this Government. I said the Department of Finance officials must explain those discrepancies. The other fact I mentioned as also being unusual is that Ministers of the Crown themselves have admitted that some of the numbers are inaccurate. I think there we have a number of factors over and above the request for a two-year period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no more questions or comments, I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I am very used to speaking on borrowing authority Bills.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is the first time I have spoken on a borrowing authority Bill from this side of the House. It is certainly a different feeling. I am very much opposed to the massive government borrowing that we have in this Bill. I have always been opposed to that massive government borrowing. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is opposed to massive government borrowing. I know the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) is opposed to that kind of borrowing. Indeed, I know the entire side here is opposed to it, although I am not at all sure of the attitudes of members of the New Democratic Party, nor am I sure of the attitudes of members of the Liberal Party. Everywhere we go and every time we hear from them, they say: "You can't cut that out. You can't drop that. My goodness gracious, deficit financing is fine".


Mr. Deans:: Borrow more.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Yes, borrow more, they say, because we must have more.


Ian Deans: Don't forget there is a question period after this.
November 28, 1984


Donald Alex Blenkarn: What we ought to have from the NDP and the Liberals is a proposal whereby we could develop a new form of agriculture. Maybe we could learn how to grow money trees. That is what we have here. We had a modest effort by the Minister of Finance on November 8 to try to come to grips temporarily with the financial conditions of this country. He brought forth certain cuts, terrible, disastrous cuts, vicious, brutal cuts. Why, Mr. Speaker? He had cut about $2 billion from the real expense of the country, plus another $700 billion or so out of the administration of Departments. These are terribly brutal, vicious cuts.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Can we quote you?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Indeed, if there is any criticism of the November 8 statement, it is that those cuts were not severe enough, because there is no way we can continue to borrow, borrow, borrow, and borrow.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You are a walking mine field.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We cannot put on the backs of our kids-the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap (Mr. Riis) quoted me in previous speeches in the House on this matter-on the backs of our children's children, and children's children yet unborn, burdens that we are putting on them. Before this decade is over, if we carry on in just the way we are doing now, just with the forecasts of this Minister of Finance, we will have a national debt in excess of $410 billion.
We are in the situation of a frog in a well, only the well has awfully slippery sides. We try to get ahead, we cut expenditures, yet we cry about them.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Cut taxes.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: And then we find the interest rate keeps going up and the cost of interest keeps going up, and pretty soon we wind up with a situation where interest expense itself is the major cause of the deficit of the country, as it is right now. Only yesterday Members saw a release from the Minister of Finance indicating the financial position of the country for the period ending September 30. What was the financial position of the country? For every dollar we spend, we borrow 39 cents. What kind of sense of obligation, what kind of sense of purpose, what kind of sense of frugality and what kind of sense of direction of the country is that when we borrow 39 cents out of every dollar we spend? And that is for the first six months of the year. If this carries on, very soon we will not be able to borrow sufficient money to pay the interest on the borrowed money.
We are rapidly getting to the point where we are leaving our children a bankrupt, insolvent nation. Perhaps the only way we will solve our credit problems is to declare bankruptcy. Perhaps we ought to be proposing that this Bill be called "The National Insolvency Bill for 1984-85 and 1985-86", or "The Waste of Canada's Heritage Bill", or "A Bill to make sure our Children are Bankrupt".
Borrowing Authority
Things cannot go on like this, Sir. We hear Members from the other side say, "My goodness gracious, you are going to charge something more for getting citizenship or a passport. My goodness gracious, ferry rates are going to go up 15 per cent perhaps". Or we hear them say, "My goodness gracious, you will have to get tough with people because they play around with the unemployment insurance scheme. Gee whiz, isn't it terrible?" We have to operate this country with a sense of frugality, Mr. Speaker. I know they have not been used to that. They believe we have one great money tree, that it is all wonderful, and spend, spend, spend, and spend. That is the attitude of this city. That is the attitude until now, and that attitude must change. It will change.
We have taken over a problem that will not easily be solved. I said before the election that we could not clean up this mess in ten years. It is at least that bad. It is going to take us at least this decade to begin to get this country's finances back in some reasonable shape. We have taken one weeny step so far and all we have are crocodile tears.
Let us talk about it for a moment. Let us talk about the Unemployment Insurance Act which they say is so sacred. Let us talk about the fact that I saw a proposal for a man here in Ottawa being offered early retirement. Included in that proposal was a statement made by his employer that he could collect unemployment insurance for a full year and not have to apply for work because unemployment insurance is paid to him. Is it fair for a person who retires early to get 98 per cent of his former wages because of unemployment insurance payments and $32,000 per year in his pay package? That is not my concept of unemployment insurance.
The other day I was speaking with my young brother who runs a construction company. He said that his fellows work 55 hours per week in the summer-time. They build up pretty good pay packages, but as winter approaches they cannot work 55 hours per week. They are lucky to be able to work five hours or seven hours per day. Some days they cannot work at all because of the weather. I would like to indicate what is done in his company. They raffle off the right to be on unemployment insurance because they can make more money on pogey than they can working. That kind of thing has to stop. If members of the New Democratic Party and of the Liberal Party want to defend that, they should come to my riding and defend it. They should defend it with the people of this country because they know that that is not cheating, but it is an absolute abuse of the system. The system must be changed. We must get at that problem. We must reduce the deficit.
We must not allow the problems raised in the financial statement, and the suggestions, which only begin to touch the problem, to interfere with our judgment as to how we come to grips with the damage that has been done to our children and our children's children. There is an amendment before the House indicating that we really cannot do this. I have spoken on such an amendment before. I do not like the situation. The Government brings forth a two-part Bill. Part I indicates that

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
we need $7 billion when we really need $5.3 billion to the end of the year. But we need a little coverage. I will speak about coverage in a moment, but we need $16 billion on account for next year.
Why do we need it? Let us understand why we need it. Hon. Members will know that when we receive the Main Estimates at the end of the first supply period, we approve five-twelfths of the Estimate. In some cases it is more than that. We know that we will be in the hole next year and have to borrow massive amounts of money. In this Bill we come before the Parliament of Canada and say that we know we will be in the red next year. It is much the same as when we present the blue book Estimates. We know that the whole Estimate has not been approved and that we have not inquired into the figures. However, we know that we will have to spend some money to pay people, that we will have to run to Parliament and to keep the country rolling. Therefore, we want the right to have part of what we will require as borrowing for the following year.
Would it not be wonderful if a budget came out showing that we did not need a nickle more than the $16 billion? I would hope for that, but I am as positive as all Hon. Members are that we will need more than $16 billion. The $16 billion in Part II of the Bill is really only a small down payment. I would hope not, but it is a down payment on what may be required for next year.
In his economic statement, the Minister of Finance estimated that the financial requirements for this current fiscal year would be $29,877 million and that the financial requirements for the next fiscal year would be $29,193 million. Those are massive amounts of money. Indeed, it is far more money than we can afford to borrow. Yet we hear cries about cuts and that there is no way we can come to grips with these problems. We hear nothing from the Opposition but more, more, more.
I spoke on these Bills before when I was in Opposition. I made certain suggestions to the then government and to the House. One of the things I talked about was the standing committees of the House. One of our key jobs in the standing committees is to examine estimates detail by detail and to ensure that proposals made by public servants and Ministers are worthwhile. We have an obligation-and I hope we use it in this new Parliament with its new standing committees-to examine Estimates in detail. Where we feel that the proposal is a little rich for Canadians, we will come to grips with it and vote against the estimates. That is what we ought to be doing. We should all count upon opposition members to take a look at every estimate in detail. They should say that we really do not need an expenditure and that they will vote against it; that is the kind of thing which ought to be done.
Also we ought to priorize where we are going in terms of public expense. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) said something about the poor old CBC. She said that we cannot possibly cut them, that it was terrible to have to cut them. The poor CBC had to lose $75 million out of nearly $1 billion. Is that tragic? I will tell the House where I stand in terms of social payments. You can wipe out the whole CBC budget before you affect the old age pension; that is my
priority. If we have to make those decisions as Members of Parliament, we have an obligation to make them. That is what I would expect to hear from a constructive Opposition. However, we have heard crying about poor programs which are gone. It is laughable that we should have such an Opposition. It is not prepared to come to grips with the reality of the country. Members of the Opposition think that their job as elected Members of Parliament is to come here to see what they can grab for their ridings-what kind of program can I get for my people, or how much can I milk the old "you now what" for? That has to cease. It is time that we had a responsible Opposition prepared to say, "Here is what you can do-you can eliminate that expense and this other expense; that is what we think you ought to look at".
I am surprised the finance critic of the Official Opposition is not here. In his former capacity, he was Minister responsible for economic development and he led us into this marvellous R and D tax credit scam.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That's right, it is a scam.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I hear the Hon. Member. We opposed it strenuously. That scam has cost between $1,200 million and $1,500 million. Then we wonder why our revenues this year are down by $1,800 million! There is $1,200 million or perhaps $1,500 million there. That is the kind of thing the finance critic gave us when he was in charge of economic development. It is unbelievable that he should say, "Oh my goodness, you are cutting". He made sure that we did not have the revenue. That is the problem. The House should applaud the Minister of Finance for stopping the scam.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is not being stopped.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The scam has to be changed. There is a whole series of things which must be changed.
Last year the House looked at the budget of the former government. After a serious debate on Bill C-21 in the last Parliament, a Bill for borrowing authority for $29,555 million, we were able to point out that it did not balance with the projections of the then Minister of Finance. We were able to reduce it by $5 billion. Therefore, through negotiations and through pressure we were able to reduce the last borrowing authority Bill, the one under which we are presently operating, from $29.5 billion to $24.5 billion.
It seems that Liberal finance people did not figure correctly in the February 15 Budget. Unfortunately, we have to come back to this House and again get that $5 billion back for the balance of this year. That is what we are talking about. There are some small changes in the mathematics and it is now $5.3 billion.
We obviously need around $2 billion to enable us to interfere in the foreign exchange markets. We obviously need to have the opportunity to borrow cheaply if such an opportunity arises over and above the regular requirements. The $2 billion lapses on March 31.
November 28, 1984

The other provisions in the Bill allow for a borrowing authority of $16 billion commencing the next fiscal year.


Ian Deans: That is wrong.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says it is wrong. I have already pointed out to him that every time we vote Estimates on March 31, we vote nearly half of the Estimates through. The Cost of the estimated borrowing requirement is approximately half of the Bill. If he is prepared in the normal course of events in this House to vote Estimates that way, why can we not have the money through so we can operate effectively?


Ian Deans: I want to see the budget.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) knows that the budget is projected for April, possibly May. The Speaker indicates my time is up. With the permission of the House, I would like to carry on for a few minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member's time has expired. We do have 10 minutes for questions and comments. Maybe he can carry on then. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) on the first question and a short comment, I hope.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the Hon. Member, I was reminded that the previous speaker from the NDP mentioned earlier today George Orwell's book 1984. This speaker is a perfect example of somebody who practises doublethink. How can the Hon. Member on one hand say that his Party and his Government stand for cutting, cutting, cutting, and that is good for the Canadian public, when his Party promised 388 individual expenditures over and above what the previous government had done during the election campaign? There were 388 promises, everything from the kitchen sink from Newfoundland to British Columbia. The Hon. Member knows that.
I would like the Hon. Member to explain why his Party did that. He knows what I am saying is correct. If their philosophy is to cut and to keep down the deficit, why did they commit so many new programs and make so many false promises during the election campaign? If the Hon. Member denies they made them, later in the debate I will stand up and read them.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will stand up in the debate. I would like to hear from him in respect of this. He should look at the financial statement of the Minister of Finance. He will note that the policy changes thus far effected include the promise of fuel tax rebates. This is in the works at the present time and involves a net cost of $77 million. Some things have to be done in the country. Changes have to be made. Most of these promises are part of a changed direction. He knows that. His constituents know that. We believe they approve of that.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). I have always enjoyed listening to his remarks,
Borrowing Authority
particularly when he was in Opposition. I thought that he was one of the most effective Members in the Opposition at that time. When it came to government measures, particularly borrowing Bills and so forth, he put up some good, valid arguments. It is a little sad today to see him have to swallow some of the arguments he has used in the past. I say it is sad because I doubt if he believed half of what he said to us today. If you consider the speeches he made in the past and what he has said today, there is quite a difference.
I was intrigued when he mentioned the scam, and I agree it is a scam, of the tax credits the previous Liberal government gave to research and development. Originally Mr. Lalonde's Budget estimated a loss of $100 million. I think it is now close to $1.5 billion. Estimates are that it will cost some $2 billion in lost revenues from that tax credit. Earlier in the day I called it a flip-flop scam. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) claimed it was not a scam. He thought it was incorrect to call it a scam.
In questioning the Minister of National Revenue earlier today, I was concerned that the moratorium which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) put on the R and D tax credit scam was not very effective. There is a grandfather clause which allows all sorts of companies to apply for this R and D tax credit. It is estimated that we will lose a further $400 million to $500 million on this scheme. I asked why he does not tighten the lid and put a freeze on this grandfather clause. All sorts of other corporations are allowed to claim that they have transactions in the works, transactions that might be on the back of an envelope. Revenue Canada is allowing this. We will lose another $400 million to $500 million. Surely the Hon. Member will agree that the time has come to put a lid on this R and D tax credit scam and not allow one more penny to be lost from the public purse.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty) is alleged to have said, according to Linda McQuaig of The Globe and Mail. He said:
In some cases it is pretty tenuous how grandfathered they are. You know it is amazing that grandfathers are still having children.
The Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) is correct. We have to terminate this. I know the Minister has been terminating it as quickly as possible. We must remember that when people have started an action on what has been granted to them as a legitimate tax expenditure, it cannot be terminated that easily. The only way it can be terminated is by legislation. I hope there will be legislation terminating it. People rely on the present law and do what they are legally entitled to do. The fact that you have a bad law means that the legislators have not done their work very well. It is not the fault of the people. We have to change that legislation and I think we have to change it very quickly.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, at one point in his speech the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) used the metaphor of milking the cow when talking about politics and politicians. I would like to relate a metaphor that a former
702

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
colleague of mine used to tell when talking about the present state of the country. He said that the way things are going, we need a new emblem for Canada. He thought it should be a cow on the map of Canada. She is feeding in the West, they are milking her in the centre, and you know what she is doing to us in the Atlantic provinces.
I used that to start my question to the Hon. Member because he is interested in more cuts. Does he feel that these should be indiscriminate across the board, that all people in all sections of the country should be treated equally? He takes the same premise for the cuts in UI, for example, as does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The Minister of Finance said in his statement, as repeated by the Hon. Member today, that there are people in this country who do not want to work, that Canadians are lazy and that they do not want the jobs that are open to them. We were told that there are 167,000 jobs available somewhere in this country. I wish someone would tell me where those jobs are.
I would like to tell the Hon. Member that in the Town of Fort McMurray, which is in the riding of Athabasca, there are
8,000	Newfoundlanders out of a population of 25,000. Those Newfoundlanders are there not because they want to be there. They would probably rather be back home. They are there because they want work. They borrowed money and hitchhiked to Fort McMurray to get a job. They are not on pogey but are earning wages. The fundamental assumption that there are people in this country who do not want to work must be challenged.
Does the Hon. Member agree that in addition to the cuts that have already been made, there should be more cuts in unemployment insurance in the Atlantic provinces before the jobs are created? In the Atlantic provinces, there are no job alternatives right now. If the Hon. Member believes that, how does he square it with a policy of regional economic expansion? It still has not been made clear whether or not the Conservative Party is for regional economic expansion. If it is, how does the Hon. Member square his position on UI cuts before jobs are created with a policy of regional economic expansion? If he is not for regional economic expansion, how does he square it with the equalization payments that are now being paid to provinces on the assumption that some provinces in the country are underprivileged?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I presume I have unlimited time in which to reply to that series of questions that deal with all of the policies of this Government. Briefly, the Hon. Member knows that Canadians want to work and are hardworking people. They are also pretty intelligent people.
Under the present scheme, unemployment insurance benefits are paid at a rate of 60 per cent of former income earned. If, for example, one earned $10 an hour, then, working a 40-hour week, that makes $400 gross per week. Subject to tax on both ends, that person's unemployment insurance benefits, at 60 per cent, would be $240 a week. Therefore, that person would be absolutely crazy to take a job paying less than $9 an
hour, figuring the tax difference and the cost of going to and from work. There are some things about this scheme which are very anti-employment. What we must do is to put some incentives back into the unemployment insurance scheme. That is where the problem lies.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things. First, given the prestigious position of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who is the Chairman of the Finance Committee, I would be quite willing, and I am sure my colleagues on all sides of the House would be quite willing, to extend the question period to allow him to continue to answer the question. I do not want him to feel restricted in any way given the role that he must play in and around the House of Commons. After I have asked my question, perhaps you might, Mr. Speaker, find out whether there is unanimous consent to allow him to continue to answer some questions for a reasonable period of time, for example, another five minutes.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Deans: Agreed? Could you ask that question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) to answer questions for a further five minutes?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, I hear a "no". The Hon. Member's question must be very succinct or I will have to cut him off.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I think that that is unfortunate. I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question and it is a simple one. When listening to him, I wondered whether in fact he had ever been to Damascus. I would like to ask him now whether he has ever even taken the road. However, it seems to me that he has.
Is the Hon. Member telling the House that he no longer supports the position contained in the motion put by the former Leader of the Official Opposition in which he said:
-that this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount which is required to meet the Government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle-
Is the Hon. Member suggesting now that he-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). There was not unanimous consent to extend the question period. Therefore, both questions and comments must end now. We have already gone over the 10-minute period allotted. Perhaps at a later date the Hon. Member for Mississauga South will be able to answer the question of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I would now like to recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).
November 28, 1984


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Members on the government side must be very happy that the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) was not able to answer that question. It just points out another embarrassing situation in which they find themselves. I am not surprised that the Hon. Member was muzzled by members of his own Party. The comments he has made about the workers of Canada are unbelievable and in fact express to the Canadian people the kind of hidden hypocrisy of his Party and the disdain in which his Party holds the Canadian workers.
For the Hon. Member to suggest that Canadians are taking advantage of the unemployment insurance system, that they are scheming and plotting to rip off the system, that they are not prepared to work and that they are prepared in fact to rip off the system, is an absolute travesty and distortion of the facts as they exist, not only in the community of Hamilton which has very severe unemployment problems, but in other communities across Canada as well. Perhaps the economy of the community of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South is robust enough to withstand the kind of onslaught of fiscal slashing that we have seen in the Finance Minister's economic statement.
When the Hon. Member says to the House that a 15 per cent increase in ferry rates is no problem I know the Hon. Member is not reflecting the view of Hon. Members on this side of the House. I am not sure that he is reflecting the views of other Conservative members from the Maritimes who have been elected on a platform of creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
With this borrowing Bill, we have another indication of the unbridled arrogance of the Tory majority. In an almost unprecedented move, a decision was made by the Government to move ahead with a borrowing authority Bill, which in fact goes into a new fiscal year and which occurs at a time prior to the tabling of the Supplementary Estimates.
This Government preaches co-operation. However, if we look at the record of the Government over the last few weeks, it is clear that it has no intention of co-operating and has no intention of trying to work out an opportunity for all Members to participate. I would like specifically to draw to the attention of the House the kind of abrogation of democracy that we have seen with the introduction of this particular borrowing Bill. This Bill is in the same spirit as the Government's tactics over the last few days of trying to deny Members an opportunity to speak in their respective committees and in the House of Commons.
For those in the House who did not have an opportunity to witness this let me say that there was a ridiculous situation in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration studying the Estimates last night in which government members convened a meeting with less than 24 hours' notice. The opposition critics could not be properly substituted. The Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) was present discussing housing Estimates and I was present in my role as Official Opposition critic but did not have the right to vote on those Estimates. To me, Mr. Speaker, and to Members on this side
Borrowing Authority
of the House, that is a clear indication of the Government's secretive and closed approach to parliamentary democracy.
We have heard the motion moved some time ago by the former Leader of the Official Opposition. At that time he said that borrowing provisions should not extend into a new fiscal year. It again seems to me that when Conservative members were in Opposition, they sang one tune, but now that they are in Government, they are singing a totally different song.
I think Members on all sides of the House must hold dear to their hearts our required parliamentary tools. In particular, all Members are aware of the massive mandate given by the Canadian people to the Conservative Government on September 4. That massive mandate carries with it a very unique responsibility, and that responsibility is to ensure that constructive criticism can be carried out in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committees, and this is particularly true, Mr. Speaker, when this Government preaches co-operation. This Government is saying to the Opposition, "We need $16 billion to carry on government business".
Unlike the former opposition Party which now sits on the government side of the House, we in the Liberal Party do not want to be obstructionist. We want to assist the Government in carrying out its responsibility in discharging the mandate it received from the Canadian people. However, incumbent upon the government members is the recognition that in order to be able to carry out that responsibility, they must have all of the facts at hand. It is irresponsible to suggest that on the basis of a less than one page document, in both official languages, we should give to the Government of Canada the authority to borrow $16 billion. This should not be done without discussion and Supplementary Estimates, without the kind of voting authority which should be accorded to every Hon. Member of this House, and without the tabling of documents, which have been clearly denied us by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). Therefore, it would be irresponsible for us, as Hon. Members of the Official Opposition, to support this legislation.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this move by the Government, not only to muzzle the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, but to muzzle the kind of constructive opposition we are attempting to provide, is just another indication of a Government which is afraid to go to the Canadian people. It is afraid to put the facts on the table and it is afraid to let the Canadian people know about the measures it is considering when it moves on budgetary items.
I asked, Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions in this House for the Finance Minister to table the forecasted job losses which would happen as a direct result of his economic statement. Yet the Minister of Finance has refused to do so. He knows, as his colleagues know, that his Conservative Government was given a massive mandate on a promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, but since this Government has been in power, all we have seen from coast to coast is cuts, cuts, cuts. And the Hon. Member for Mississauga South has the gall to stand in his place and suggest that the ferry cuts are just one small cut in a

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
stream of cuts which are not going to hurt the Canadian people. He has the gall to also suggest that the workers of Canada are ripping off the unemployment insurance system. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are some very serious questions which need to be answered but which have not yet been answered by this Government. There are questions which have not been answered by the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), as part of her job-creation program, has created an unemployment insurance police force of 700 persons. Not only is this Government not satisfied with an economic measure which will deny older workers the kind of security they need in their less than high income earning years, but it has said to these older workers, "You cannot collect unemployment insurance benefits until you exhaust your severance pay, your pension benefits and until you are reduced to the lowest common denominator". This is being done in an effort, in my opinion, to reduce our universally accessible unemployment insurance scheme to nothing more than a welfare benefit. This is the same Government which said, "Universality is a sacred trust".
I am not sure the Hon. Member will applaud when he sees the further initiatives taken by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. These measures will not only impose financial hardship on those workers who most need our help, but, to add insult to injury, the Minister has set up a 700-person police force whose job it will be to weed out the so-called abusers of the system. When the Canadian people, on September 4, gave this Government the massive mandate for job creation, I do not believe this was the kind of job creation they had in mind. I am sure that Hon. Members on all sides of the House can stand in this House and provide examples, as I have attempted to do earlier today, of the financial hardship experienced by older workers. In my own community there are corporations such as Consolidated-Bathurst, where workers with combined years of service of 25 years to 30 years have been sent out on the streets with no jobs and very little chance of future employment.
The re-employment prospects of those workers are being further jeopardized by the Government's sword of Damocles which is hanging over their heads. The Government is suggesting to those workers that not only will it root them out and push them out of unemployment insurance benefits, but it will ensure that they do not get a penny from the Government of Canada until they have used every last cent of their pension savings or severance pay. I do not believe this is the mandate which the Canadian people accorded to this Government. It seems to me that we in the Official Opposition cannot support a document of this nature. We definitely need to get more information. That information has not been forthcoming, Mr. Speaker. I hope that most Hon. Members from all sides of the House do not share the same cynical view of the Canadian worker and taxpayer as expressed by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that the Progressive Conservative Party received a massive mandate from the Canadian people on September 4 of this year. Conversely, Canadians must have the assurance, as has been customary for centuries in Parliaments not only in Canada but also in Great Britain and other countries, that this Government acknowledges its responsibility for ensuring that the Opposition's voice is heard clearly and unequivocally in all committees and in all proceedings of the House.
Up to now, we have seen a Government that promised co-operation, that it would be open, not only with the Canadian public but also with Members of Parliament, and also a Government that would like to proceed in committees and demand billions of dollars without giving the Official Opposition the information on which it can base agreement or disagreement with the Government's expenditures.
Take for instance the unemployment situation. If I am not mistaken, I heard the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) say that the unemployed in Canada are people who want to take advantage of the system, especially Canadians between 50 and 60 years old.
Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian people gave the Progressive Conservative Party a mandate to create jobs, it did not mean the Government to introduce all kinds of regulations and as it were, police unemployed managers between 60 and 65 who really have trouble finding jobs.
Canadians are willing to work and do what they can, and they will even move to another city if they can find employment there. However, it is also true that there are no jobs available for the unemployed who are older and for those who are in what is called the mid-career period.
For the Government, its Members and even the Chairman of the Finance Committee, who has a fairly responsible position in this Government, to tell Canadians that the unemployed are cheats and want to take advantage of the system is something I find incredible, and I am sure that is the reason why Members on the Government side did not want him to answer any questions, because even if he is Chairman of the Finance Committee, one of the most important committees of the House of Commons, he is revealing the Progressive Conservative Party's real policy which is only referred to behind closed doors. What he is saying now is mostly what the Conservative policy was before the election. It is also quite obvious that they never wanted to tell the Canadian public the truth, because if Canadians had known before September 4 that the Government's policy would be to make cutbacks from the Atlantic to the Pacific, if Canadians had known, they would have never given the Government the mandate they gave. The Government has a responsibility here. It has a responsibility to clarify-
November 28, 1984

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservatives have a responsibility to show Canadians that they are going to stop this masquerade they have been carrying on for Canadians during the first two months of their mandate.
They have no credibility with the Canadian people. They speak about job creation but then they cannot take their mind off the deficit. They will make cuts, for example, within the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At the same time, they say that their policy is to make more housing units available for workers and for the poor. However they are reducing the funds available to CMHC for the construction of houses when we know that such developments have created
20,000	jobs in Canada this year. Some 20,000 jobs have been created, but the economic policy of the Tories is to cut programs and reduce the number of jobs in Canada and that is why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is ashamed to table in the House the papers which clearly show that his economic policy will reduce the number of jobs in Canada.
It is a littered trail of broken promises.
The Government comes to the Opposition now and speaks of co-operation. It tells the Canadian people that it needs $16 billion in order to carry out the work we have ahead of us over the next number of months. It is clear this Government is asking for this co-operation when its policy has been one of government behind closed doors. It has been a policy of gouvernement a huis clos.
The only exposure we have had to government policy has been the error by the Minister of Finance in leaving his dossier where it could be exposed to public view. It seems to me the Government should have a policy where the people and Governments of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec know whether there is going to be a further $200 million reduction in transfer payments as a direct result of this Government's inability to renegotiate agreements. The taxpayers of Canada have a right to know this information, but not by way of the kind of hotel caper we saw manifest itself this week. To suggest the Minister of Finance is going to embark on open government by leaving a trail of dossiers behind him is a travesty. It was stated in the House today, and I think it is quite clear, that the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), in his former capacity as Minister of Finance, would never have committed such a grievous error. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) and the Government will take the Minister of Finance to task.
I know that a number of government members take their responsibilities very seriously. They have spent many hours pondering on those responsibilities, particularly in view of the fact that they do not have that much else to do. They will know that although we in Opposition are small in number, we have a right to be heard. The inviolate right of this Chamber is the right of free speech, and that includes the right to a free and full discussion on financial matters, such as the expendi-
Borrowing Authority
ture of $16 billion. I see the government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is nodding his head in approval. When he was in Opposition it was stated quite clearly-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Me?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Nodding your head in approval. You are agreeing.


Ian Deans: It is an affliction.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I think it should be noted for the record that the government House Leader agrees we must all take our responsibilities very seriously. But the Government is moving ahead with the unprecedented introduction of a borrowing Bill, at a time when we have not even dealt with Supplementary Estimates, when we have been denied our voting rights as a result of the Government's inability to get its political act together, a Government that introduces a borrowing Bill which extends into a new fiscal year in an unprecedented move of arrogance. It seems to me that Members on the Government side should be knocking on the door of their House Leader and Minister of Finance and the Hon. Member for Mississauga South. I hope maritime Members will confer with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South to determine whether they support his position on ferry cuts. Do they see any problem with a 15 per cent increase in the cost of ferry service?
We have a job to do, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be here for a good while in our respective roles, at least for four years.


Mr. Gormley:: How long?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Pardon me?


John Kenneth Gormley: A lot longer than four years.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member will live to eat those words, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Government has the responsibility to provide information, and we join with it in that responsibility.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment.

I would like to address myself to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). She speaks and speaks and speaks with many arguments. She said very clearly that we have had a mandate since September 4, but I am wondering if it was 1984 or 1972. Her Government had a lot of chances to do something.

She also referred to unemployment, Mr. Speaker. She referred to unemployment; she said and she repeated that we are doing nothing, that we cut, and cut, and cut. It is again the same story that we have been hearing here. She had ample opportunity, her Government had ample opportunity to do that, to solve the unemployment problem. There were 800,000 unemployed, they brought that up to 1,500,000 and now she

November 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority
would have us in two months solve this unemployment problem. Those are the results that are now facing us.
The Hon. Member also refers to broken promises. We are not being given any chance of doing something here. They are already attacking what we are in the process of doing and they talk about promises. However, I am very surprise that we should suddently hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton-East (Ms. Copps) refer to Quebec. I am reminded of my colleague from Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), who is suddenly interested in something he never mentioned in four years, namely gasoline. He will not stop pestering us, and when we have the floor he speaks over and above us. Because all of a sudden he is interested. Good, I commend him for that, and I commend my colleague for Hamilton-East for her interest in Quebec. We hear so many things about Quebec these days, because they say we are a majority with 58 members. Think of what you were with 74 members! So here we are today and all of a sudden things start to come back. Anyway, I am pleased, and I commend her for her interest in Quebec. There is however something I can tell the Hon. Member. If there were then
800,000	unemployed and if now there are 1,500,000 you could ask your colleagues what to do and why it has not been done. This by way of a brief comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member should give me an opportunity to talk about Quebec, because I know he is new here and has only a vague idea of what goes on in the House. Well, Mr. Speaker, I had the challenging opportunity to work in the province of Quebec during the great political years between 1974 and 1976, and 1 met and interviewed many future politicians before they had even thought of running for office. So, if he wants to bawl me out and say that I do not know anything about Quebec, I think he should learn a few things before making such remarks.
Another thing, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting, even laughable to hear the Hon. Member talk about broken promises. Unless I am mistaken, he got himself elected because he promised his constituents that he would do something about gasoline prices, but that is the last they heard of it. He never did anything. He said there would be no gasoline tax increase.


An Hon. Member:: Beating his gums again!


Sheila Maureen Copps: We can see now, as my colleague points out, that he has conveniently forgotten his promises. The people of Quebec will no longer take him seriously because he has already shown to the Canadian people that he cannot do anything except reneging on the promises he made during the election campaign.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to comment on several remarks made by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). It is said every week when one goes back to Saskatchewan that one has been living in a cocoon. That cocoon, particularly that in which members of the Opposition and the
media find themselves, has enveloped the opinion of many people here. When I return to my riding every weekend I realize that people across Canada feel that they finally have a Government which is accountable, co-operative and consultative. Would the Hon. Member for Hamilton East concede that the events which have necessitated this borrowing may have occurred some time prior to the past three months?
With regard to a constructive Opposition, one would have to go a long way to find the kind of vituperative, strident polemics that we have been hearing. Does the Hon. Member believe that the matters which have necessitated this borrowing have been going on for any longer than the past three months?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Hon. Member may not have past experience in this Parliament, but if one wants to talk about vituperative attacks, one should take a few pages from the book of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), who is now the chief of the political commissars. This Member may not be in a cocoon, but he has been cuckolded by his Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Sheila Maureen Copps: He has been cuckolded by his Government because he has to stand in his place as one of the major bookends and defend broken promises made by his Government, which was elected on a policy of openness and job creation, but then immediately moved to cut back on senior workers and on unemployment insurance benefits and to make it tough on the workers of Canada. This poor soul must go back to Saskatchewan to defend those policies. He is being cuckolded.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the speech of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) because the more speeches we hear of this nature the longer the Liberals will stay out of power. This talk about borrowing almost makes me laugh. We are borrowing $16 million only to clean up the mess the Liberals left. When we have had 16 years in office like the Liberals had we will not be borrowing money; we will be lending money. We will have a heritage fund. We will not be wasting it the way the Liberal regime did.
How the Hon. Member can stand up without her face blushing as red as her dress, I cannot understand. She is a new Member here and I want to be nice to her. She is a very nice lady. She has a very nice dress, but she should remember that she is over there because the people of Canada got sick and tired of the Liberal regime borrowing over $100 billion. The Hon. Member should not complain that we are borrowing a little money to clean up the mess the Liberals left.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, as a point of information, my dress is a blouse, but I do not think that is particularly relevant. It seems to me that the antediluvian suggestion of the Member that he should be nice to me because I am wearing a nice dress and am in a nice Liberal colour, is a clear indication of the
November 28, 1984

kind of antediluvian, prehistoric policy-thinking of his Government. We will have had enough of him after 16 months.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something to my colleague from Hamilton East (Ms. Copps), if only the Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) would shut up so we can speak. He did not give me that opportunity a moment ago.
The Hon. Member for Hamilton East told me earlier that I am young and inexperienced. True, 1 am young, I have little experience, but I can still make a contribution in this House. But listening to her, one would think .. . Talk as much as you want about higher gasoline prices, my colleague from Bourassa cannot enlighten you about my election campaign because he was too busy, afraid as he was of losing his seat. He was too busy working in his own riding.


An Hon. Member:: You must have been away!


Vincent Della Noce: 1 said during my campaign-if he does not know it he should have followed it, it is still in the newspaper-


An Hon. Member:: Stop bragging!


Vincent Della Noce: I think that the Hon. Member for Bourassa, besides not telling the truth, thinks he is still on the government side.
Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I am forced to advise Members that the 10 minute period for questions and comments has expired. Once the 10 minutes have expired I am forced to cut off the exchange without any further comment.
I have come here myself to rule on the amendments which were proposed with regard to the borrowing authority, having spent some time studying the precedents. I thought it would be useful it that were done now in order to advise the House on the matters which it is in fact dealing with.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) has proposed an amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-l 1, which reads:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following words:
this House will not proceed with a Bill to provide borrowing authority for a
fiscal year for which the Government has not provided complete details of
spending requirements or revenue projections.
Borrowing Authority
The Member is attempting to move what is known as a reasoned amendment, but he will know that specific conditions must be met for such an amendment to be in order.
Citation 744(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states: "It must be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or different from, the principles, policy or provisions of the Bill."
The proposed amendment, in the opinion of the Chair, is not opposed to the principle of the Bill but rather is attempting to indirectly impose conditions upon the passage of such a Bill, that of requiring the provision of more detailed information relating to the Bill. This is clearly not in order and Members may wish to refer back to previous Speakers' decisions, such as that of Speaker Jerome on October 23, 1979 when a similar ruling was given.
In short, the Chair finds that passage of the amendment would not determine the status of the Bill, and therefore the amendment must be ruled out of order.
For these reasons, I must rule that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount is unacceptable as a reasoned amendment and cannot be put.
If I may now deal with the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), it reads as follows:
Mr. Riis, seconded by Mr. Deans moves:
That all of the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"that this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount which is required to meet the government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle and this House therefore declines to give second reading to Bill C-l I, an Act to provide borrowing authority".
This amendment, in the opinion of the Chair, does clearly oppose the principle of the Bill and falls within the conditions as set out in Beauchesne's Citation 744(1). It is declaratory of a principle adverse to the principle of the Bill. I therefore rule that this amendment is acceptable and is therefore now before the House.
I will recognize the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), and, with the consent of Members, will call it six o'clock. She will be the next Member to speak on the matter.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned.

Thursday, November 29, 1984