1984-12-06

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 5, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Riis (p. 694).
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate and to lend my support to the amendment which has been put forward. In reading through the Bill, I am somewhat surprised if not annoyed that the Conservative Government would put such a Bill before the Parliament of Canada. In fact, when government Members were on this side of the House, they argued for a considerable amount of time to the effect that when borrowing Bills come before Parliament, they ought to be clear.
Part I of this particular Bill requests a certain sum of money and Part II requests an additional sum of money. Part II of the Bill is not clear. It is not clear why that money is being requested. In fact, there has been no budget although it could be argued that the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was in fact a mini-budget. However, the Government has chosen to call it an economic statement and not a budget.
The Government is now asking the Parliament of Canada to approve expenditures which are in the billions of dollars, including approximately $16 billion for fiscal year 1985-86. However, we have yet to learn what it wants to spend that money on.
Government Members said during the election campaign that their major priority was jobs. Unfortunately for the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, the rhetoric that was used during the campaign has not been put into action either in the Throne Speech or indeed in the economic statement. Instead,
we have seen a great many economic cuts affecting all areas of Canada and particularly the poorer regions of Canada.
I find it to be a bit hypocritical, if you will, Mr. Speaker, for Conservative Members who are now in a position of power to say to the people of Canada: "We want $16 billion but we are not going to tell you what we are going to do with it". They are not telling us what they are going to do with it with regard to employment and employment opportunities. We have heard the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) talk about an economic employment strategy, and indeed that strategy was alluded to by the Minister of Finance. Yet we have not seen any signs to tell us what it will comprise.
Government Members have not put before Parliament any measures that would be of some assistance to young Canadians. They have not put any package of legislation before the House to assist women or minority groups with regard to employment opportunities. What are they prepared to do with the $16 billion that they are requesting from Parliament?
Perhaps the argument can be made that the money they are requesting is not going to be directed toward job creation or social programs. Perhaps it will be directed toward the private sector by providing more tax concessions to businesses. In theory, there is nothing wrong with tax incentives and with providing financial assistance to private sector companies which, we would hope, would create employment.
[DOT] (mo)
Just yesterday, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association released a survey which indicated that for the month of October production had decreased substantially and unemployment had increased. The private sector, as alluded to by the Government, will not resolve unilaterally all the evils of unemployment. Government must assist. Government must be an active player. We have received the complete opposite from this Government.
There used to be some red Tories, but they have been overcome by the blue tidal wave. What has happened is that programs which were in place for young people, such as the Canada student employment program, have been cancelled. We have a Government which said that consultation was the key, operative word. Were young people consulted with regard to the cancellation of the Canada student employment program? Absolutely not.
The Government talks about consultation. Then it unilaterally moves to cut the deficit by $4.2 billion-and many of those cuts will affect the less fortunate in the country-and indicates that it will study further how the deficit can be reduced, whether by reductions in terms of tax reform, tax incentives or the curtailment of social programs. Yet it has the

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
audacity to say to Canadians that it is trying to improve investor confidence. That is absolute nonsense. Will investors invest if there is going to be consultation, when the Government unilaterally cuts $4.2 billion and then says that it will have further studies? I suggest that the business community in Canada and abroad will wait until well after a federal Budget is announced. So much for confidence in the private sector. The private sector will wait to see what is the outcome of those discussions. They will wait to see what tax incentives are put in place. They will want to know what the effects of those incentives will be for them as business individuals.
We have a Government which speaks of confidence, but in actual fact it is not restoring confidence. It has increased the lack of confidence by the measures which it has placed before Parliament. I find it very difficult to accept that some of the red Tories who were on this side and who are now in government are allowing the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), "Mike the Knife"-the Minister of Finance-and all the right-wingers in the Government to override completely any interests of and concerns for the less fortunate in Canada.
Members opposite laugh, but the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians are not laughing. Statistics Canada has reported that 600,000 young people are unemployed. Three hundred thousand unemployed have given up their desire to look for employment because there are no jobs. It is a human tragedy and this Government has done absolutely nothing to assist. The Government has aided and abetted this tragedy by doing nothing for these people. Instead it has taken direct action to affect those individuals who are the least fortunate in our society.
I would like to know what portion of the $16 billion will be directed towards direct job-creation programs in this country. How much money will be put into the training of young people, women and minority groups in this country? How much money will be put into regional industrial development? The Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has reduced its budget by $200 million. I will break it down into tier one, the so-called more fortunate area, as opposed to tier four, the less fortunate areas. Tier four has been reduced by 25 per cent whereas tier one has been reduced by 16 per cent. That, Mr. Speaker, is Tory justice.
This Government has an obligation to place before Parliament information which is not readily available to this Parliament but is readily available to it. I very strongly urge Members of the Government to rise in their places and represent their constituents, not the view which has been expounded by the right-wingers, whether they come from Toronto or Washington. This is a Reagan economic policy, Mr. Speaker, which should be abandoned. Parliament ought to have that information before it approves a $16 billion commitment to this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following one. Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-11, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
In amendment thereto, Mr. Riis, seconded by Mr. Deans moves that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor: "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 question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Resuming debate, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak against the motion of the Government which asks for borrowing authority from this House. The Bill has two parts. It asks for $5.3 billion to cover expenditures which the Government foresees between now and the end of the fiscal year, and it requests an extra $2 billion in case the Government has miscalculated its contingency fund. The Bill further asks for $16 billion for expenditures the Government proposes to make after March 31, 1985.
The point has been made many times about the change in attitude which Members of the Government have now as opposed to the time when they were the Opposition. I can recall the days and days of debate when those Hon. Members would berate the Liberal government for attempting to ask for money from Parliament when the Liberal government had not given the House any indication of how it was intending to spend the money.
Borrowing Authority
We have not had a budget, nor have we had any indication of what the money will be used for after March 31. We believe that the $16 billion is totally uncalled for. We realize that governments from time to time need money because taxes do not come in as fast as expenditures. We are aware that the Government is carrying a deficit somewhere between $30 billion and $35 billion. Most of that deficit it inherited, but it has done very little about it.
The economic statement addressed only the reduction of expenditures. The response to those proposals in the business community seems to have been negative. While they were enthusiastic about the support of cut-backs in the press, when business associations began to survey their memberships they found that they were less optimistic about the future than they were several months ago. The result has been negative. I think it is time the Government began to look elsewhere for solutions to get the economy going.
I would bring to the attention of the Government the positive program which we presented to the electorate in the last election. The electorate in 30 ridings paid some attention to our program. I will reiterate that program, because I do not think Members opposite paid much attention to it. During the election campaign virtually all of our program was eventually picked up by Conservative candidates, with two notable exceptions. I think the key to turning the economy around lies with those two exceptions. One was a made-in-Canada interest policy. That policy would recognize that the Government of Canada does have control over the Bank of Canada, that it sets the guidelines for the economy of the country, and that it can operate an economy which is separate from that of the United States. We attempted to make that point many times during the campaign, but it was not as well picked up as it might have been so I will repeat it now.
First, Canada is not like the United States. Canada has a positive trade balance and has had a very sizeable balance of trade for the past five or six years. Unlike the United States, Canada has a positive savings balance. Canadians save more money than they invest. There are plenty of funds generated within Canada. We do not have to build up interest rates in order to attract outside investment, because there is a surplus of investment funds created here annually. That is quite different from the United States which spends more money in investments than it generates. People in the United States are not good savers and never have been. They do not generate enough funds from within their own territory to meet their investment needs. Canada is quite different. It makes no sense to adopt policies that are consistent with those in the United States. A point that is often overlooked is that Canadian workers are more efficient than American workers. During the last two years worker productivity in Canada has outstripped worker productivity in the United States.
Those are three basic economic indicators which tell us that Canada is a very strong country. Canada has a good basis for beginning an upsurge in the economy. The one thing which is holding it back is our high, restrictive over-burdening interest rates. No consumer is going to increase his purchasing as long

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
as those interest rates stay high. Home owners are going to be very careful about buying houses. Farmers and small business are going to be very cautious about making future investments. All of those things are absolutely necessary if we are going to get the economy growing and find employment for the 11 per cent of our population who want to work but have no jobs.
The second item which was discussed during the election campaign but is not now being mentioned by the Conservatives who make up the Government is the necessity for a fair taxation system. We recognize that small business is the engine of growth in this country, unlike the United States which relies more heavily on big business. More than 70 per cent of the new jobs created last year were created by small business, so it is vital that the tax system works well for small business.
Because of the shortcomings in the proposal which is before us, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce an amendment to the motion. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-11, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be not now read a second
time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate is on the amendment to the main motion.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this important moment in the history of the House of Commons. I want to take this opportunity to speak on the amendment to Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority. Perhaps the obvious reason for the amendment being put before the House this morning is that this borrowing authority covers more than a one-year period. In fact, it provides over $7 billion of borrowing authority for the next four and a half months of this fiscal year and then provides another $16 billion for the 1985-86 fiscal year.
The Government came to power on a policy of creating jobs and economic activity and suddenly, after it has achieved power, it has changed direction and its overriding preoccupation now is with reducing the deficit. We really do not know what the Government's spending plans to create the economic activity which the Conservatives talked about so much in the past will be. We have not heard any definite plans spelled out as to exactly how this $16 billion plus $7 billion will be spent.
The Bill looks ahead not only to the end of this fiscal year but into the following fiscal year, so we are really considering a period of some 17 or 18 months into the future. The obvious question is, why should Hon. Members on this side of the House, or Hon. Members on the other side, buy a pig in a poke for what amounts to two fiscal years? We must ask ourselves, is the Government really trying to be secretive about this? The marching orders went out as soon as the Cabinet was sworn in on September 18 to hold everything in confidence and to keep everything secret. Soon the edict went out from the Secretary
of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that people in his Department were not to talk to the press or to Members of Parliament or to anyone else, socially or otherwise. That edict has been withdrawn but there certainly is still a permeating idea of secrecy which follows right through to Bill C-ll which is before us today.
We really do not know what the Government is going to spend this money on, Mr. Speaker. The cost of ministerial staff has been increased by $140,000 to $400,000 for each Minister. We do not know whether that amount will be increased even more. Perhaps there will be appointed a second chief of staff, in a way similar to American politics. The Cabinet will be further bloated from last summer where there were 29 Ministers of the former Government to 40 Ministers of the present Government. When we leave the House of Commons at night we see those 40 Oldsmobile 98s sitting out in front with their two-way radios and chauffeurs. We do not know whether there is going to be more spending like that.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) did us a favour last week, he said, when he told us that the Department of Public Works actually wanted to spend $600,000 on 24 Sussex Drive and he talked them down to $100,000. Although in his view, he has saved us $500,000, we really have to question whether or not some of this $16 billion will be spent on those kinds of things.
The Prime Minister indicated that he is going to pay for his own hot tub and the television satellite dish for his Harrington Lake residence. He also told us last summer that the Parliament of Canada was not going to have to pay for his nanny. However, it developed that we were going to have to pay for the nanny. Further inquiries were made and it was said that the nanny really was not the nanny any longer, she was a maid. When asked about that the explanation was that she was a maid, but a maid who interfaces on a continuing basis with the children. Obviously, sometimes these terms can be switched around. We just wonder whether some part of these funds will ultimately go towards the cost of the hot tub and the television dish. Perhaps the Prime Minister will invoke that prime ministerial provision as he did with the Government JetStars when he was questioned about whether they were being used by Ministers for personal use. He said in a deep voice that they were really sacred instruments of government travel. I can just imagine that if the Government of Canada ends up paying for the hot tub and the television dish, the Prime Minister will probably use his deepest prime ministerial tones at the press conference and say that they are sacred instruments for prime ministerial comfort and titillation.
In any case we have this Bill for borrowing authority of $7 billion for this fiscal year and $16 billion for the coming fiscal year before us. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulty for this Government is that it came to power with many, many promises which it knew, and we knew, and now everyone knows, could not be kept. Instead of going ahead and implementing those promises on an orderly basis, it wants to switch them over to the standing committees of the House or have
December 6, 1984

consultation with other groups outside the House and we really do not know where the Government is going.
We have in Bill C-7 legislation to implement the tax proposals of the previous government. This Government has brought in legislation from the previous Parliament but it does not seem to want to bring in even the uncontroversial legislation of its own. When a Party gets 211 seats in Parliament it should be able to see that its campaign promises are implemented. There were solemn promises concerning agriculture. Legislation and funding would be provided so that outstanding farm loans, a tremendous handicap to our agricultural producers at interest rates of 16 per cent and 17 per cent, would be written down to current day interest rates. Yet there is no legislation to implement that promise. There is no legislation to implement set-asides such as was done in the United States, or to bring back the special farm financing assistance program of the previous government.
In his economic statement the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) spelled out in pretty good detail what this Government is against, but what we do not know and what this Bill does not provide is which promises made during the election campaign the Government is going to keep. That is why I think the Official Opposition, at least, would like to see this Bill split into two parts, one for this fiscal year and one for the next fiscal year.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this Bill, the objectionable part of which says that we are to borrow $16 billion for the year 1985-86 without having any budget in front of us whatsoever. We objected to this from the beginning. The earlier amendment proposed a much more direct sort of remedy, namely simply to split it. We offered that option to the Government. One or two government Members asked us, rhetorically as it were, whether we would accept such a split and we said quite clearly yes, we would. However, there was obviously no move from the government side to consider such a split although that was exactly what the Conservatives asked for and got two years ago when the shoe was on the other foot and they were sitting on the other side of the Speaker.
Therefore, we are asking for a six-month hoist which will give the Government time to do its arithmetic and determine what it wants to use the money for. This is the tradition of Parliament in Britain and Canada. The control of spending by Parliament has been a fundamental cause for which parliamentarians lived and died, and for which a king of England lost his head. He insisted on spending money without authority so they chopped off the head of Charles I. We are not proposing anything so drastic as that, Mr. Speaker. I see the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) looking a little anxious! I can assure him we would not want to do anything more over this motion than defeat the Government and have an election.


Mr. Crombie:: You did that once, Dan.
Borrowing Authority


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: He would still have his head. We did not do that while I was here, Mr. Speaker, and I would still like to see it.
We really have to oppose this motion. This is the policy that R. B. Bennett tried and which proved utterly disastrous half a century ago. It was a policy of trying to cure a depression by forcing unemployment. What he did was to double the depression; it did not last five years, it lasted 10 years, thanks to R. B. Bennett's policy. Unfortunately, memories are short and apparently members of the Government have not read their Canadian history or talked to their parents about the depression. They do not know that they are doing exactly the same thing that turned a disaster into a double disaster half a century ago.
There have been warnings from financial authorities that even if there has been a short spurt to the economy through international trade, the domestic economy is not picking up. It remains flat. In fact, the spurt in international trade may be turning down again. I wish the members of the Government would heed that warning because their policies failed in the view of ordinary people as well as in the view of economists.
For example, the Government has decided to wipe out 4,000 jobs in the home building industry by cutting $9.6 million from the social housing budget. The subsidy for a unit is in the range of $5,000. Roughly speaking, that will cut out about 1,900 units and about 4,000 jobs in construction and home furnishings. It is accepted in the building trade that each unit means about one job in construction and a little more than one job per year in home furnishings. By cutting $9.6 million from the social housing budget, the Government is wiping out 4,000 jobs when unemployment is already too high. The Government says: Don't worry, just stop eating or tell your constituents to stop eating and probably in a year some more jobs will appear from somewhere when the economy has been stimulated and confidence is restored. In the meantime, confidence is going down the drain and the Government is taking bread and butter off the table of many working people.
This Government is not increasing confidence, Mr. Speaker. Reports of economists show that. The Government has taken another $29.4 million from rehabilitation, probably another 600 jobs. Then there is the money cut from insulation programs. More jobs lost. These are labour-intensive programs which employ people in the cities of Canada where the unemployed are mostly congregated. Those are jobs that could employ people who have known skills. They do not need a retraining program, they are ready to go to work today. But the Government has cut them off. Not only those families suffer, but the tradesmen and merchants who would like to sell to those families suffer as well because these people do not have money to buy the goods.
In the same way, Mr. Speaker, the Government is cutting back on all kinds of social programs. I want to speak particularly about the immigrant settlement adaptation program. The Government provides less than $400 per immigrant for the whole process of getting settled and learning English. That is a

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
serious hindrance to their settlement in this country. The kind of cuts the Government is making in the budget do not give us any confidence that it will spend the money in the proper way in the coming year. If the Government would show us how it will spend the money, we would be able to decide whether that is what Parliament wants.
Until then, Mr. Speaker, we have to say that without any accounting or budgeting in advance it would be utterly improper for Parliament to vote the Government a blank cheque of $16 billion. That is equivalent to $1,000 or more for every family in Canada. We simply cannot afford to put that money in the hands of untried people who refuse to give us any budget or account.
I would hope that Hon. Members on both sides of the House will consider very seriously the danger of what the Government proposes to do and will support this very sensible and conservative motion that has been put forward by our House Whip.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak to the amendment on Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority. To say that this Bill is nebulous gives a completely new definition to the word. We are asked to approve a Bill in two parts. The first part is for $7.3 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85. The second part is for $16 billion for the fiscal year 1985-86.
There are really two parts to the amount that we are being asked to approve for this year. The first part of the $7.3 billion relates to increased expenses of $5.3 billion. The second part is for a $2 billion reserve fund. I think it would be more commonly described as a slush fund.
Why are we being asked to approve this Bill at this particular time? It is mainly because of a statement that has been termed an economic and fiscal statement. It has certainly not been called a budget, yet we are asked in the House to approve this Bill giving authority to borrow a tremendous sum of money. We are asked to give the Government this money blindly on what is produced in that statement without having produced a budget or brought down estimates. Certainly it would be a travesty to the people of Canada, to the House and to Members of Parliament as representatives of the people of Canada to approve this sum of money with the sketchy information that has been provided.
Where is this money going to go? No one has been given any inkling of what the Government plans to do. Certainly the Government has not given us any information in its election promises. Any election promises that have been kept have been purely coincidental. What was said during the election campaign was for the consumption of the Canadian public to be used to forward that Party's platform for the election. It has become increasingly obvious that the Government had no intention of keeping those election promises.
Again I ask, where is this money going to go? What will be the benefit to the Canadian public? Where are the programs that the Government is supposed to have brought forward for the betterment of the Canadian public and the economy, which
we have agreed needs attention? Certainly the deficit is important and needs attention. However, what are people going to do, not only in the long-term, which has received some consideration, but in the short-term? How are people going to cope? How is the Government's program going to deal with this very important question? In its economic and fiscal statement the Government said that it is going to cut $200 million from regional development programs. There is nothing to indicate that the Government in any way has any feeling for the low income and unemployed Canadians, let alone any concept of how it is going to attack the very important problem of regional disparity and unemployment in the country. This is not only a lack of policy; it is insensitivity to this very important question.
Where is the energy policy that was promised? During the election campaign the Government Party was not shy in stating what it planned to do. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) admitted freely prior to the election campaign that she had consulted on various occasions with industry and consumer groups. I think it is paramount that we get some indication of what the energy policy is going to be before we approve this extremely large sum of money. I do not think it is unreasonable; I think it is very responsible and in the interests of the taxpayers of the country that we ask for this six-month extension to consider this Bill and the approval of this sum of money.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that she would like to use the energy policy as an engine for growth. If she does that, this certainly will involve a very considerable and substantial fiscal regime on the part of the Government. What is that fiscal regime going to be? Who is it going to benefit? Frankly, is it going to be sizeable at all and is it going to do what the Minister, the industry, and the people of the country are expecting it to do? We have no indication of this. The Minister herself has said that she cannot make major energy decisions until the world price of oil stabilizes. What is a stabilized world price for oil? Certainly the price has been stable for a month and that is about all anyone can expect from that category. Any conflict in the Middle East could have a tremendous impact on the world price of oil. That is no reason to postpone these major decisions on what the Government will do on this very important question.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) shed crocodile tears when he was Opposition about the needs of Canadians and the people who are disadvantaged. He is now prepared to jettison everything that previous governments have worked for to provide the best health care system in the country in the interest of trying to meet this blind desire to reduce expenditures. This strikes out at those who are the most defenceless in the country and the easiest targets of this blind economic policy which the Government is following. In addition to the blind economic policy, the Government is now asking us to grant this amount of money without our knowing to what use it will be put.
It would be irresponsible for the House to approve this Bill and this sum of money, Mr. Speaker. The Government is

December 6, 1984
irresponsible and not fulfilling its mandate even to table this Bill at this particular time in view of the sketchy information it has provided. The Government is not only acting irresponsibly, it is acting callously. I think that is a result of an elitist policy which has complete disregard for what Canadians are expecting from the mandate they have given to the Government.
I ask Members of all Parties to vote against this Bill and, particularly, to support the amendment to the Bill of my Party. Surely, with additional time the Government could come forward with at least some of the information we require for considering this Bill. In this six-month period it could at least go through the motions of informing Canadians how this money will be spent.
I submit that my Party has taken a very responsible position which is, frankly, a very moderate position in its amendment. We could have requested a good deal more from the Government in light of its arrogance in requesting the House to approve this Bill in its present form.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on behalf of the people in my riding to call upon the Government to rethink its stand with respect to this Bill for at least the six-month period in question. I ask the Government to reconsider its current position with respect to the borrowing of billions of Canadian taxpayers' money without providing Parliament with the tools we need to carry out our job.
I know that there is extreme concern not only in my riding but in the community of Hamilton about the fulfilment of promises made by the Government, particularly those made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) with respect to the issue of steel import quotas. Members will no doubt be aware that during the election battles throughout the country we heard many flowery promises from the Prime Minister. In fact, he assured the people of my riding in a letter which he wrote to them that when he became Prime Minister he would do everything in his power to ensure that the Canadian steel market or the right of Canadian steel products to enter the United States was not infringed upon by quotas or other measures that would be in violation of GATT.
However, like so many other promises, the Prime Minister has disappointed and indeed disgusted the people of Hamilton East. I questioned the Prime Minister about this issue in the House earlier this week. His response was not one of a serious parliamentarian or head of state with respect to an issue of international importance and with international repercussions. Instead, it was a flip answer that was an attempt to castigate the present position taken by the Liberal Party that the Government must go to the President of the United States and insist that the labelling provisions which are a violation of GATT be withdrawn immediately or we will be prepared to take retaliatory measures.
The Prime Minister talked about retaliatory rhetoric. I want to inform the Prime Minister that there are hundreds of people in my riding and thousands throughout Hamilton who are
Borrowing Authority
facing a very bleak Christmas. Almost a thousand people have already been laid off. Some have received notice that they will be laid off by the end of January unless there is an upturn in steel production. One can imagine the kind of Christmas those constituents are awaiting. I rose in the House on behalf of those constituents of Hamilton East to ask the Prime Minister what stance the Government is prepared to take with respect to the negotiations with the Congress and the President of the United States. He simply replied with a laugh and a snarky rhetorical remark. Such a response by our Prime Minister to a serious question is not acceptable. It is not the kind of answer the people in my riding would have expected from the Prime Minister, particularly when they are facing serious job dislocation.
My colleagues and I have been extremely disappointed that the Government has chosen not to seize the opportunity it has been given as a result of its unprecedented mandate. Instead, it is spending most of its time raking the muck in search of stories and innuendos about the past history of former Liberal Ministers, including the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner).
I believe the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said it best in Toronto last night when he asked if members of the Government did not realize that they have won the election and that, as of September 4, the Prime Minister and his Party was given a massive mandate by the people of Canada. Does he not realize that the election is over? He is no longer campaigning; he is in Parliament and the people of Canada are looking to him and the Government to provide leadership in the area of job creation and job protection.
As a Member who represents literally thousands of steel workers, I find it completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to be unaware that the current tariff barriers being imposed by the U.S. Congress with respect to the labelling issue are a violation of GATT. Furthermore, he is unable to stand in his place in the House and tell Canadians that he is doing everything in his power to personally ensure the protection of Canadian steel jobs, as he promised during the election. While this issue is of particular importance to people in my riding, the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) should also have a special interest in this issue. His constituents in Sault Ste. Marie are not looking to the Government for laughs and stand-up comicry; they are looking for leadership.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan), also spoke on this very serious issue. He is looking to the Government for leadership with respect to the steel industry in Nova Scotia. I find it unacceptable for the Government to ask for billions of dollars of unprecedented borrowing authority into the fiscal year of 1985-86 while the Prime Minister sloughs off such a serious question as the steel labelling issue.
When members of the Government are considering this amendment to delay the borrowing Bill for at least six months, they should recognize that they are also safeguarding their parliamentary privileges by insisting that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet come clean not only with Parliament but with

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
their own caucus. For example, this is true with respect to Government decisions in such areas as CMHC. There is a very disturbing article on the front page of The Globe and Mail. The very existence of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is at stake. At the same time, there is no action on the part of the Government or no attempt to inform Canadians that the Government's role in housing will not be wiped out as a result of its cost-cutting measures.
The people of Canada are frightened. They voted in the Government with a massive mandate for change. However, what they have received is government by secrecy, government by Cabinet and political commissar directives and government by centralization within the office of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen).
I would venture to say that Conservative Members of the House will have just as much difficulty when they go to committee to seek information on issues which interest them and when they try to determine where the Government will make its cuts. At the moment there is a veil of uncertainty which is hanging over Canadians. It is hanging over the steel workers in Hamilton. It is hanging over single parents in Toronto who are trying to find adequate housing and, in some cases, wondering where they will get their next meal. This uncertainty is facing steel workers in Sydney.
I believe that these people would say that it is unacceptable comportment for the Prime Minister to laugh and slough off serious questions from the Opposition each day in Question Period. I believe that the people of Canada deserve more. The Government has been given a mandate and I plead with the Prime Minister to take a strong personal stand with respect to the steel labelling provision so that the steel workers of Hamilton can spend Christmas in the knowledge that their jobs will not be on the line.
It is a serious issue which should not be treated comically by the Government. It is an issue that affects the lives and economy not only of the steel workers but those in the automobile industry. These industries are interrelated and many sectors in our economy are waiting to see if the Prime Minister will provide leadership or simply scrape and bow to his American counterpart in the White House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, last week at a sitting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, I pointed out to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that cancelling the 1986 census would have a negative impact on our immigrants.
When the Minister replied that she failed to see how this cutback could be harmful, I suggested that she consult the principal users of StatsCan data, namely, our federal departments and agencies.
In fact, in a study ordered by StatsCan in 1982 to identify data requirements, principal users asked that collecting detailed data on ethnic non-native groups be maintained on a five-yearly basis, since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for the preservation and development of the multicultural heritage of Canadians. It is therefore official policy to help minority groups participate fully in the social, cultural and political life of this country.
Special programs exist for this purpose, and only the census can provide detailed information on the ethnic composition of the population.
The Minister would therefore do well to reconsider her position on the census.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is time Canadians got some answers from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) concerning his patronage appointments.
Last summer we saw an appalling rash of appointments requested by a retiring Mr. Trudeau being accepted by the new Liberal Leader (Mr. Turner) who said that "he had no option" but to accept Mr. Trudeau's wishes. The Conservative Leader lectured the Prime Minister of the day, saying: "You made those appointments and you have to bear the odious responsibility for them". We all know how dearly the Liberals paid for those pork barrel jobs. He added: "It would take the people of Manicouagan working until the end of their days to pay the salaries of those appointments".
Last July the Tory Leader said: "We are going to remove . . . patronage positions from automatic politics". Last August he said that a Conservative Government would submit appointments for key policy positions to a House committee
December 6, 1984

for review. It is now December and such a committee is nowhere in sight.
Now, it seems, the Prime Minister is playing the old Liberal game. He has recently begun to appoint loyalists and party "bag-men" to high-paying positions of public service. Since the people of Manicouagan are paying for the "Trudeau-Turner" pact, I wonder who the PM thinks will pay for his latest binge.
Prime Ministerial appointments must be reviewed by the House of Commons. In this new age of "accountable" government, I call on the Prime Minister to introduce immediately his proposal for such a review.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of this House the serious financial crisis in agriculture. Canadian farmers are facing severe financial difficulty as a result of heavy debt loads, high interest rates, and low commodity and livestock prices. The drought last summer in western Canada has left many farmers with their backs to the wall. Across Canada the latest Farm Credit Corporation statistics indicate that 17 per cent of Canadian farmers are in severe financial stress, with a further 7 per cent under moderate stress.
I would urge my Government to make financial counselling services available to farmers to assist them in their negotiations with lending institutions, in order to arrange special repayment terms for viable farmers suffering temporary financial difficulties. This move would provide relief in the short term. I would further urge my Government to provide assistance in the long term by introducing an agri-bond program to provide long-term, low interest financing for the agricultural community.
With a famine situation throughout much of the Third World, I urge my Government to make financial assistance for the primary food producers in Canada and the preservation of the family farm a high priority item.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Paul Gagnon (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy has lost an infusion of $120 million. I refer to the recent National Energy Board decision rejecting the export of natural gas over a two-year period. The National Energy Board rejected this proposal because the price of the gas was less than the Toronto citygate price.
The proposed export at Emerson, Manitoba, is 1,200 miles closer to the source than Toronto. As an analogy, Mr. Speaker, if automobiles could not be exported from Oakville or from
Windsor at a price lower than the price in Winnipeg, not many, if any, would be exported.
We urge the Government to rescind this obsolete and ridiculous benchmark as soon as possible. This would give the ailing Canadian economy a much needed $120 million infusion, $120 million worth of jobs and taxes.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has been threatening and harassing public servants ever since it was sworn into office. Thousands of people are being laid off. The Government is breaking its promises to the general population, and especially to its public servants.
Not content with cutting jobs and creating havoc everywhere, it now appears that the Government will be increasing parking rates for public servants to an amount between $80 and $125 per month. Many government employees working at low wages are my constituents, who have to drive several miles to work using the inadequate Queensway, a courtesy of our provincial Tory Government, only to arrive on the job to be hit a double whammy by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and his friend, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle). Tory times are hard times, especially for our public servants, but they will remember this Government when the next election comes.



HOUSING


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last few years, many Canadians have lost their homes as a result of very high interest rates. We noted with interest that neither the Conservative Party in opposition, nor the Liberal Party in government, was prepared to move to assist those individuals, and for them there was no abundant supply of public housing into which to move.
Since his election to the House of Commons the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has sold his home in Montreal for a handsome profit, and has moved three times from one public house into the next.
Just yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) chose to follow suit, selling his home in Toronto for a handsome profit, only to move into public housing, not the normal kind of public housing, public housing for which you pay no rent, public housing that requires absolutely no outlay on behalf of either of these gentlemen. When you weigh up what they have done over and against what happened to thousands of Canadians in the last five years, the question really is: Where is the justice?

December 6, 1984



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE APPLICATION-EFFECT ON SASKATCHEWAN RESIDENTS

Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, a recent federal-provincial study shows that the Province of Saskatchewan would be the biggest loser if new companies are allowed to compete for long distance telephone service in Canada. According to the study, additional competition for long distance would drain off revenues and force the basic rates for local telephone service in rural Saskatchewan to triple in some areas.
Because of Saskatchewan's diverse land and relatively sparse population, our provincial phone company, Sask Tel, relies on long distance revenues to provide local phone service at reasonable rates. If this long distance revenue were to be lost, it might force hundreds of subscribers in Saskatchewan to give up their telephone service. Because of this, I believe that the CRTC should not allow competing long distance service by CNCP, and I urge Hon. Members to follow the wishes of thousands of Saskatchewan citizens who are indeed concerned.



DISARMAMENT


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the 90 seconds allowed a Member of Parliament for an opening statement, 45 children die from lack of food and medical supplies in underdeveloped parts of the world. In the same 90 seconds, over $2 million is spent on the world's military budget. Obviously if even a fraction of that amount were devoted to preserving life, many of these children would survive. The fault for this mistaken priority does not lie just with the superpowers. Six countries which could not meet their debt obligations in 1981 had spent over $1 billion each on arms imports during the previous five years. Of the world's 114 third world countries, 56 have military Governments.
To many Canadians there seems to be very little that we can do about it. That makes many of us turn all of our attention to purely national, regional, and local concerns. However, arousing the world's consciousness is vital if these disastrous priorities are to be reversed. That is something Canadians can do, especially those of us in this House. In the thirty-second Parliament an impressively large number of references to arms reduction were made by individual Members, but the same cannot be said for Parliament as a whole. Of the 591 days that Parliament sat, only two were devoted by the House as a whole to this critical challenge.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my indignation regarding the cruel and irresponsible character assassination of Mr. Robert Foulkes and Mr. Fred Rayer by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: To make specious, unsubstantiated, and slanderous allegations about two individuals, behind the cloak of parliamentary immunity, is a shameless and cowardly act. Parliamentary immunity is a privilege of the highest order and when a Member abuses that privilege in such a cavalier fashion, it casts-


Mr. Speaker:: With great regret I interrupt the Hon. Member to indicate that the Member is verging on attacking another Member's use of parliamentary privilege personally. The issue of parliamentary privilege is a very careful issue. I therefore seek the Hon. Member's co-operation, in furthering the statement, to limit his concern to the issue of parliamentary privilege without personally attacking any other Hon. Member of the House.


John V. Nunziata: Parliamentary immunity is a privilege of the highest order, and when a Member abuses that privilege in a cavalier fashion it casts a shadowy cloud on the integrity of each and every one of us. The purpose of parliamentary immunity is to encourage frank and full discussion, not to besmirch reputations by making capricious and ill advised statements.
The Hon. Member's inexcusable accusations have caused irreparable damage, and bring this House of Parliament into disrepute. The Member, and indeed the New Democratic Party, should hang their heads in shame. How can those self-righteous, hypocritical New Democrats-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does not matter one's Party. What does matter is the question of parliamentary privilege of all Members of the House. The use of the word "shame" with regard to a particular Member is out of order, I suggest. Does the Hon. Member wish to complete his statement?


John V. Nunziata: It is unfortunate that the two individuals in question did not have that same privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am in very great difficulty on this question. I hope Hon. Members will understand that I am. It is a very difficult situation to raise during a statement, in terms of raising a question about another Member's use of a privilege that pertains, through long standing traditions, to the rights of all Members. It is not, therefore, one that I will allow, with respect, to be continued at this time, pending some further review of the precedents on the matter by myself,
December 6, 1984

again with great respect to the Member and his concern for the issue.
The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago Teck Corporation closed down its Highmont Mines operation in the Highland Valley of British Columbia. As a result of that closure 450 families find themselves living in a resource town and holding lengthy mortgages with no chance of resale. To counter this problem, CMCH had entered into an agreement with Highmont Corporation, called the resource industry guarantee. Naturally, the residents of Logan Lake are anxious to receive copies of the guarantee to see what rights they have at this point.
CMHC officials have continuously stonewalled the request of residents and the Member of Parliament who has made requests on their behalf. I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), who is responsible for CMHC, to intervene in this situation to ensure that public servants actually are public servants and start to serve the residents of the Logan Lake area by making this resource industry guarantee available to them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Journal de Montreal, it seems an umbrella agreement on the economic development of the Province of Quebec will soon be signed with that Province. My question is therefore directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
He is no doubt aware of the fact that we had a similar agreement from 1974 to 1984, under which one billion dollars was paid, and that only this spring, we were about to sign an agreement with Mr. Parizeau and Mr. Leonard, who have now resigned from the provincial Cabinet. According to our policy, $224 million were earmarked for regional development this year. I would like to know first of all, whether the agreement in question is to be signed this week or the week after, and second, whether it is true that only $100 million will be made available to the Province of Quebec over the next ten years.
Oral Questions


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is in Quebec today having discussions with Premier Levesque in an effort to rebuild and restore real federal-provincial co-operation in this country. I would not reject the idea that that might be one of the items on their agenda for discussion, but I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he await the Prime Minister's return next Tuesday, at which time he can put the question to him. I am sure the Prime Minister will be glad to answer all questions with respect to the outcome of his restoration of federal-provincial relations with all provincial Governments.


EXPENDITURES IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, when you speak about the restoration, the whole concept of these economic and regional development agreements was the creation of the preceding Government. Many were signed before the unfortunate event of September 4,
1984.	That is history. I will now go to the Minister of Regional Industrial Development, his Parliamentary Secretary, or the Acting Minister.
Since $1 billion was spent in the Province of Quebec under the last agreement, without speaking of the specific agreement for the Gaspesie-I see the Minister is arriving-which was something like-

-one half billion over fifteen years.

As well, of course, there were the La Prade monies and the monies of the Industrial and Regional Development Program. Is this really a substantial cut-back in the amounts that will be spent in the Province of Quebec over the next 10 years?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I am sure he will be pleased to learn that the IRDA that we are negotiating with the Province of Quebec covers only five years through to 1990, but basically it will reflect, through subagreements, funding that is very comparable to the historical amounts in the 10 years previous to 1984.


NATURE OF FUNDING BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure this House that the five year agreement to which he makes reference, and not the ten year agreement which has been reported, will not contain any part of the Industrial and Regional Development Program monies, which are a program apart, and will not contain any part of the La Prade funds, the Bell Helicopter project, or the Pratt and Whitney project, but in fact will be purely new monies devoted to regional development in the province, and not any

December 6, 1984
Oral Questions
part of the Gaspe monies, $260 million also devoted to that particular area of Quebec?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Hon. Member is always living in the past. I can assure him that what we have been discussing with Quebec is new money. In addition, Quebec and ourselves feel that we should look at all the ongoing programs, whether they have been committed, allocated, or whether it is new money. The IRDA agreement does cover a ten year period. What I am saying is, following out of that IRDA agreement, we anticipate sub agreements which will have a five year period. That is where the funding will be set out.

[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER LA PRADE FUND REMAINS IN ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
I would like to ask the Minister whether the La Prade Fund which has been part of the Estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for many years and on which we have spent over $50 million, will continue to be included in the Estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, as indicated recently by the President of the Treasury Board, who said that the La Prade Fund still existed. Is the Fund still under the control of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, the La Prade Fund is not in my Estimates any more than it was in the Estimates of my colleague when he held my post.


EXISTENCE OF FUND QUERIED
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the Minister say that there is no La Prade Fund when the President of the Treasury Board, while making a statement three weeks ago in Victoriaville, said that the La Prade Fund was to be maintained and used in a different fashion? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House who is telling the truth? Is it the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who said there is no such fund, or is it the President of the Treasury Board who, in Victoriaville, said that there is such a fund?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can throw some light on the issue raised by the Hon. Member. The La Prade Fund never shows up in any Estimates of any Department. It was used as a political patronage slush fund by the Liberal administration at the time it was in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State has said that Canada will continue to vote "No" on the question of a nuclear weapons freeze at the United Nations. He has also said that even though six NATO countries and two ANZUS countries have supported the freeze or have abstained from the vote, now is not the time, as he said yesterday, for Canada to "act independently" on the nuclear freeze question. I would ask, independently of whom?
Given the fact that Canadians support a freeze, that the U.S. House of Representatives supports a freeze, and that the Soviet Union supports a freeze, is the Secretary of State in fact saying that Canada will not act independently of the Reagan administration?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the word I should have used yesterday was "eccentrically". Canada does not intend to act eccentrically, which I am sure the Hon. Member finds distasteful.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, that is about as eccentric an answer as I have ever heard.


CANADIAN POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State is in effect dismissing and, indeed, denigrating the positions taken by friends of ours in NATO, at the United Nations, and in ANZUS, will he not reconsider his decision to follow so eccentrically the Reagan administration's line? In addition, will he take some action at home? For example, might he not assure us that the refitted Shearwater naval base will not be used by Trident submarines? Will he assure us that the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are taking a position which we believe is in the interests of Canada and in the interests of contributing to steady progress toward disarmament and peace
December 6, 1984

in the world. We are doing that in the belief, which we think is widely supported in the country, that one of the most effective ways for Canada to contribute to a reduction of the arms buildup is both to maintain our credibility with the Soviet Union by being a nation that does not put aside the values that we hold deeply, as well as retain our influence with our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Pauline Jewett: We don't have any.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Hon. Member may have no influence with NATO. This Government has, and we intend to keep it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, will the Secretary of State not admit that he is denigrating our allies who want to vote for the freeze? Will he not admit that he is denigrating their positions? Will he not also admit that the vast majority of the Canadian public want Canada to support a nuclear freeze?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, of course, I am not denigrating the positions of others. They are free to take their positions based upon their judgments-


Pauline Jewett: Are we not free?


Charles Joseph Clark: -as we are free to take our positions based upon judgments. We have taken a decision as the Government of Canada that it is in the interests of Canadian citizens interested in peace that we encourage the process which has now been resumed at Geneva, encouraging the superpowers to come together to seek agreement on how we can begin to scale down the arms buildup. That is the most important development in the last several months. For Canada to throw a spanner into that process would be irresponsible and counterproductive.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the Minister confirmed that the Conservative Government will oppose Duncan MacDonald's position before the Supreme Court that he has the right to be summoned in English to the Quebec courts. This goes contrary to the position taken by previous Governments in the Forest case, the Blaikie Johnson case, and Jones' case. It is an interpretation of Section 133 of the British North America Act that has never before been agreed to.
Oral Questions
Who approved of the position taken by the Government and of the factum? Did the Minister approve of it, did the Cabinet approve of it, or did the Prime Minister approve of it?
Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman should know about that. He was part of the Government when it was approved.
Let me try to put the Hon. Member's mind at ease. There is quite a difference between this case and, for example, the Bilodeau case from Manitoba. The issue in the Bilodeau case was not the language of the traffic ticket as such, but was that the enabling law that authorized it was adopted in English only and was therefore invalid. In this particular case the issue is not whether or not the substantive law that authorizes the traffic ticket was valid, because that law was enacted in both English and French. The question is whether or not the summons itself is valid because it was written in French only. It is a different issue from those in the previous cases.


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S FACTUM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not answering the question. Of course it is a different issue. It is the first time that this issue will be interpreted. The Conservative Government has put a factum before the Supreme Court, and I have the factum right here, stating that Anglophones in Quebec do not have the right to receive their court summonses in English. I ask the Minister, who approved that position? I would suggest to him that it would be better to withdraw his intervention before the Supreme Court and say nothing at all rather than take that position.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has read the factum-


Mr. Allmand:: I have the factum right here.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then he is ahead of me since I have not read the factum.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns jobs. I am sure the Minister is aware that a Pentagon committee is on tour of seven cities in this country seeking contracts for the American military, and that this Pentagon committee has been organized and funded by the federal Government that sits across the way. Is the Minister aware of recent American studies that show it costs between two and three times as much to create a job through military
958
December 6, 1984

Oral Questions
spending as it does through almost any other sector of the economy?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 
REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I wonder if the Minister might tell her friends in the Pentagon that we in Canada are more interested in civilian contracts which produce between two and three times as many jobs as does spending in the military sector.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be glad to tell our friends in the United States. I am glad to hear that the Hon. Member, is at least one of his Party, who has recognized that we have friends in the United States. Many of them do not make that recognition. But I will be glad to tell the Americans and others in other countries that we are very interested in having them help us create jobs in Canada. That was part of the whole approach that we took in the immigration policy to bring entrepreneurs to this country.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. I have had numerous telephone calls from constituents in the past few days regarding the availability of feed barley for the livestock feeding industry. The Minister will be aware that the Canadian Wheat Board is no longer providing feed barley under the formula price. Can he assure the House that there will be an adequate supply of feed barley from outside the Canadian Wheat Board stocks? If not, is he prepared to move to make Canadian Wheat Board stocks available?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises an interesting question. As of the end of last week the Board stopped supplying at the formula price because it was below the initial price. With regard to stocks, there is some concern. There are considerable stocks held in the private trade. The Board has indicated that it will be issuing permits, bearing in mind that there are domestic supplies which can move to meet the demand, and that corn comes in freely. Might I also say that this is not a new feed grains policy, but this simply points out that the present one certainly needs to be revised.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. LARRY R. SHABEN, MINISTER OF HOUSING OF ALBERTA
Mr. Speaker:: May I advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of the Hon. Larry R. Shaben, Minister of Housing in the Alberta Legislature.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Defence. In today's media the Minister of National Defence was quoted as saying that Canada is going to boost its air strength in NATO when the new CF-18 fighter aircraft replaces the CF-104 in the next year. He also talked about adding six new patrol frigates to the Canadian Navy. When making such statements, was the Minister simply not making several promises to our NATO allies that were based on commitments which had already been made, and were under way, by the previous Government?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the Minister made the statements referred to by the Hon. Member he was making them in good faith and in good knowledge of what the Government intends to do. I feel sure he will assure the Hon. Member when he returns that he will do what he is saying he is going to do on behalf of the Government of Canada.


PROMISES MADE TO NATO
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Acting Minister. What new promises is he aware of that the Minister has made to NATO? Indeed, has he as yet obtained the money from the Minister of Finance, who has already robbed him of $154 million, to proceed with the commitments which he has made and which are new to the system?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we, in our Cabinet, unlike those in the previous Cabinet, talk to each other very, very frequently on a very confidential basis. But, on this particular occasion the Hon. Minister of National Defence has not been in touch with me in the very short time since he made this very good statement. So,
I am not aware of the exact words which he used, but I can assure the Hon. Member that what he said makes a very great deal of sense.
December 6, 1984


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would he tell this House why the enumeration of visible minority members in the Public Service, which was announced on June 27, 1983, as a prerequisite for the implementation of affirmative action in the Public Service, has not been completed by the Treasury Board as it should have been by now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is unavoidably absent due to an unforeseen commitment which came up at the last minute. I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and ensure that the President of the Treasury Board communicates with him.


REPORTED POSTPONEMENT OF ENUMERATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that Treasury Board has requested a postponement of the enumeration until 1986. In view of the great concern among visible minority members throughout the country, will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of his Government, assure us that such an extensive postponement will not be approved and that the enumeration will take place as quickly as possible in the new year?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the representation made by the hon. gentleman to the President of the Treasury Board who, I am sure, will be in touch with him.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday she indicated that the Quebec commission for health and safety is monitoring Union Carbide factories in that province for safety and prevention. I would ask the Minister today, considering the number of lethal gases which are stored in Canada, whether she has contacted her provincial counterparts, or the respective provincial authorities, on this matter? If she has done so, what assurance has she received with respect to the prevention of similar tragedies in our country?


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have not done so.


TRANSPORTATION OF LETHAL GASES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, that is distressing and disappointing. I would then ask the Minister if
Oral Questions
she has spoken to her colleague, the Minister of Transport, to seek his assurance that the regulations governing the transportation of lethal gases are in place, so as to protect nearby communities, and what assurances she has received from him?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the administrative skills of my colleague, the Minister of Transport.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. In view of the fact that the Minister will be meeting tomorrow with his provincial counterparts, and in light of recent press reports about the possible demise of CMHC, can he assure Canadians that the federal Government will continue to play the lead role in maintaining social housing, insuring of mortgages, and the CMHC inspection of every house with a mortgage which is going to be insured by CMHC?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that, when I meet with my provincial counterparts, we will make every effort to give to Canadians, in the most cost-efficient and meaningful way possible, the housing which is so necessary for those who are in need.


PRIVATIZATION PROPOSAL
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister today categorically repudiate the Clark Government's Matthews Report which recommended the privatization of CMHC, the cancellation of federal involvement in mortgage insurance and the cancellation of public housing, co-op housing, non-profit housing and residential rehabilitation, in favour of other programs? Will he repudiate the Matthews Report?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the sound and the phooey of the Hon. Member surprise me. I would tell her that we in this Government are taking action and studying programs. We are not relying on input which may be confined within this caucus or within the House of Commons. I am meeting with my counterparts. We are seeking and reviewing all documentation and studies which have been done in the past. We will continue to do that. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will make every effort, as I said before, to give to the people of Canada the best and most efficient housing we can, within the fiscal restraints under which we operate.

December 6, 1984
Oral Questions


AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the fact that her Deputy Minister today told the Public Accounts Committee that there is a document in the Minister's Department concerning the PetroCan takeover of Petrofina, which the Privy Council directed not be revealed to the Auditor General of Canada, and given the fact that the Auditor General said that he had received cabinet documents from the Clark, Trudeau, Turner and the present Governments, will the Minister tell this House whom we should believe, herself or her Deputy Minister? And if we are to believe her Deputy Minister, will the Minister make this document public to the Auditor General?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I really wish the Hon. Member would get his facts straight. The Deputy Minister told the Public Accounts Committee that the only document of which he is aware does not relate to the purchase of Petrofina. It is a document which relates to the setting up of the Canadian ownership charge which, in effect, was the bank account for the acquisition. It had nothing to do with the acquisition of Petrofina.
As I have assured the House, my Department tells me that we do not have these documents at all and I, therefore, cannot table them.


TAKEOVER DETAILS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Since the former President of Petrofina a few moments ago told the media that no one from the federal Government or Petro-Canada asked details of Petrofina's assets before this incredible takeover, would the Government stop stonewalling, stop this charade, and make it possible for the Auditor General-


Charles Joseph Clark: You supported the takeover.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Make up your mind.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -for the good of the people of Canada to get a look at the books concerning this takeover?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, as well as all Hon. Members of the House, have heard the Prime Minister say repeatedly this week that it is his intention, and the intention of this Government, to assist the Auditor General in every legal way possible in order for him to achieve-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Would that make the documents available?


Erik Nielsen: -his audit responsibilities under the Act. He is doing that in an admirable way-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is not.


Erik Nielsen: Indeed, there is an article today where the Auditor General is quoted as saying: "I have had his"-that is the Prime Minister's-"personal assurances that we are trying to find a solution to this problem". "And", said the Auditor General, "I believe him ... I think he's sincere", Dye told reporters. I wish the Hon. Member would accept that sincerity of the Prime Minister and of the Government.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The National Anti-Poverty Organization issued a report entitled No Care Medicare which documents the barriers which user fees, premiums, and opting out represent to the poor they are seeking adequate medical care. I wonder if the Minister is familiar with this document. If he is, would he tell the House what he is prepared to do about it?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that I am aware of the report entitled, No Care Medicare, which I have in my hand. I will be meeting with the association tomorrow.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of National Health and Welfare would care to acknowledge to this House that user fees, premiums, and opting out constitute a barrier to the poor for adequate medical care. Would the Minister also meet with his provincial counterparts with respect to removing this barrier so that universality in medicare is not breached?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that the Canada Health Act was passed in the previous Parliament and that this Party supported the thrust of that Act. I also want to indicate to the Hon. Member that, with respect to provinces which have premiums, there are also exemptions so that people who cannot pay those premiums will still receive health care. I would also like to indicate to the Hon. Member that the Canada Health Act specifically has a bar against anyone not being eligible for health care, that is, anyone can have health care despite the fact that premiums might not have been paid.


Sheila Maureen Copps: What about British Columbia?
December 6, 1984


HIBERNIA OILFIELD-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister knows that on several occasions, in fact on four occasions over the last two weeks, the Prime Minister has confirmed in this House that his Government has received a copy of the environmental assessment impact study conducted by Mobil Oil on the Hibernia development. The Minister knows as well that the Prime Minister, on her behalf, has undertaken to table that document. To date the document has not been tabled. Will the Minister tell us when Members of the house will have a chance to study that document?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister committed to table the document if we had one. He said that when we received the document we would table it in the House, which of course we will. We do not have the environmental impact statement to which the Hon. Member referred. We have some working copies but we have not received, nor will we accept, a formal environmental impact statement until such time as Newfoundland decides the mode of development.


COMPLETION OF STUDY DOCUMENT
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at least explain to this House why the Prime Minister-and I invite the Minister to read Hansard-clearly said on four occasions that the Government has a copy of the document and undertook to table it? Why does the Minister now say she has a working document but will refuse to receive the whole document? What has this Government, in a deal with the Government of Newfoundland, been trying to hide for six months? What is being hidden?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We have only been in power for three months. How can we hide it for six months?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I still maintain correctly that I do not have this document. I will table it when we do have it. I will be glad to do that.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Prime Minister is lying?


Pat Carney: What we did was to agree to postpone the completion of an environmental impact assessment until such time as we decide on the mode of development.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is finished.


Pat Carney: The Hon. Member says it is finished. How can one finish an environmental impact assessment if one does not know how one is going to drill for the oil?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions AIRPORTS


AUTOMOBILE RENTAL POLICY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. There is some suspicion that the Minister's car rental policy at airports is politically influenced.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: The Minister has accepted all of the major regulation changes asked for by Budget Rent-a-Car, which is represented by a prominent Conservative lawyer, while refusing to make any changes which would prevent a Canadian company from being destroyed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Another Svend Robinson.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Will the Minister postpone tomorrow's deadline for bidding, and refer the whole matter to the transport committee?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's statement is a bunch of malar-key. The fact of the matter is that there is a policy in effect. There have been some minor modifications to that policy. There is provision to encourage Canadian bidders.
With respect to the Holiday Rent-a-Car situation, the Member knows very well that over the last two weeks the Department of Transport and, indeed, my office, have worked in exploring a number of possibilities which would, hopefully, satisfy some of the problems affecting Holiday Rent-a-Car. The problem is that Holiday Rent-a-Car wishes to rewrite the policy to suit its own terms, and that would be unfair to all the other potential bidders.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, all we have been getting for the last weeks is yo-yoing around and stonewalling.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARING
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, all we are asking the Minister of Transport for is open decision-making and a chance for a small Canadian company like Holiday Rent-a-Car to have access to the market and not be excluded because of government regulations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the Hon. Member have a question?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister to please allow this matter to be dealt with in an open transport committee hearing. What is he afraid of, and what is he trying to hide? Open it up.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is not afraid of anything.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 6, 1984
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: This whole policy has been discussed and formulated in the most open fashion possible. I want to assure the Hon. Member, and other Members as well, that there is nothing in this policy that prevents Holiday from tendering providing they fulfil their obligations consistent with the policy.


MEDICAL RESEARCH
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, the Medical Research Council is facing a $3 million short-fall in its budget next year. Without this money many very important research projects currently underway will be discontinued. In the Toronto area alone some $5 million to $6 millions worth of medical research could be affected. Will the Minister take corrective action to rectify the situation which, I might add, was caused by the previous Government?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one correction to the Member's question. It is not a question of $3 million but, rather, $30 million. I would like to indicate to the House that the base of the funding for the Medical Research Council two years ago was at roughly $115 million and is now at $128 million. There was a five-year plan two years ago through which an additional $20 million was placed above the base. Last year there was an additional $30 million placed above the base. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, 1985-86 was never looked at by the former Government with regard to whether it should be put in the base or how it should be funded.


THE CENSUS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Justice.
In a StatsCan report of November 3, 1982 on the census, we read as follows: "Under the Constitution, the Government is obliged to preserve and develop the multicultural heritage of Canadians. It is essential to have data available on ethnic composition and citizenship of Canadian residents."
Does the Minister agree that the proposal to cancel the 1986 census may go counter to Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and what does he intend to do, as the guardian of this Charter?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not in agreement, Mr. Speaker, so I do not propose to do anything.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WISHES TO CANCEL 1986 CENSUS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
My question is again concerned with the census and census data. Could the Minister of Supply and Services inform the House why the census should be cancelled when today, the user list for this service includes the department responsible for multiculturalism, the Minister's own department, and also included the Hon. Member himself when he was in the Opposition?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Member that the decennial census every 10 years will carry on. In between the census periods there are polling techniques used by Statistics Canada to obtain information. There are administrative records and a whole lot of ways in which we can gather the data necessary to satisfy constitutional and other requirements of government. As the Prime Minister indicated to the Hon. Member, the question is being looked at. We have made a commitment to gather the necessary data to satisfy all the needs, in the most cost-effective method possible. We are looking at that, and as soon as we have laid out those details the Hon. Member will be the first to know.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the Government still planning on giving those 20 CF-104 Starfighter jets to Turkey in view of the fact that the Turkish air force has demanded upgrading of the airframes, overhauls of the engines, and new paint jobs at a cost of close to $40 million to the Canadian taxpayer before it might consider accepting the gift?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must say that that is a good question, and I will look into it.


REQUEST THAT REPORTED OFFER BE WITHDRAWN
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, when he finds out the facts, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs
December 6, 1984

promise the House that the gift will not go ahead under any circumstances, in view of the potentially explosive environment in that part of the Mediterranean?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make any kind of commitment until I have had a chance to look into the allegations that the Hon. Member has made. When I have had a chance to do that I will make an announcement in the House of Commons, or reply to a question.
I regret that the Hon. Member is inadvertently exciting false fears about tensions in the region. I repeat what I said yesterday that, naturally, the Government of Canada would not go ahead with that transaction if it would increase tension in the area, whether by supplying those aircraft to Turkey or to Greece, and they have been offered to both.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In his absence perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could respond.
On Tuesday evening representatives of Nova Scotia's Licensed Commercial Salmon Fishermen appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. I was shocked to learn from these people that no licensed commercial salmon fisherman sits on the Atlantic Salmon Advisory Council. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how this situation arose, and what he intends to do about it?


Mr. Mel Gass (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Member for the question. It was on Tuesday night that the Commercial Salmon Fishermen from Nova Scotia appeared before the Standing Committee. One of the recommendations that they made was that in fact there should be a licensed commercial fisherman on the board. However, I understand that the Nova Scotia Licensed Commercial Salmon Fishermen have only recently been formed and they were not an association when the advisory board was set up. Had they been, it might have been appropriate that they were members. As a consequence of the meeting, the Minister is looking into the terms of reference of the advisory board, and is looking toward making changes or adding more members to the board.
Oral Questions
[Translation)


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the fact that the Government of what used to be la belle province has changed the regulations for the Regie des rentes du Quebec and lowered the pensionable age to 60, provided the individual is no longer on the labour market and agrees to a certain penalty, a decision that affects thousands of public servants in the Ottawa-Hull region. If an Ontario resident works all his life on the Quebec side, he is eligible for benefits under the Regie des rentes du Quebec, while a Quebec resident who has worked all his life in Ottawa or Ontario is eligible only for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan which does not operate in the same manner as the Regie des rentes du Quebec in this respect.
I therefore wish to ask the Minister whether he intends to meet with his provincial counterpart to try to correct a situation that is unfair to thousands of public servants and employees living in the National Capital region.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the entire question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.


DISASTERS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who speaks for the Minister of Agriculture in his absence. During the election the Premier of Saskatchewan and a number of Progressive Conservative candidates promised the flooded-out farmers in northeastern Saskatchewan that they would get $3 federal for every $1 provincial if a Conservative Government was elected. Has that promise been implemented? Is the sharing arrangement between the federal and provincial Governments, in cases of disaster, now $3 for every $1 that the province puts up?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is presently in Manitoba speaking with farm groups. The issue that the Hon. Member raises regarding flood assistance to northern

December 6, 1984
Tabling of Documents
Saskatchewan is under consideration on the basis of upholding our campaign commitments, many of which have already been upheld as far as the agriculture sector is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I could spend the rest of the afternoon outlining the promises that we have upheld and I know the Elon. Member would want me to continue, but I see you shaking your head, so I will sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, December 5, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 46(2), 1 am tabling in both official languages two copies of a consultation paper on training.


Mr. McGrath:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am waiting for the usual House business question. It has not arisen yet so I am wondering if the House Leader can tell us what the business is for tomorrow and the rest of next week.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: All that proves is that the longer you have been here, the sneakier you can get! I sense that there is an understanding that the House business question is to be deferred slightly. I am prepared to hear the question now or just accept that there is an understanding and we are going to move to Statements by Ministers.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that your understanding is correct. The House Leaders are going to meet after Routine Proceedings, after which we are going to come in and ask the indulgence of the Speaker so I can ask the traditional Thursday question. I appreciate the assistance of the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), but I think he should use the opportunity he has behind the curtains to talk about this to his House Leader.


INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the International Civil Aviation Organization. ICAO has gained the respect of the world community as a model of international co-operation and harmony. It is an example of how well the United Nations system can work. The fact that ICAO headquarters is located in Canada is a source of pride to all Canadians.
With unanimous consent, Sir, I would like to move the following motion:
[Translation\
That this House note that December 7, 1984 marks the fortieth anniversary of the signing in Chicago of the Convention on International Civil Aviation and congratulates the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for its outstanding achievements in developing safe and efficient civil aviation throughout the world.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, we fully agree with the Minister's statement and welcome his motion. It is not only an example of how UN agencies can work, it is concrete evidence for member nations to use in similar commitments in other UN agencies and in the UN itself.
If you have had the privilege of flying westbound from Europe to Canada, Mr. Speaker, crossing the awesome ice cap of Greenland, it is comforting to know that navigational aids to which Canada contributed $800,000 under the 1956 agreement are in place in Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. That is an example of working together internationally which needs to be followed. The legal work of ICAO has resolved differences in national codes of law that would have otherwise handicapped international air operations.
Now is the time, Mr. Speaker, to transfer the example of ICAO in the United Nations to the number one priority for the UN and all humankind, for peace, disarmament and non-participation in the nuclear madness. Without all of that, all else, including the magnificent work of ICAO, will go for naught.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I want to join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and the hon. gentleman to my left in stating the appreciation of the Liberal Party of Canada for the work of ICAO during its 40 years of existence. I think the Minister's motion is appropriate. We only have to reflect back a few months to the unfortunate Korean Airlines flight 007 incident to recognize that in today's world it is important that organizations such as ICAO, under the auspices of the United
December 6, 1984

Nations, are able to speak for all people everywhere in a non-partisan manner so as to assure the safety of passengers, no matter where they fly or on what airline, irrespective of geo-political differences.
Therefore I, too, would like to join in congratulating ICAO on its excellent work. I share the Minister's pride in that that organization has seen fit to continue its good work based in Canada and 1 urge all Members to endorse the Minister's motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House prepared to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. [Members: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Clark, Yellow head) agreed to.
Mir. Speaker: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) now wishes to rise on the motion?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I believe that under the rules we can briefly ask the Minister questions on his statement. That is what I wish to do.


Mr. Speaker:: There is also a tradition that we do these things in the context of equal time. We have exceeded equal time at this point. Does the Hon. Member have one question perhaps?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if it is not already happening, is consideration being given to using the auspices of ICAO to marshal cargo and passenger aircraft in the international community for the transport of aid such as food and medical supplies as well as to aid workers into the drought areas of Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member spoke he very properly made reference to the importance of international, particularly United Nations, organizations, of which ICAO is a stirring example. He will know that as a result of the initiative of the Secretary General of the UN, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, there has been the establishment of a co-ordinating agency in the UN to bring together, as much as is possible, the efforts of countries interested in responding to the crisis in Ethiopia. I can only assume, and it is an assumption, not an affirmation, that as part of that international co-ordination work the auspices of ICAO are being used. If not, certainly we recommend that they be.


PETITIONS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to the House a petition from the residents of Riverside, Albert County, in my constituency who are protesting the proposal by Canada Post to reduce office hours from 40 hours a week to 30 hours a week. I hope the Government will take this petition seriously and ensure that the already depleted standard of service is not further reduced.
Borrowing Authority


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: Nos. 13 and 40.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?


Melbourne Alexander Gass: There are four lawyers assigned to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from the Department of Justice.


Mr. Howie: To date, what was the total cost of the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada and what is the estimated total cost of the Commission?
Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister): The total cost for the period of November 5, 1982 to October 31, 1984 was $13,971,363. It is estimated that the total cost of the Commission will be between $19,500,000 and $20,000,000.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing
[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Althouse (p. 948).
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to continue the debate started this morning. Am I in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed by the Clerk that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This morning, I was told by the Chair that I still had two minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the Clerk at the Table tells me that the Hon. Member's time had already expired.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without contradicting anything that has been said, the Acting Speaker told me personally, prior to one o'clock when he was leaving the Chamber, that the Hon. Member had three minutes left.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member be trying to drive a wedge between the Acting Speaker and the Speaker? That would be an achievement, in context!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised, according to the book, that the Hon. Member started at 12.50. Is that correct?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make an international incident out of this but it seems to me that if the Acting Speaker advised myself and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that I had minutes remaining, I am not sure which takes precedence, the Acting Speaker or the Clerk.


Mr. Speaker:: The clock takes precedence. However, may I suggest a resolution to this matter? Would the House consent to hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Coops) for two more minutes, by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the House for its courtesy to myself, the Acting Speaker and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. I merely wish to add my voice to those Hon. Members who have already expressed their support for the amendment asking the Government to postpone borrowing these billions of dollars for at least six months. If we look at the situation in the steel industry in my riding, we see that the Prime Minister has as yet failed to react to the urgings of the Liberal Party to take a tougher stand at meetings with the U.S. Administration.
The House is aware that this Government and its Prime Minister have received a very clear mandate from the Canadian people, and it is now their responsibility to show Canadians it is the boss and that it is going to do everything in its power to create thousands of jobs. However, in the riding of Hamilton-East there are many jobs that are going to disappear altogether as a result of the Government's failure to act. I know the Member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Kelleher) is concerned because he has steel mills in his riding, and there are other Members who are also anxious to see this Government and its Prime Minister ask the President of the United States to postpone a decision by Congress to prohibit entry of certain types of steel from Canada into the United States if they are not labelled as to country of origin.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have seen the Prime Minister and heard his promises, and they now expect him personally to do what he can to convince the President of the United States.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-ll through which the Government is requesting borrowing authority from this Parliament. Our Party has introduced an amendment requesting that this matter not be dealt with at this time.
Why would a reasonable Party such as the New Democratic Party present such an amendment? Which provisions of the Bill have forced us to introduce a hoisting amendment? Through Bill C-ll, the Government has indicated that it needs $5.3 billion to fulfil its commitments to the end of the fiscal year, in March, 1985. We have no difficulty with allowing the Government the authority to borrow that amount. The Government has also indicated, quite correctly, that it requires a cushion of approximately $2 billion for unforeseen circumstances. Again, ours being a reasonable Party, we can understand the request for another $2 billion. Therefore, we believe that the request for $7.3 billion is reasonable.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are reasonable people.


John R. Rodriguez: We are reasonable people. It is a reasonable proposal. Therefore, we have no difficulty in consenting to that borrowing requirement.
The crux of the argument concerns the Government's request in this Bill for an additional $16 billion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Of course not. That $16 billion is for the fiscal year 1985-86. In other words, it is a pig in a poke.
There is a very serious principle involved in this issue. While I might not agree with the Conservative Party and, in fact, have never agreed with them, I have always considered the Conservative Party to be very principled.
The previous Liberal Government introduced Bill C-125 to borrow money into the next fiscal year.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Liberals?
December 6, 1984


John R. Rodriguez: The Liberals wanted to. At that time the Conservatives clearly identified their principle. Let me suggest to the young Conservative members here that they should not be influenced by the more experienced practitioners of Tory politics in the House.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why is that?


John R. Rodriguez: Perhaps those Conservatives have sat opposite the Liberals for too long and have learned that you stand for principle when in opposition but when you become the Government you practise it in the breach more than in the observance.
It really disturbs me to see that these honest young Conservative rookies have been very silent. I want to tell them that they should not let their colleagues in the front benches lead them down the primrose path to unprincipled action in the House. They have been as silent as a tomb at midnight. Have they nothing to say on this principle?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I guess not.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says "I guess not". I might remind the Hon. Member who is a Conservative in the front benches to my left-if you can believe that there is a Conservative to my left-that he does not have to look to me for guidance. He has only to look to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). When he was the finance critic for the Opposition in the last Parliament, during a debate on Bill C-125 in which the principle of borrowing into the next fiscal year was the issue-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Did he favour it?


John R. Rodriguez: No, of course he didn't favour it. These were his remarks which can be of guidance to the neophyte Conservative members who are sitting in the House today silent, thinking it is a big joke. One would think that they would want to get up and participate and ensure that their Party's leadership on the front benches maintain the principle that they stood for in the last Parliament.
Here is what the Conservative finance critic said in the last Parliament on this question: "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". That was the principle and nothing has happened to change that principle. That is a reasonable principle.
There are Conservative members in this House who are prepared to sit and make catcalls from their benches. I welcome them to join in the debate and participate. They ought to be ashamed because every time a principle is breached, the rights of Parliament are trampled on.
As a matter of fact, if the Conservatives are looking for guidance they look to their own elders in the Conservative Party. Let me quote what the Hon. Member for Yellowhead
Borrowing Authority
(Mr. Clark) said. He was the former Leader of the Conservative Party. First he said that he was a baseball fan and always recognized when the Liberals ran the former Minister of State for Finance, Mr. Bussieres, as a pinch-hitter to introduce a Bill. The Conservatives have run the Hon. Member for St. Paul's (Mrs. McDougall) as their pinch-hitter. The Tories did not put up the Minister of Finance to move this Bill. Here is what the Hon. Member for Yellowhead said: "This is an affront to this Parliament. No banker outside these walls who deals with a businessman or businesswoman, large or small, would grant a line of credit to a financially crippled business that refuses to provide projections of its cash flows". That is a good argument to support the principle on which the Minister of Finance stood for when he was finance critic in the previous Parliament. It is a fine principle and it is a fine argument, Mr. Speaker.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He was the Leader of the Party.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. He was the Leader of the Official Opposition at the time. We said that was a good principle. We are saying that if any of us went into the bank to ask the bank manager to borrow large amounts of money, we would be asked: "What is it for?" We would say: "We don't know; for anything that might come up". We will not get very far with that loan application. I think the Conservatives in this House owe it to the principled position which they took in the last Parliament to make sure they are not led down the paths of bad practices which we saw developed under the previous Liberal government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: What is their excuse?


John R. Rodriguez: The Member asks what is their excuse. Maybe it is: "I am shy to make a speech in the House". It is only 10 minutes, gentlemen, only 10 minutes. I see the Speaker is telling me "time, gentlemen, please".


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the motion calling for a six-month delay in the Government's borrowing bill. It seems to me that the people of Canada, and those of my Mount Royal riding, would consider me remiss if I just said "yes" to everything, like some other Members of this House do to what the Government proposes, without having the responsibility to ask for the contract and to read the fine print. We should all read contracts and look at the fine print before we sign a blank cheque.
For example, we have heard a lot of talk about jobs, jobs, jobs, as a priority. We have had no action. We have had lots of cuts, because that is where the action seems to be centered. We have had lots of concern about cutting the deficit and about setting a climate which would incite or invite investment. With all this hyperbole about how the private sector is going to improve working conditions and do the hiring, I want to know where, when, why and how we are going to make up for those thousands and thousands of jobs presently being cut.
I want to bring to the attention of this House the remarks made by the Economic Council of Canada in its twenty-first

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
annual review of the economy which was released November 27. Let me quote from it:
Putting Canadians back to work should be the Government's primary concern ... The unemployment rate is 11.3 per cent.
Mr. David Slater, the Council Chairman, said:
We must grapple now with the high rate of unemployment because it is a serious economic and social problem.
The deficit, too, needs addressing and the Government has already started bringing it under control. Reducing the Government's debt burden is important, but not sharply and suddenly with a broad axe approach to spending as some other groups would recommend.
Let me add to that "and as this Government seems to have done". The Council urged the Government to steer clear of making deep cuts in federal spending, especially on social programs. It would seem to me the Government has done exactly the opposite. We have been witness to very serious and deep cuts in all aspects of government right across the board.
I will not enumerate the size of those cuts, but I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the impact that has been observed by many different groups within our society. For example, a forecasting firm, Informetrica Limited, estimated that the Government expenditure cuts and increased revenue recovery announced on November 8 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would result in the loss of 12,000 to
31.000	jobs. The Conference Board of Canada, another economic forecasting firm, has estimated that some 15,000 to
20.000	jobs will be lost as a result of the spending cuts.
The Government takes the position that while some jobs will be lost as a result of the decreased expenditure levels, these will be more than offset by the increased business confidence that will result from the cut-backs. I say that would be marvellous if we could be so assured, but we have no such assurance. The simple fact is that people are hungry and they are concerned. They really want to know where their next job is.
At the same time, the Minister of Finance has refused to make public the estimates carried out by his Department on the number of jobs lost as a result of the cut-backs. I think that is irresponsible on his part. Why should we have to wait for outside forecasting companies to tell us what is going to happen? Why should the Minister not be responsible to Canadians and advise them as to the impact and then say that these cuts will be made up by changes in the economic climate and the investment climate? No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what the Minister has said. He has let everybody sit back and worry. I think that is irresponsible.
The Statistics Canada leading indicator released last week indicates that a period of weaker economic growth will begin some time within the next six months. Although that may not be on the Tory calendar, nonetheless that is what is on the Tories' future slate. This does not necessarily point to the onset of a recession, and I do not wish to bring doom and gloom on to the scene, but it does tend to confirm economic forecasts indicating a slowdown in economic growth and continued high unemployment.
In this context, reduced government expenditures are not what is prescribed by the Keynesian school of economic thought and it would not find the Tories' approach very solid. I think the Keynesian school of economic thought and many forecasters in the Economic Council believe that government expenditures should contribute to increased demand in a period of sluggish growth.
To obtain an idea of how women will fare relative to men in the advent of an economic slowdown, it is useful to consider the labour market situation over the past few years. We have seen a participation rate of women of 50.4 per cent in 1980, of 51.7 per cent in 1981 and 1982, and of 52.6 per cent in 1983. Their unemployment rates went up from 8.4 per cent in 1980 to 11.6 per cent in 1983.
This data brings to the fore the fact that during the 1982 recession, women generally fared better than men in the sense that they experienced a lower unemployment rate without any decrease in their participation rate. This tends to contradict the argument that women suffer more unemployment in cyclical downturns because they are not part of the core economy.
For example, it is generally thought that women do not participate in the labour force as consistently as men because they either have to leave the labour market or hold part-time jobs because of the added burden of domestic responsibilities.
Unfortunately, women do not have that luxury today. Women work because they have to. Two incomes are needed to make ends meet. The problem is that they do not accumulate as much job seniority as men and tend to be the first to be fired in economic downturns. That this did not happen in the last recession is because the hardest hit sectors were the primary industries, manufacturing and construction, which have a predominantly male labour force.
Women participate more in the services producing industries. In particular, women are predominant in the community, business and personal services as well as the finance, insurance and real estate sectors. Thus, how women will fare in terms of job opportunities in the coming year depends largely on the performance of these sectors. However, it is difficult to ascertain how the planned cut-backs will affect these sectors relative to the goods producing sectors. In this time of changing technology, it is very important to see what the Government's policy will be and how it will affect these sectors. Only then will I be prepared to see about giving it the kind of blank cheque it wants.
Current unemployment rates for October, 1984, show that women are now experiencing higher unemployment than men, 11.6 per cent for women compared with 9.7 per cent for men. While employment for women increased by 4 per cent between October 1984 and October 1983, the female labour force increased by 4.8 per cent. Neither male employment nor the male labour force are increasing as rapidly. Do I have one more minute? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are translating these percentages into 179,000 more jobs for women and 156,000 more jobs for men between October
December 6, 1984

1983 and October, 1984. To the extent that the recent cutbacks may affect the services producing industries, women may have to face higher unemployment rates in the future. I would like to be assured that the haemorrhage of job losses, which are predicated by what has happened with government cuts, is going to be controlled. Until we know that, we should not accept the borrowing Bill. We should wait until we see what is behind the blank cheque request.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, as a candidate in the last election, I could not help but be impressed with the commitment to political honesty and civilized behaviour that was communicated by members of the Conservative Party during that election. I understood that we differed in a number of significant respects that were cited by the Hon. Member sitting before me together with members of the Conservative Party with regard to political philosophy, but I was sure that they shared with me the concern about the cynicism generated by a pattern of hypocrisiy in politics that causes some significant questioning of what all of us share, namely a commitment to serve the Canadian people.
In view of their pronouncements during the election campaign, Members opposite are now faced with a very uncomfortable situation. They are asked to support Bill C-ll, which would communicate a strong message of inconsistency, abandonment of principles, a message that constitutes an obvious denial of a point of view which was consistently and vigorously argued upon the introduction by previous Governments of Bill C-125 and Bill C-21.
The essential and proper argument made by the then Leader of the Opposition with respect to Bill C-125, and reiterated in the motion offered by my Party and since rejected, stated then what is obvious now. What is proposed is wrong, objectionable and contravenes parliamentary practice. It is a contradiction of the principle that there should not be borrowing beyond the fiscal year.
It is worth mentioning that because of opposition resistance, the Liberals had a seizure of conscience. On both previous occasions, they withdrew the objectionable Bills. Would the Conservatives want to be seen as less respectful of this House than the Liberals were on those two previous occasions? Would they want to seem less committed to the principle of honesty than the Liberals demonstrated themselves to be on those two previous occasions?
The government Party made a number of promises during the last election campaign, promises which were broken very quickly upon their ascension to government. They broke their promises with respect to Canertech, national parks, and access to information, particularly with regard to the PetroCan takeover of Petrofina. They broke their promises with respect to taxation, research, housing and racial equality. Above all, they promised change. The kind of change they brought about is the change that one experiences on that first cold day of a winter of discontent.
I will cite two examples. With respect to culture, they assured the Canadian people that they would not do anything
Borrowing Authority
that would affect culture in Canada in a negative fashion. If one looks at what they propose to do to the cultural mandate of the CBC as it is manifest in the city of Windsor, one finds a classic example of the kind of commitment this Government has to its promises. They propose to cut $2.5 million of an $8.2 million budget for CBET, involving the dismissal of 40 people, chiefly in programming, and the abandonment of a portion of the most lucrative television newsbroadcast in the country in terms of revenue. This was proposed for a community that already experiences significant isolation. This was proposed for a community that requires something to bind it to the rest of the country, something to ensure that its Canadian identity will be continued and reinforced. This was proposed for a community in which Canada's broadcasting system represents a window away from the United States. Fortunately, the Government took pause with respect to that initiative.
On the other hand, if one looks at what has been done to young people, I suppose it would have to be mentioned that government Members promised young people very little. What they have managed to do is to provide less. They claim that they have cut $85 million from Summer Canada, a cut that would account for some 41,000 student jobs. However, they have been misleading even with respect to this claim. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal Government, in two previous fiscal years, devoted first $170 million and then $200 million to providing jobs for some 81,000 young people. This Government has not announced any substitute for that. How can we be reassured by anything that government members might say with respect to the request for borrowing authority for the next fiscal year?
There must indeed be a crisis of conscience being experienced by back-benchers who have not been exposed to the kind of cynicism that being in power generates. It must be terrible for them to have it required of them to abandon principle by seeking Parliament to give what should not have been asked for in the first place. It is time for a catharsis of conscience on the part of the government members. I would ask them to tell their leaders that they have had enough compromise and enough abandonment of principle and that they will not act in a way inconsistent with what they believe. I ask of those Conservative back-benchers who have not been committed to the cynical point of view of their leadership to tell their leaders: "No, we have had enough, we are not going to go along with this kind of abuse". Join with us and with the rest of the Opposition in supporting the hoisting of this Bill.


Mr. Lapierre:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. With only one Minister in the House, I do not think we have a quorum. Could you take a count of the Members?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We counted twenty Members, including the Speaker. There were twenty Members present at the time the count was taken. So we have a quorum, but only just. The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre).

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority


Jean-C. Lapierre: -only just, Mr. Speaker. I see that despite the Government's massive majority, there are more Members on our side than on theirs, and I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you must feel a little uneasy about this.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to take part in this debate, and I want to thank my fellow Members for coming to the House in droves to listen to my speech. I would like to take this opportunity to point out to the House that what we are being asked to do in this Bill is, and I am sure those who know something about farming will appreciate this simile, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier) is here as part of his new duties in Parliament, and I know he is doing so at the behest of the people on the front bench when I see him violate one of the sacred principles so cherished by his fellow Members when they were in the Opposition-
I remember the debate on Bill C-125, when his colleagues claimed they were acting according to their conscience. They had a conscience at the time but they seem to be losing it now they are on the other side of the House. They are mistaken if they think this House is prepared to give them a free rein and let them spend and borrow additional funds, after what they have done to us since the beginning of this session, after the way they have cheated Canadians. Now, after only three months, the people of Canada are starting to realize this!
We saw the results of some polls today, and I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a slow process, but after only three months they are already losing the confidence of the people of Canada. Five points, 5 per cent of Canadians have seen through this Government's game, and I am sure this is only the beginning of a general disenchantment. Imagine! Five points in three months! Mr. Speaker, it will not be long before the people of this country, before the majority of Canadians will start looking to this side of the House for other alternatives.
We must discharge our responsibilities while we wait for the next election call, Mr. Speaker, and that includes making sure that public funds are properly spent. In light of the experience we had with the economic statement and the Speech from the Throne, we have lost faith in this government and we simply cannot approve that borrowing authority until the government comes up with some kind of a program.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the government was preaching virtue on the hustings, saying that Canadians would know everything, that the government would be a model of transparency. Well, Mr. Speaker, it has lost some of that transparency since the election and the opening of Parliament.
Economic and regional development is of great concern to me, so I am not prepared to issue a blank cheque. I would just like to know what their plans are before I agree to let them borrow more money. Will this additional money be used for- [English]
-"Flora's hit squad"-

Will this additional money be used to pay for the 700-man strong unemployment insurance police squad?
Hopefully not, and I am glad that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is here, because I do hope those funds will not be used to pay those 700 people whose only goal will be to give a hard time to the most destitute Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I know that this amendment is aimed at putting off the borrowing authority for six months. I am convinced that the adoption of the amendment will enable all of us, particularly the new Members, to reflect upon what the government has been doing so far. Since the festive season is a good time to make resolutions, I hope they will take that opportunity to resolve at least to keep their promises and not to change course every time the winds shift.
With respect to youths, am I going to let the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) spend God knows how many billions of dollars on behalf of young people who have no reason to complain as it is? That is what she has been saying. According to her, priority goes to young people who are doing fine. I would certainly be worried if those funds were earmarked for young people who are already fairly well off and who have no problems. I know she is saying to herself: Let us forget about the 15 per cent of those who are in a bind because there will be economic fall-outs, Mr. Speaker.
I know that Members on the other side are distressed by this situation because, in their ridings, requests for help come from young people who are experiencing difficulties, not from the others who know where the next meal is coming from.
But that does not prevent the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) from telling them that she must provide help for those who have no worries because that is how the Conservative policy works.
But that is a new policy they discovered after the election, because they would never have dared to say that before!
International trade is another subject I am very much interested in. I see the Minister of External Trade (Mr. Kelleher), who travels hither and yon, and who says: We are going to spend more on export aid, on seeking out new markets-and at the same time he is cutting budgets.
Is the additional borrowing authority we are being asked to give going to be used to continue this series of contradictions, this series of broken promises?
That is why I think that we, as Parliamentarians, cannot let the Government, acting on behalf of Canadians, borrow money without knowing what it is going to do with it. I remember well the debate on C-125. It was long and it was painful, and as one of our colleagues on the left said, finally the Government, thanks to the influence of its backbenchers ... at the time backbenchers did have some influence on the Govern-
December 6, 1984

ment, while today, they all sit there without saying a word! Mr. Speaker, you have been listening to these speeches for several days, and you know that not a word has come from the Government side.
And I, especially as a Member from Quebec, $16 billion .. . and they were accusing us of not opening our mouths at the time, Mr. Speaker.
I see the Member for Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), who spends his time speaking in his seat instead of on his feet.
Mr. Speaker, I realize they must feel uncomfortable, because they were supposed to be the great defenders of the people of Quebec. They claimed they were better than the Liberal Members, and now, they are letting themselves be run by the gang on the front bench, Mr. Speaker. 1 am thinking especially of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier), who at this very moment must feel he is being used and manipulated. Asking the House for $16 billion without knowing what they want to do with it! Mr. Speaker, I wish I had a chance to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what he would do with the $16 billion. I would bet you anything he has not a clue!
Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding me I have only two minutes left. I could spend the rest of the afternoon talking about this very serious matter of asking a responsible Parliament to turn not one but two blind eyes to what the Government is going to do with this money. I know now that many Conservative Members used to say that they were small businessmen, and that of course makes me wonder whether they were ever able to walk into the bank manager's office and apply for a loan without telling him what they would do with the money.
They kept saying that common sense would be the hallmark of their government, that everything would be crystal clear, that there would be no doubt about the course of government. Here we are debating the first major piece of legislation, for we must recall that the economic statement was supposed to be a budget, but there was no way for us to debate it directly, and so we are waiting for the real thing. If Hon. Members opposite know where they are going, Mr. Speaker, I wish they would bring down a budget in the House just so we might have a clue as to what the money is for and find out which orientation the government will follow. I know that the silent Members would like to know what their government is going to do, but their leader practically read them the riot act: Stop asking questions and come in to vote when you can, that is what counts.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your attention and I am convinced that the longer we can put off the adoption of this measure, the clearer the conscience of Members on the other side will be.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to enter into this debate.
Borrowing Authority
However, I regret that we have to prolong this debate. If the Conservatives had the same sense of public principle today as they had in the summer of 1982, we would not have to extend this debate to get the argument across that what they are doing in Bill C-ll is precisely what the Liberal Government attempted to do at that time. However, the Liberal Government finally found the sense of public decency and changed; it accepted the recommendation of the Opposition and divided the Bill.
It is totally unacceptable for a government to ask for permission to borrow a certain amount in funds-inevitably from the taxpayers-for one fiscal year and then ask for an extra $16 billion for the purpose of a contingency fund.
The second thing I find distasteful is the request to borrow $23.3 billion. All we have heard from the Government since the first day of the Thirty-third Parliament is a long litany of cut-backs and termination of programs. One would have to ask the question: Why does the Government need all this money if it is going to cut back? One would have thought that the amount of money would be considerably less than the $23.3 billion which is being requested.
I want to talk about these cut-backs because the Government has indiscriminately, right across the board, cut back on virtually everything, with the possible exception of National Defence. If we listen to the longer range plans of the Government, as those plans evolve into the winter, spring and fall, I suspect that National Defence will end up spending more money in fiscal year 1985-86 than those funds which are presently allocated.
The Government wants $23.3 billion for the purpose of spending money for the balance of 1984 and for a contingency fund for 1985-86. There is something wrong. I want to bring the cuts to the attention of my constituents. I want to bring the umbrella of funding down to a basic unit, that is the constituency unit.
I happen to represent a constituency which, economically speaking, is as badly off today as it was during the depths of the recession in the summer and fall of 1982. The riding of Brant is not unlike many other constituencies, particularly those of Atlantic Canada, the remote northern areas of Canada and the interior of British Columbia, to give several examples. In the federal riding of Brant all-out war will be declared on the Unemployment Insurance Commission by the recipients of the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
It has been mentioned in fairly reliable circles that the Government will bow to the demands of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and reduce the number of benefit weeks from 52 to 26. We could imagine what would happen in a constituency such as mine, where Massey Ferguson is at the brink of disaster. There are about 1,700 employees on longterm lay-off. The company will not terminate half or even a

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
third of those employees, who will probably never return to work, because if it did terminate them the company would have to pay severance pay and it does not have the money to do that.
This Government wants to include severance pay and vacation pay as declared earnings. That will hurt people on longterm lay-off. If the maximum benefit period were cut from 52 to 26 weeks it would mean that, in a riding such as mine, hundreds of men and women would be forced to go on welfare. That means the local tax base will be increased at a time when the general economy is down in my constituency and in the province, and at this time there are provinces worse off than Ontario. These are retrograde steps, giant steps backwards to the 1930s. That is what this Government is giving us. Nothing in the Conservative philosophy has changed since the days of R. B. Bennett, and we know what happened then. I predict that if this Government is determined to continue with its massive cuts and spending programs to help rejuvenate the economy, not only will it lead us into another recession but it will take us into a depression in many parts of this country.
The cut-backs in the unemployment insurance program are bad enough, but in ridings like mine where there is massive long-term unemployment, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has indicated that there is going to be the reintroduction of inspectors. They were called "Benefit Control Officers", I believe, back in the 1970s. Back in the 1970s the Government of the day decided to hire retired police officers, many of them on more than adequate pensions for that period of time, to go around and knock on doors to see if Mrs. Smith or Mr. Jones was actively searching for work. How do you actively search for work day in and day out in a city like Brantford which has a population of 75,000 and 8500 people out of work chasing some 260 jobs? How can one be expected to go out day after day, pounding on doors looking for work when there is that kind of ratio of jobs to workers? But this Government wants to force a further indignity upon the recipients of unemployment insurance benefits who will have their privacy invaded by a knock on the door by an inspector, an updated version of the Gestapo-with perhaps not the same physical tactics-asking, "When is the last time you were out looking for a job?"
It is despicable, Mr. Speaker, to think that we would go back to that time. The Conservatives across the way, along with our Party, fought this action back in the 1970s. They have now changed their minds on that. They have also changed their minds about the method of going about borrowing funds. They have forgotten the principles they espoused in 1982. Now they have come up with quasi police officers who will be checking up on those persons they suspect are not actively looking for work.
The ERDA program was basically a good one. It would take federal funding grants out of the political arena and provide moneys to industry through municipalities. It would grade municipalities according to need regardless of who its Member
of Parliament was. The former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had the full backing of our Party for this program. But what is the Government of the day doing, the Conservatives who supported the ERDA program? It has gutted the program by reducing its funding.
I would like to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to hold up this legislation as long as we can to remind the Conservatives that if they had principles in the summer of 1982, they had better find those principles in the fall of 1984.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps)-General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade-(a) Steel labelling provisions of United States, (b) Request for retaliation; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Income Tax-(a) Rates charged by discounters, (b) Chequecashing scam; and the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Forestry-(a) Jackpine budworm infestation, (b) Request for authorization to use insecticide.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Althouse (p. 948).
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that former speakers on this side of the House have been so effective that they have driven that 40-man Cabinet from the benches across the way, with the exception of one. We have a 2.5 per cent attendance of the famous Cabinet which was going to do all this wonderful governmental work in the years to come.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is quality that counts.
December 6, 1984


Leonard Donald Hopkins: At least the Minister is my partner with White Shell and Chalk River.
As others have said before me, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-ll is divided into two parts. Part I asks for the authority to borrow $7.3 billion in the currrent fiscal year of 1984-1985. Part II asks for the authority to borrow $16 billion for the fiscal year 1985-1986. Many of us have sat in this House of Commons over the years and have heard the present Government-then the Opposition-shout, scream and complain about borrowing Bills, and here-a few months after Parliament has reconvened-we have a borrowing authority Bill totalling $23.3 billion. What has changed? The problem with this Bill, of course, as has already been pointed out, is that it is traditional for a government to present estimates of expenditures and revenues prior to asking for borrowing authority. This Bill is almost equal to taxation without representation.
The Conservative Government of today has not only failed to present the Estimates but it has not yet presented a budget. We on this side of the House feel that the economic statement which was delivered a few weeks ago may well be considered a budget. All we have seen so far is that "smuggled in" budget, camouflaged as an economic statement. We have studied this statement and its accompanying documents in an attempt to discern the future direction of this Government, but, believe me, Mr. Speaker, as the days go by it is becoming more and more difficult to decide in just what direction this Government is going to go.
During the last election campaign, in riding after riding across Canada, we as candidates heard our Conservative opponents say, "The day after a Conservative Government is elected, we are going to have tens of thousands of jobs". Never before, Mr. Speaker, have I had so many people lining up at my constituency office and my office here in Ottawa looking for jobs. Our Conservative opponents said as well that in order to get things done, one needed a representative on the government side of the House. And I throw that back to my hon. friend across the way. Those Hon. Members on the backbenches opposite are going to have a marvellous time before this Parliament is over because it is not just the opposition Members who are not going to have the programs to work with in the future. The programs are cut for every Member of Parliament regardless on what side of the House he or she sits. Let us stop this nonsense. We do not have to be on the government side of the House to get things done. What we need, Mr. Speaker, is a Government which has the guts, the intestinal fortitude and the humanitarianism to bring in legislation which is going to produce jobs for those people out there who are in need today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Right on!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: And we did that as a government. I hear some shouting from across the way. I must be touching on some pretty sensitive nerves, Mr. Speaker. We brought in many jobs, and what did we hear during the election campaign? All
Borrowing Authority
those jobs were wasted money. In other words, those Hon. Members opposite were telling us, as they told us in this House, that money spent on human beings is wasted money. But we do not buy that as Liberals. We have compassion for those who are in need, for those who are out there looking for jobs today.
I would just like to bring to the attention of the House something which happened immediately after the last election campaign. There was an earlier agreement in place ready to be signed with the Province of Ontario. That province did not sign that agreement for months. So what happened? The money, some $75 million for forestry, was sitting there waiting for the agreement to be signed, but a few days after the Tories came into power the agreement was signed. Then what did some of the Tory Members says? It took months, they said, and the Liberals never signed an agreement with that Tory Government in Ontario. They forgot to say it was a Tory Government in Ontario but they said it only took them a few days. The only reason for that, Mr. Speaker, was that the Liberals had it already in place. It had been sitting there on the shelf and the Tories refused to come and sign it. So let us set the record straight on a number of these things.


Mr. Mantha:: Feel better?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The Hon. Member for Nipissing (Mr. Mantha) asks me if I feel better. I hope he feels better when some of these cuts start hitting northern Ontario. He and his colleagues are going to have to answer for them. The picnic is beginning to start. I suggest that he not shout too loudly at this point because four years is a long time.
There have been other things said here which are rather misleading, Mr. Speaker. For example, that the Liberal Government was not doing anything on defence. That is the biggest inaccuracy that could be stated. The often repeated charge that Canada was not fulfilling its commitment to NATO with respect to real growth in defence spending is simply false. The NATO commitment was 3 per cent, and this year defence spending will grow in real terms by 4.1 per cent. That is under Liberal planning and Liberal Government, but that was after we had taken $50 million out of the defence budget to put in a $307 million employment initiative program announced by our present House Leader during the campaign. If that money had been left there, we would have reached a 4.6 per cent increase in real terms in defence spending.
There is another very important point that is often overlooked or not even considered because it is hardly ever mentioned by the critics. If one were to use the NATO method of calculation, because ours is based on the gross national expenditure of the Department of Finance, Canada's performance would appear better still. It would have been over 5 per cent.


Moe Mantha: Why didn't you do it?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: We did. The Hon. Member does not know what is going on. Under NATO guidelines, Canada, as a result

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
of Liberal policy, is hitting the 5 per cent mark in increased defence spending. The Hon. Member for Nipissing had better get his facts straight before he starts shouting out on the floor of this House.
Since 1974, defence spending has increased every year in real terms except during the Clark Government. In 1974-75, some $2.5 billion was spent on defence. Defence spending this year, under a Liberal budget, because this Government has not brought in a budget but simply an economic statement, will be $8.7 billion, and we projected $11.1 billion in 1986-87. At least 50 per cent of that was going into Maritime Command and on upgrading our capital equipment in the Department of National Defence.
So let us not have rumours spreading all over this land that the Tories are coming in with this great new ballgame for the Department of National Defence. We were well on our way and we have handed them an excellent program to go on. We are going to be here to see to it that they carry out those promises, bring in that extra manpower, and buy that extra equipment. As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Coates)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret-


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I was just going to refer to my good friend, the Minister of National Defence, in very kind terms.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret, but the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign we heard very little from either the then government Party, the Liberals, or from the then Official Opposition Party, the Conservatives, about the horrors of the deficit. What we heard from the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), was that the important issue before the people, the question that had to be answered, concerned jobs, jobs and jobs. Not only did he not worry about the deficit, but he made some 400 individual promises which the Conservatives would keep if they became the government. All of this would of course cost substantial amounts of money.
What has happened since the Government said that jobs, jobs and jobs was the issue? Now the most important, in fact the only issue facing the people of Canada is to get the deficit down.


Ian Deans: At any cost.


David Orlikow: Precisely. It is pretty obvious that what the Conservative Government is doing is listening to the rhetoric of President Reagan and ignoring the reality of what he is doing. President Reagan rails against deficits and savagely cuts social programs for the poor and the needy. President Reagan endorses the idea that the U.S. should enact a constitutional amendment which would prohibit deficits at all. But the reality is that he has brought to the U.S. the biggest deficits they have ever had; much, much bigger than they were
during World War II. Indeed, the deficit in the eight years President Reagan is likely to be in office will probably amount to more than the entire deficit created in the U.S. in the almost 200 years prior to his being president. He talks about the deficit but he does not worry about it. He has improved the unemployment situation in the U.S. It is now down to the point at which it was when he was elected four years ago. He accomplished this by spending hundreds of billions of dollars on defence. That is what has fueled the recovery in the United States. What is going to fuel the economy in Canada?
This Government is cutting back on the budget by several billion dollars in the hope that the private sector will get busy and create jobs, Mr. Speaker. Why would the private sector begin to invest billions of dollars? That is what is required to put people back to work. Why would it do that when most of the major industries in this country are operating at only about 70 per cent of capacity? Private business in this country, as in any other, only operates when it can see a profit. No one can criticize it for that. If it is working at only 70 per cent capacity, there will be no major investment from the private sector.
I fear that the cuts announced by this Government so far are only the beginning. When the Prime Minister meets the premiers, I fear next February he will tell them that the funds transferred to the provinces through the Establish Programs Financing Agreements are going to be either reduced or held at the present level. That is going to mean increased expenditures and deficits for all the provincial Governments. I remind Members of Parliament, especially Conservative Members who preach about how inequitous deficits are, that every provincial Government has a deficit. Seven of those provincial Governments are Conservative. They have deficits because they are not, and should not be, prepared to make major cuts in the services which they provide for their people, and neither should the federal Government be.
We now have 11.5 per cent unemployment. Every economic research agency in the country which has looked at the prospect for the next few years has predicted that we are going to have more double digit unemployment for the next five to 10 years.


Ian Deans: You mean it is going to get worse?


David Orlikow: My hon. friend, the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), asked if it is going to get worse. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Economists whom I have talked to, who have been much more correct over the years in their estimates of what would happen in the next year or two than the economists in the Department of Finance, have estimated that the policies of the present Government will lead to another 100,000 to 150,000 unemployed in a year from now. That is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, because the Government is more intent on reducing the deficit than it is on providing the jobs which are so necessary.
December 6, 1984

The Government talked about making our industry more efficient and more able to compete, not only in Canada but in world markets. We know from what has been done in Japan, Sweden and the United States that the way to get our industries more efficient is to invest heavily in scientific research and development. Our country has one of the worst records of all the countries that belong to the OECD. Most of the other countries are spending 2.5 per cent of Gross National Product on scientific research and development. Canada is spending substantially less than 2 per cent.
When the Conservatives were in the Opposition they joined with us and the scientific community in saying that we must do better, that we must reach 2.5 per cent of GNP invested in scientific research and development. When they got into office, however, they cut research and development funds for virtually every Department of Government. Most Canadians work in agriculture, forestry and the fishery. In every one of these fields as well as in the Government research agencies we have seen cut-backs. We have not got the details yet, but I am sure that the cuts in research will amount to tens of millions of dollars, probably to $100 million.
That means there will be cut-backs in research done in our universities. That means that our industries will become less efficient. If you look at the United States you will see that the new jobs which have been created in high technology are clustered very close to the major universities. They are in Massachusetts close to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They are in California close to their major universities. Those universities do the basic research, and industry picks up the new techniques that it finds in those institutes and applies them in a commercial way. Instead of encouraging universities to work with industries, the Government is cutting back.
I will close, Mr. Speaker, by predicting that a year from now we will have substantially more unemployed than we have right now.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before Your Honour took the Chair it was understood that after a meeting between the House Leaders I would come into the House and ask the traditional question on House business, and my colleague, the Government House Leader, would be in a position to respond. Pursuant to that understanding, and with your permission, I would be delighted to ask my colleague, the Government House Leader, his plans for the business of the House for the coming week.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we have had some discussions in which I have apprised my colleagues, the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party, of the intention of the Government with respect to business of the House. I would like to inform the House that it is our intention to carry on today with Bill C-ll,
Business of the House
the borrowing authority Bill. If this Bill receives second reading today and is referred to committee, we would then enter into a discussion at the second reading stage of Bill C-12, which is a Bill relating to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
It is our intention also to deal with these items tomorrow. If Bill C-ll has not passed today, we will continue with that debate tomorrow. After we finish it, if we do not manage to finish it today, we will deal with Bill C-12.
I want to designate next Monday as the final allotted day in this Supply period at which time we will, I understand, be dealing with the motion which is now on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Since it will be the final Supply day, we will also want to consider at all stages the Supplementary Estimates and the Appropriation Bill.
I am pleased to announce to the House that on Tuesday we will have an opportunity to start debate, if not complete it, on a Bill relating to Investment Canada. This Bill will be introduced by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is proposed that he will be introducing this Bill for first reading tomorrow. On Wednesday we hope to carry on with deliberations on that Bill and have second reading if we will not have reached it by that time.
On Wednesday I propose to call Bill C-3, the Bill relating to the courts of Ontario and Manitoba, which will be at report stage, and Bill C-5, the Bill respecting the Freshwater Fish Corporation, also at report stage. I understand that there is a disposition to deal with those two Bills on Wednesday next at report stage and third reading. In that event, if we will not yet have finished the Bill relating to Investment Canada, we can go back to that Bill on Wednesday and have some more discussion on it.
That, Mr. Speaker, is my intention for business of the House for the next week, always subject to the caveat that if circumstances change and we make progress, I would re-arrange the order to bring on further legislation. I look forward to the co-operation of the Opposition in this regard.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I know that it was no doubt owing to inadvertence on the part of the Government House Leader, but one item that I understood was to come up for some short debate was a statement with relation to International Human Rights Day. Such statement was to take place on Monday next. The duration of such a statement was not to exceed one half hour and each of the Parties was not to exceed ten minutes in time.
As I recall, that was the arrangement to which we agreed. I just want to verify that that is the understanding for Monday next, given that it is an Opposition day and that it is unusual to interrupt Opposition days with other than simply the routine business.

December 6, 1984
Business of the House


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it was not by inadvertence, it is simply that everyone in the House knows that my word is my bond. I did not think it was necessary to mention that in public after I had discussed this matter. Of course, the Leader of the New Democratic Party may not have the same faith in his House Leader.
Therefore, I am quite pleased to make it understood that we do not intend to spend a lot of time on that matter, but it is an important day. The House Leader of the NDP (Mr. Deans) will know-and I raised this issue-that because December 10 is the anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, we have traditionally had statements in the House on that day. It was my suggestion that we carry on that tradition and try to respect the fact that it was an allotted day. It was with that in mind that, as usual, I am always thinking of the Opposition and want to make sure that every possible consideration be given to their every wish.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that the Government House Leader, in his normal and customary way, is trying to accommodate the desires and wishes of the Opposition, and given that we have been attempting to achieve some reasonable resolution in the debate on the government's borrowing authority Bill for some days now, I just want to say that it was my request that we try to find some way to resolve this matter. I would very much like to hear very quickly what the resolution of this particular question might be.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up too much time of the House. I know that these questions are intended to be serious and not for the purpose of using the valuable time of the House when we could be considering the borrowing authority Bill. I would simply say that the Minister of State for Finance has engaged in conversations with representatives of the New Democratic Party. I am informed today by the House Leader of the Liberal Party that the Liberal Party is satisfied with the proposal put forward at this stage of the discussions. The Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party knows that the Minister of State for Finance has just arrived back in town. As a matter of fact, even now I have a telephone call from the Minister whom I will call as soon as we have finished this point of order.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I wish to rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is this a point of order on business of the House?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to return to the motion. However, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster).


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Government House Leader seems to be in a very friendly and co-operative mood this afternoon. Perhaps it is because the House is in the same mood.
A reference to one of the House committees that was mentioned in the economic statement concerned agriculture, agri-bonds, Section 31 and the capital gains. Could he tell me if that reference will be made in the next week or so? Will it be going to the Agriculture Committee or to another committee? Could he bring the House into his confidence and tell us exactly what is happening, because there are some urgent matters with regard to the farm financing issue. I hope he can advise the House in this respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow this, but we should get back to the Orders of the Day.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to discuss fully the matter at this time but a solid and firm rule which I have maintained is that I always deal with the Hon. Member's distinguished colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the Hon. Member for Windsor West. I never go behind his back. I always try to consult him first with respect to House business.
Perhaps if the Hon. Member for Algoma would lean forward, the Member for Windsor West would have a chance to discuss these important matters with him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I think we should return to the debate on the amendment.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 (No. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Althouse (p. 948).
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, after reading the newspapers, watching television and listening to the radio during the last few years, I have been extremely concerned about the manner in which the House of Commons conducts its business. It seems as though the House of Commons has been paralysed by inaction when trying to solve the problems of the country. I believe that this concern is shared by the vast majority of Canadians. I also believe that among a great number of important issues in the last election, this was an issue that concerned almost every Canadian. Canadians wanted a Parliament that could get on with solving the problems of the country.
For the last few days I have listened to the debate in the House continue on with the same points being discussed over and over again. I am beginning to feel that frustration that used to well up in me, and I am sure the same frustration is being felt by many Canadians in viewing this debate during the last few days. The same points have simply been repeated over and over again.
December 6, 1984

It seems to me that there comes a time when Canadians want Members of this Parliament to deal with the pressing problems of the day. Members of the opposition Parties have spoken about pressing problems such as unemployment and problems in the economy. We were elected in order to deal with those issues. The Opposition has amended this legislation twice and I believe it has made its point very well. I believe that Canadians understand its point and I do not think it is necessary for opposition Members to keep repeating it.
I suggest that it is time to get on with the business of this country and to solve the problems of this country. If Members of the House are unable to discipline themselves to solve this problem on their own, I hope that the task force on reforming the rules of the House of Commons can solve these problems. After going through an election only three months ago, surely Hon. Members must realize that Canadians want Members of Parliament to get on with solving the problems of the country rather than simply dragging out debate endlessly for the purpose of tactics, stalling and filibustering.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Member still has some time left. Would he permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on debate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is rather strange that a member of the Conservative Party would talk about delaying tactics in the House of Commons and about the need for the House of Commons to get down to work.
Although he is new to this place, he should know that his Party hijacked the House for days on end and weeks on end for what it believed at that time was an important principle. He should know that that Party when in opposition justified its tactical manoeuvers in this House in forwarding a principle that was important to the Canadian people. We are following in its footsteps, Mr. Speaker. We are using all of the tools that are available to us as Members of Parliament to give a message to this Government, to let this Government know that it is trampling on principles that are important to parliamentary democracy.
If the Member who has just spoken would take the time to read Hansard from the last session of Parliament, and if he were to read speeches of Members of his own Party who dealt with the matter we are dealing with today, he would see what I mean. Members from his own Party said to the Government of the day, a Liberal Government, that it was an affront to Parliament to come to the House of Commons and to ask to borrow money for the next fiscal year without any documentation on what that money was to be spent for. Those Members used every instrument available to an opposition Party in a democracy to bring the Government to its knees. They won.


Mr. Shields:: Yes, we won on September 4.
Borrowing Authority


Cyril Keeper: The Tories forced the Government to negotiate. My Conservative colleague says that they won on September 4. Yes, the Tories won the election on September 4, but it is rather strange that after only three months in power they should display such arrogance. They have begun to act like their Liberal counterparts who were on the other side such a short time ago. They think the only thing that matters is what happens on election day. The Tories have to keep in mind that, if they want to be in power again, they must respect this House of Commons and the people of the country.
It is important for this new Conservative Government to remain humble, to keep its feet on the ground, to remember that this country is governed by a parliamentary democracy and that one of the basic principles of a parliamentary democracy is the accountability of the executive to the Commons, and to remember that the accountability of the Government for the expenditure of money is to the representatives of the people. The Conservatives should keep in mind that some time ago another executive, a King by the name of Charles, lost his head because of this kind of action.
This Government today is losing its head. It is acting without common sense whatsoever. It is asking for money without any description of the purpose for which it wants the money. If we were to allow this Government-and the Government not think that we will allow it because we will not-to borrow money during this fiscal year for the next fiscal year without any justification, we will have the Government coming to us next year saying, "Not for the next fiscal year, but for the year after that as well".


Ian Deans: They will put one Bill forward at the beginning for the entire Parliament. How ridiculous and absurd it is.


Cyril Keeper: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The Tories could call this House of Commons together and bring forward a borrowing Bill that would allow them to borrow all of the money they want to spend for a four-year period, if we allowed them to get away with what they are doing now.
We hear from the back-benchers of the Conservative Party on this side that that would be a good idea. They would love just to call the House of Commons together for one sitting to pass one borrowing Bill and then go off quietly in some corner to govern the country.


Jack Wendele Shields: What garbage.


Cyril Keeper: The Conservatives are so used to being in opposition, they have had so little experience when it comes to governing, that they have to learn. Like all people, they have to learn the hard way. They have to learn that their power is not unlimited or absolute. They have to learn that their power is democratic. They can only enjoy power as long as they have the confidence of the people and as long as their actions are held accountable to the representatives of the people in this House. This means not only the representatives of the people in the Liberal Party and the NDP, but the representatives in the Conservative Party as well. It is astounding to see so many Conservative Members silent while their Cabinet, their Gov-

December 6, 1984
Borrowing Authority
ernment, arrogantly disrespects the authority of the House of Commons.


John R. Rodriguez: It is the arrogance of silence.


Cyril Keeper: The Conservatives arrogantly disrespect the principles upon which the democratic system in this country works. It is incumbent upon every Member in this House to assert the authority of this House. The fundamental authority of this House is to hold the executive accountable for the spending of public dollars. We must and we will insist that this Government, before it gets any borrowing authority, justifies the purposes for which it seeks that borrowing authority.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have come to us and asked us for authority to borrow $16 billion- not $16,000, not $16 million, but $16 billion. There is not one iota of description of that for which it is going to spend this money. That is utter, complete arrogance. The Conservatives have come to us without any statement of purpose for the borrowing of the money, and this is such a large sum of money. This arrogance even outdoes Liberal arrogance.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: When the Liberals were in office they came to this House and asked to borrow money for a fiscal year in the future. After a period of debate, after the Opposition brought the principle of accountability for expenditures to the House of Commons to the attention of the Liberal Government, the Liberal Government backed down. The Liberals at least backed away. But what we see now is a new level of arrogance. The Conservatives are even more arrogant in office when it comes to the spending of the public dollar than the Liberals were. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker?
That is the Party that claims to take to heart the reform of Parliament, that claims to be the Party which respects parliamentary democracy, the Party that is tearing at the very roots and at the very principles of parliamentary democracy. I hope this Conservative Government comes to its senses. There are enough Members here who could listen to reason and could get up to speak. Why do they not go to their cabinet Ministers and say, "We will not stand for the rape of Parliament or the arbitrary spending of public dollars"? Why do these backbenchers not stand up and be counted rather than act like a group of tame sheep? We can hear them baa-ing. It would be good to hear them say something, anything, rather than the silence we get. This is an important principle. When the Conservatives were in opposition they made a number of good points as it affects this institution. Those points deserve to be respected by the Conservative Party now that it is in office. The fact that Conservatives say one thing in opposition and do another when in office breeds cynicism throughout the land. It brings into disrespect the profession of politics. It brings into disrepute every Member of the House of Commons.
I call upon this Government to wake up to its own conscience, to listen to its back-benchers who, while silent in this House, I am sure behind the curtains are counselling the Government to respect this House of Commons, to respect the
fact that the executive, the Government, is accountable for the money it spends to the elected representatives of the people.
There is no way that this borrowing authority is going to be granted to this Government. It may think that there is, but there is no way. I call upon it to enter into reasonable negotiations to find a way that respects this House of Commons and respects accountability for public expenditures. I call upon it to negotiate and come to a reasonable proposal with regard to borrowing authority.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I appreciate the words of the Conservative Member a few moments ago. Sometimes it appears that there is a lot of repetition and that we are almost too political in our statements in the House. Sometimes the Government does respond. A good example is something that happened a couple of days ago. I wish to congratulate one of the Conservative cabinet Ministers.
I do not want it to go to her head, but I want to mention publicly in the House of Commons-and I am sure Conservative back-benchers have done the same-that the other day the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) got approval for $6 million to try to solve the problem confronting us in part that of Newfoundland. The Minister deserves credit for listening to her opposition colleagues and members of her Party on this problem. As I said, I do not want that to go to her head because there are many other matters on which to disagree and which we will continue to raise in this House of Commons.
In my few remarks, I want to stick to the Bill before the House and to state why it should be terminated. One need not look at the major items that are under dispute. The Hon. Member said that he has not heard anything new. I went over the notes in the financial statement and the expenditure and program review of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I notices one small item which states that land rental rates around airports are to be automatically increased to meet a budgetary figure of $23.5 million of increased revenue through three initiatives. That does not sound like a big item. It is a minuscule part of that revenue-generating program, but it is supposed to generate considerable revenue.
This gets back to how decisions are made. What group of people inside or outside the Government have decided on specific items to increase revenues to the Government? I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will agree that to increase land rental rates around airports violates long-standing agreements and understandings with provincial Governments and municipalities in this country. Most airport land is actually owned by provincial Governments. Through Orders in Council the provincial Governments give permission to the Ministry of Transport to operate that land for airport-related purposes. When sections of land around airports are to be used for other purposes, the consent of the provincial Government is required as well as that of the federal Government.
December 6, 1984

As the Minister of Transport knows, these agreements are usually reached on the basis of an understanding and a SI per year rental fee. Municipalities use that land in certain cases, and private industry in a lesser number of cases. Provincial government agencies are the major users for industrial parks and other purposes.
To generate revenue automatically from the lease of land that has been granted for a specific purpose violates longstanding agreements. Imagine what would happen to industrial parks around airports. They would obviously have to increase charges to users. We are talking here about provincial government agencies. If that airport uses a municipal water supply for which a set rate is paid, the municipality could well increase the charges to the federal government Department that is increasing the charges for the use of the land. It could go so far as to dispute the grants in lieu of taxes paid on airport-related buildings and properties.
It is not a simple matter of a revenue-generating source. We must consider who will be influenced. There was no consultation with the provincial Governments before this decision was taken. I am sure of that. It was handed down from on high to be initiated by the Minister of Transport. The transportation commitment of this Government given in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on August 2, 1984, was to accelerate the construction of airport and other federal transport-related projects. All we see in the financial statements are cuts and increased revenue generated from the leasing of those facilities.
At the same meeting on August 2, the Government announced that a fund would be set up to finance the cost of a submarine cable between the mainland and the Island of Newfoundland. I do not see the cost of a cable from Labrador to Newfoundland in this financial statement. I do not see it in any statement made after this Party came to power. A cable is needed. You have to do something. You cannot put it over the Gulf of St. Lawrence because that would be an awfully big bridge. You cannot put it on top of the water because that would damage shipping. I suppose you could put it under the straits. That was tried. This is why I raise the matter today.
We saw the history of this commitment over television a few years ago in Newfoundland. A Conservative Government announced it would put a cable under that section of the Atlantic Ocean. It said it would build a tunnel through which cars as well as the cable could pass through. They even set off the blasts, both at the same time, one on the mainland and one on the Island. The television cameras were there to record the big explosions. The holes are still in the ground. The Conservative Party still has not given up on its promise. That is exactly what it is, a promise.
There is no mention of a cable in the financial papers. The cable will go the same route as the tunnel. It is just a promise. I could go on to list 380 other reasons for stopping the present legislation from being passed by the House.
Constitution Act, 1982 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to House business, in the exchange earlier today, I indicated that discussions had been initiated by the New Democratic Party with respect to the borrowing authority Bill, Bill C-ll. It has not been possible for the Minister, who is in Cabinet at the present time, to carry on those discussions. In order to allow for the discussions to carry on, I propose to change the order of business for tomorrow. We will reverse the business by starting tomorrow with Bill C-12, which deals with the Excise Tax Act, followed by Bill C-ll, the Borrowing Authority Act, after Bill C-12 has been disposed of at second reading.
The other business for tomorrow will be the same as I announced previously, and this will be true with respect to Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week as well. However, tomorrow we will deal with the Excise Tax Act and will allow discussion to continue on the borrowing authority Bill.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, indeed we have been consulted regarding this move and are ready to agree to it. In fact, we are ready to do anything to help the Government reflect on the situation of Bill C-ll. We will co-operate.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private Members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 150 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
ADVISABILITY OF AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE PROPERTY RIGHTS Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Constitution Act 1982, to include property rights and, that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
[Stage Direction]
December 6, 1984
Constitution Act, 1982
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and
enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been before the House on a number of occasions. The last occasion it was before the House was in a debate held on April 29, 1983, as reported in Hansard commencing at page 24996 or thereabouts. The matter to be debated on that day was brought before the House by the Progressive Conservative Party and was supported by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp (Provencher)), the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) and the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) in their previous capacities.
Not only has this provision been supported by government Members in the past, and I would assume by government Members now, it has been supported by this Party for a great long period of time. You will recall, Sir, that the issue forms the essence of the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by this House on August 10, 1960, and copies of that Bill of Rights are displayed by all Members of this House. The Canadian Bill of Rights sets out the right to own property and to not have property taken away without due process of law.
Indeed, the right to property is so fundamental in our jurisdiction that the history of property rights goes back to the Magna Carta of 1215. At that time, the barons of Runnymede forced the king to recognize their rights to property. The right to property is not just a part of our history but is a part of the history of all civilized countries in the world, as evidenced by the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which specifically protects the right of property in Article 17 which reads:
(1)	Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2)	No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
That being the case, this right was a question of debate when we were organizing the patriation of the Constitution. Through the negotiations relating to that Constitution, we came out with a flawed Charter. We came out with a Charter that was supposed to be a Charter of Rights but that left out a fundamental right. Indeed, the right to own property is so fundamental that without the right to own property, none of the other rights are worth anything. They cannot be defended. If one cannot own property, how can one pay a lawyer to defend the rights of freedom of speech or of assembly? How does one have an assembly if one cannot have a private hall? A private hall must be a piece of property.
At this time, we have a flawed Charter of Rights. We have a Charter of Rights that is really not worth very much when dealing with the rights of human beings. Therefore, I call on this House, as has the Legislature of British Columbia and, as I am told, as has the Legislature of New Brunswick, to do what must be done under the amending formula, and that is, to restore that which should have been present in the first place and that which was promised by the negotiations but which was somehow left out in order to get the New Democratic Party on the side, as some say. I am sure even members of the
New Democratic Party would want to know that people have rights that can be enforced and supported.
If the state owns all and if the state can control, then the entire system under which we have been operating means little. If the state can take away that which one has, then one's right to speak out and to protect what one says is non-existent. Therefore, I call upon the House to do something it should have done a long time ago, and that is, to pass a resolution amending the Charter of Rights so that it can be whole and so that it can be a Charter of Rights that really means something.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the resolution proposed by the Hon. Member. Obviously, all Members of the House will be aware that this is not a new issue but one which has been raised and talked about extensively in the past. In the time that I spent in the Ontario Legislature, a similar issue was dealt with after having been proposed by a member of the Party which I represented. I believe that the Hon. Member for the provincial riding of Waterloo North, Mr. Herb Epp, has proposed a resolution along that line in the hope that the Ontario Legislature could obtain Ontario's consent for such inclusion in the Constitution.
Although I am in agreement with the principle of this motion, I have some reservations. I am of the view that if this resolution is passed, it should be discussed thoroughly at the committee level, and the committee should listen to witnesses from various parts of the country who could discuss possible side effects that could result from the final passage of such an amendment to the Charter of Rights.
We all know that the Canadian civil liberties group has expressed some reticence with regard to the passage of such a resolution and is of the view that it could indeed have severe repercussions. One also wonders what would happen to certain expropriation procedures which exist at this time. Again, having spent some time at the provincial level, I know of the number of agencies and government Departments that have rights of expropriation at this time. You will recognize, Mr. Speaker, that if all of these rights were denied by the passage of such a resolution, there could be serious side effects. When dealing with the construction of roadways, the erecting of hydro towers or any other such matters, we can see that this matter is of tremendous concern to many Members of the House.
There is another concern that must be reckoned with of course, that is, the fact that certain provinces are not yet in agreement that this should be done. In looking through newspaper articles, the last reference which I could find indicated that at least four provinces were not in agreement. I understand that Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland had not, at the time of the newspaper article, given approval to such a measure. That does not mean that we have to wait for the approval of seven provinces before initiat-
December 6, 1984

ing a measure, but it does indicate that not everyone is in accord with such a resolution.
One also has to look at what happened in the United States with the Bill of Rights. We know that the Bill of Rights was used for many years to prevent the stoppage of child labour. It was also used to prevent groups from unionizing. It was also deemed that the establishment of minimum wage laws could infringe upon the Bill of Rights.
Given that some of us approve of the general intent of this Bill, we certainly would not want to see the passage of such a measure within the space of a few minutes of discussion. It requires a very thorough airing in the House and in committee. We should call upon witnesses from all sides of the issue who could assist us further in making a final decision.
I listened very attentively to the Hon. Member who proposed this motion. He alluded to the fact that our present Charter of Rights and Freedoms is somehow deficient. I think he said that the Charter of Rights was flawed because it did not have a reference to property rights. It is incumbent upon us to remind the Hon. Member that there was an attempt in the past to get such a motion passed in the House, but the whole thing was turned into a joke by certain members of the Conservative Party. Certainly, the previous Government cannot be faulted for that. I would like to refer to an editorial from The Calgary Herald of May 4, 1983. It is entitled: "Property issue a joke". It reads:
Given the importance of proposed property rights amendments to the Constitution, this week's procedural hijinks by all members of the House of Commons over the issue are irresponsible at best and disgusting at worst.
Conservative MP Elmer MacKay may well be right when he said the Tory's presentation of a property-rights resolution in the form of a non-confidence motion was "one of the stupidest things our party has ever done.
It is important to remind members of the Conservative Party who think that the Charter of Rights is imperfect, deficient or flawed, as the mover of the motion has said, that they are to blame for that so-called flaw. They participated in the hijinks in this House.


Jack Wendele Shields: It was the socialists.


Don Boudria: Some people say it was the fault of the socialists, but I am not here to take sides. Some Members may be against the motion, but that is the right of Hon. Members. I am not questioning that right. What I am questioning is the fact that a motion was introduced in the House in the past which was formulated in such a way that it was at the same time a non-confidence motion. Because it was worded that way, the Government was forced to vote against it. It also created the situation in which the motion could not be reintroduced in the House. That was the fault of the opposition Party-the Conservative Party.
I find it interesting that a Conservative Member has brought forward this resolution. This deathbed repentance is very nice to hear. But to do so and at the same time state that the Charter is flawed, and to suggest that the past Government which was the author of the Charter of Rights was less than competent in its duties when it made the Charter, is not
Constitution Act, 1982
entirely correct. I am sure the Hon. Member will want to correct the fact that it was not others but indeed his own Party which sabotaged any attempt to get such a motion passed.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attentiveness to the very persuasive arguments which were made by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). Having served with him for the past six years I know how sincere he is with respect to this particular matter. There is nothing more important to him than economic freedom as part of political freedom. Therefore, it is with some diffidence that 1 speak. To some extent I agree with the Hon. Member who has just spoken, as to the thorns and the thickets involved in this issue.
Here we are, in Private Member's Hour, discussing a matter which involves the Constitution. It is a question of public law. It is a public issue. Many people have expressed a great number of concerns. There is no doubt how I feel with respect to this matter; I would like to see the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. But I do not think that Private Member's Hour is the appropriate forum for such a monumental decision.
A number of years ago I heard Horace Carver speak. At that time he was the Attorney General of Prince Edward Island. He spoke about lands which were being purchased on the ocean front in Prince Edward Island. At that time he expressed concern that people were coming from New York and other off-shore areas to purchase valuable land because they were people who had money. As a result, Islanders were being left out. They could not compete with people who were coming from offshore. He expressed the concern that his province wanted to implement legislation-which it did- which indicated that anybody who was not a national should be able to come to Cabinet, but only then could an order in Council be passed.
Women's groups have made submissions to all political Parties indicating that they fear the courts may undo what the legislatures have done in the past. Those are legitimate concerns. Therefore, to debate this particular issue during a Private Member's Hour gives me a great deal of trouble.
It was the Conservative Party under John Diefenbaker which introduced the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960. That projected the rights of individuals with respect to the enjoyment of property. More recently, during the process leading to the establishment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Progressive Conservative Party supported the constitutional protection of property rights. In the spring of 1983, my Party introduced in Parliament a resolution to amend the Constitution by entrenching property rights. This resolution was defeated by the Liberal Government of the day, but my Party has continued to support, as I do, the principle of expanding the protection of property rights.
Underlying this commitment is a recognition of the significance of property rights in our society. The concept of prop-

December 6, 1984
Constitution Act, 1982
erty is deeply rooted in our traditions. When the Progressive Conservative Party introduced a motion in Parliament in 1983 to entrench property rights in the Constitution, the Hon. Member or Richmond South Delta (Mr. Siddon), now the Minister of State for Science and Technology in the present Government, spoke very eloquently to the motion. He said, and I am quoting from page 24999 of Hansard for April 29, 1983, that:
If we go back in history we find that-the right to own and enjoy property is fundamental to Canadian history-It goes back to the time of King John, the Magna Carta and the constant struggle through history, which went hand in hand with the evolution of the parliamentary system, and with the evolution of property rights and individual rights as a means of escape from monarchism, feudalism and the baronial entitlements, previous systems under which some citizens had many more rights, powers and privileges than others.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the concept of property is the basis of the economic life of our country. It is of fundamental importance to our social institutions and to our everyday lives. The protection and regulation of property rights is a pervasive and essential ingredient of our law. But we should clearly understand what we mean when we speak of property, because the concept of property is quite broad.
Our laws recognize a wide range of property interests. We may own real property or land, or personal property such as an automobile or a book but, as we know, there are also less tangible types of property, an easement over someone's land or a mortgage on someone's property. Equally, the right to be paid a debt or a share in a company is a form of property. Then there is what has been called "intellectual property". An example is a patent, the right to manufacture and use a particular invention. Other examples are rights in names or trademarks. Yet another example is copyrights, exclusive rights to make copies of books, pictures, designs or movies. The goodwill in a company is a form of property that is protected at law. And more recently the individual's right to personality has been recognized, the right to control the commercial exploitation of one's image or reputation. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to understand just how broad a concept the notion of property is.
While we often use the word "property" to refer to the fact of owning something such as land or an automobile, we also mean the rights and powers relating to these things. We mean the right to possess, use, enjoy and dispose of these objects to the exclusion of everyone else. While simple ownership may in some cases give us pleasure, we want to be able to use and enjoy our property. We want to be able to farm our land, to build on it, to use it to contribute to our own economic and social well-being and that of this country of Canada. Property rights are much broader than the simple right to own property.
With such a broad concept of property it is not surprising that the law touches upon property rights in so many respects. Governments regulate the process of acquiring and disposing of property. They create schemes for the orderly acquisition and disposition of interests in real and personal property. Governments also regulate the use of property. Zoning and land use regulations allow us to plan the development of our communities. Environmental laws control land use and allow
us to preserve our natural heritage and prevent pollution. We tax the use of property and, indeed, we are required to pay taxes with money, a form of property.
An absolutist conception of property was at the root of matrimonial property regimes based on the notion that partners to a marriage shared everything except each other's property, a concept upheld in the Murdoch case in the Supreme Court of Canada. It is a concept which I feel very few people in the House would agree with. Enlightened legislatures have acted in family law reform legislation to ensure a more modern appreciation of property interests in a marriage relationship and thereby have protected the interests of women in particular.
As in other controls in the commons interest, these protections are rational and represent a necessary balance. In my opinion, the protection of property in the Constitution can only take place in the context of an assurance that these modern developments will not be brought down by interests that are narrow and self-centred. And I say this, Mr. Speaker, not to undermine the concept of constitutional protection for the enjoyment of property, but to show that there are important concerns that must be resolved in any proposal of a constitutional character. That is why I feel that Private Members' Hour is an entirely inappropriate forum for discussing this matter.
There are many important societal interests that require the Government to regulate the ownership and use of property. Several provinces are concerned about the effect that entrenching property rights might have on their ability to enact other laws. Only two provinces, British Columbia and New Brunswick, have passed resolutions supporting the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. To date, to my knowledge, no other province has acted. They remain concerned about the consequences of entrenching property rights.
The amendment of the Constitution to entrench property rights is not a unilateral process. Amending the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to entrench property rights requires resolutions of the legislative assemblies of seven provinces with at least 50 per cent of the population, as well as resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons. No government acting alone can entrench property rights. Rather, we need a consensus between the federal Government and the provinces. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has referred to a new era and spirit of co-operation and conciliation between the provinces and the federal Government. Building a consensus, particularly on matters of constitutional reform, requires a judicious approach. The federal Government is in a position to employ its considerable authority and prestige to reach a consensus on the matter of the entrenchment of property rights because we have a four-year mandate.
Acting precipitously runs the risk of provoking a dissenting province to opt out of a constitutional amendment as it is allowed to do by Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Hon. Members will appreciate that if a constitutional amendment is adopted, a province which disagrees may avoid accept-
December 6, 1984

ing the change, if it is one which "derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or Government of a province". Subsection 38(3) provides that such an amendment shall not have effect in a province which expresses its dissent by resolution of the legislative assembly. An amendment to entrench property rights in the Constitution would certainly appear to be an amendment coming within subsection 38(2). It is possible, therefore, that the result of premature action on our part might create constitutional property rights protections that would not apply in one or more provinces because we had not succeeded in building the necessary consensus. The importance of property rights is such that constitutional protection should, if at all possible, be provided on a consistent and uniform basis across the country. We should not lightly put ourselves in a position where it might be necessary ultimately to proceed without the assent of a province. We should strive to reach agreement, but the opportunity to do this has not been available to the present Government.
So as to allow other speakers to address this House on this fundamental issue, I will conclude by saying that I believe that this matter should be addressed during the four years of our mandate. We must build a consensus with the provinces. Private Members' Hour is not the time to talk about public law Bills. I would like to say that I agree with the whole concept of entrenchment but we are dealing in illusions if we do not form a consensus.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have had to speak on a Conservative motion with regard to property rights and the Constitution. The procedure the Conservative Government is following on this particular issue is interesting. The first time I spoke on this subject was on April 29, 1983. We were debating an opposition motion, with a vote, which, of course, meant that members of the Liberal Party had to vote against the motion, despite what they may have felt about its particular merits, because the Conservative motion was a non-confidence motion. In other words, Hon. Members on the government side would have had to vote against their own Government in order to support the resolution which was before them.
It is interesting that we have this second occasion to discuss property rights. It is not a government measure. For that matter, it was not mentioned in the Throne Speech. This is strictly a Private Members' Bill on which the government Members are speaking with the purpose of killing the Bill. If the Conservative Government were serious about property rights in the Constitution, it would start the process as an official government measure.
1 have to agree with the last speaker from the Conservative Party who said that Private Members' motions to amend the Constitution are not the route we should take. There is no way that this House, after a one hour debate, should try to amend the Constitution of this country. We had a debate on April 29, 1983 on this matter and I spoke about the need for a process
Constitution Act. 1982
which allows the provinces, the public, business and labour groups, environmentalists, native peoples and others to come before this House to talk about their concerns. The problem with the route being taken now is that it does now allow for public participation.
The last time the Conservative Party tried to bring this measure before the House they wanted it passed in a four-hour debate in one afternoon. It did not want the groups I mentioned, nor I suspect did the Conservative Premiers, to have the opportunity to speak in front of a committee of this House on the rights they were concerned about. At the time the motion came before the House in 1983, I talked about the process and the need to allow the public to get involved in the changing of our Constitution. I put forward a motion to that effect. I realize you were not in the House at that time, Mr. Speaker, so I will point out that negotiations took place which, had they been accepted by the Conservative Party-and it was the Conservative Party that killed the property rights-we would have had a committee of this House listen to people from different parts of Canada, those groups that I have mentioned. But the Conservative Party did not want that to happen. That Party, by introducing a Private Members' Bill, does not allow for public participation, and that proves it is not serious about property rights.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Oh, come on.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is a pure political sham. If the Conservative Government were serious about this, it would have been in the Throne Speech.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is Private Members' Hour, remember?


Rodney Edward Murphy: I hear the mover of the motion, Mr. Speaker, rambling on. That same Member talked strongly against the borrowing authority which the Liberal Government introduced. What he said is now in the record of Hansard. What he says on this side of the House when he is in opposition, and what he says on that side of the House when he is a government Member, are two things that tend to be completely opposite. The people who elected us expect us to say the same thing whether we sit on this side or that side. I would hope that that Hon. Member would have had the integrity to say the same thing when he is on that side as he did when be was on this side. Obviously he cannot do that at the present time.
When I last rose to discuss property rights regarding the Constitution I moved an amendment which I would like to read into the record. The amendment was that the House of Commons:
-favours a constitutional amendment to entrench the principle of the right of Canadians to own their own homes and farms; that such entrenchment in the Constitution must embody wording which does not create new problems for Canadians; for example, for provincial governments and others who wish to ensure that the ownership of recreational land be restricted to Canadian citizens-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Can't have a cottage.

December 6, 1984
Constitution Act, 1982


Rodney Edward Murphy: It goes on to say:
-or that good farmland be restricted to agricultural use only, or that labour rights, native peoples' rights or environmental protection not be jeopardized.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You can't have a bank account.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Perhaps the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill will be kind enough to sit and listen instead of yapping like a dog.
In putting forward my motion, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that the House resolve:
-that the subject matter of property rights be referred to a committee consisting of representatives of all parties in the House of Commons, which committee will hold hearings to ascertain the views of interested groups and individuals.
I tell members of our Party, members of the Liberal Party, and especially members of the Government Party, that if you are serious about property rights, then deal with it in a serious manner. Allow those groups to come before one of our committees to explain their situation. The hypocrisy of bringing a Bill forward as a Private Members' Bill, which I suspect the Government will talk out, proves that Members opposite are not serious. Amending the Constitution of Canada is such a serious and important matter that we cannot do it on the basis of what I call a 55 minute debate in the House of Commons. We must amend our Constitution through a process which allows the public to participate.
It is interesting to be in a position where I can quote a Conservative provincial Government speaking out against the Bill before us. It is no secret to the Members of this House that it is the provincial Conservative Governments which say they do not want a constitutional amendment protecting property rights. For example, Prince Edward Island, with its Conservative Government, is concerned about making sure that recreational land remains available for Canadians. That province does not want a constitutional amendment which will prevent it from passing laws making sure that that limited and valuable resource is available for Canadians first. I will quote a member of the Alberta Government, which I suspect you recognize happens to be Conservative. The then Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Horsman, said that the debate made clear that the Government of Alberta's position is that the constitutional responsibility for property and civil rights is that of the provinces. It should properly remain there and not be entrenched in the Charter of Rights and thus become subject to any control by the federal Government. That is a Conservative Government, Mr. Speaker, talking about why it does not want property rights entrenched in the Constitution. Because the Government of British Columbia passed a resolution on this very matter, the Alberta Government also addressed that fact. It said that it is true that the case for inclusion was put forward by the Province of British Columbia at those meetings, but no extensive discussion took place relative to the matter. In other words, the other provinces did not feel convinced that that was a matter on which they had to join the others in support.
The British Columbia Government, the token secret Tory Government in this country, put forward the position for property rights. The other provincial Governments at that time which, as Mr. Speaker knows, are by and large Conservative Governments, did not support the Government of British Columbia. After a brief survey of other provinces by the Province of Alberta it was clear that there was very little support given by other provinces for inclusion of the subject of property rights in the Charter. This is not the New Democrats saying that property rights should not be in the Charter. This is the Government of Alberta telling us that that Government and other Conservative Governments across the land did not want property right in the Constitution.
Let us have no more hypocrisy and false debates in the House of Commons. Talk to your political friends and colleagues. If they want property rights in the Constitution, have them come to the House of Commons and explain that they really want property rights in the Constitution, because it is apparent that that is not what they want.
There is a reason for that. We talked about the Government of Prince Edward Island wanting to protect recreation land. I am sure you realize, Mr. Speaker, as do Hon. Members, that recreational land in Prince Edward Island is largely owned by non-Canadians. I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Speaker, because you are a very wise and honourable person, that in many other provinces there is a concern, as there is in the Province of Manitoba. I am sure that my friend, the Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Clark) would like to get up and speak on this. Manitobans are concerned that farmland is being bought by people from West Germany and the Netherlands and by people who are not interested in farming. The Government of Manitoba, like many other western Governments, is very concerned that it have the right to pass legislation to make sure that the limited agricultural land in the country remains available to Canadian farmers. It does not want a clause in the Charter which would prevent it from passing legislation which would restrict that land for agricultural use.
The same thing applies with regard to workers, native people and others who are very concerned about what is happening in the country. Native people are concerned that if property rights are in the Constitution they may not be in a position to get the land to which they are entitled. The very fact that it is called land entitlement tells you that they are entitled to that land. They are concerned that something in the Constitution may prevent them from negotiating for what is their due.
The workers and tenants in the country are afraid that property rights may restrict their rights. When I spoke on this matter in April of 1983 I quoted from an article from the Winnipeg Free Press. At that time a representative of mortgage holders told the Winnipeg Free Press that one of the major reasons they wanted property rights in the Constitution was that they would have more rights to the assets of the companies than the workers who work there. That mortgage
December 6, 1984

holder was saying that if property rights are put in the Constitution, those who own property such as bonds and assets would have more rights to the assets of a company when it went bankrupt than the workers who work there. In other words, you could work there for 10 years and the company could owe you $5,000 or $50,000 in pension benefits. They could owe you $20,000 in wages and more in benefits and pension rights, but, according to the mortgage holder who was speaking to the Winnipeg Free Press, you would not have any rights. The person who would have rights is one who is not that badly off and has assets, bonds, and some kind of securities or bills owing from that particular company.
We are not speaking against property rights, Mr. Speaker. We in this caucus happen to represent farmers. Some of our caucus members are farmers and own their own farms. Most of us own our houses. Some of us have cottage land which we own. We are not against property rights. However, we want to make sure that property rights will only be included in the Constitution once we have protected the rights of other Canadians by recognizing the rights of tenants, native people, and people who are concerned about the environment. That is something that I have not had a chance to talk about, Mr. Speaker. We must recognize the rights of a provincial government to ensure that the limited land available is best used for the purposes of the whole public. Once that is guaranteed and we have found a process to ensure that we have not taken rights away from the province and the individuals, we can have property rights in the Constitution, but only then.
It is very important that the House not deal with property rights in the artificial manner in which the Conservative Party has brought them before us on the last two occasions. It cannot be brought forward as a motion against the Government. It cannot be brought forward as a Private Members' Bill. It must be brought forward as a serious piece of government legislation which allows the provinces and all those affected to speak before it is passed.


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my congratulations to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) for bringing forward this very important motion. I agree with the Hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) that obviously Private Members' Hour does not provide an adequate opportunity to discuss the concept of entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution. However, it does provide an opportunity to discuss some of the issues. I hope some of those issues will be brought out during this debate.
I too am sympathetic to the idea of entrenching property rights in the Constitution. I reiterate the support of my colleagues and my Party in this respect. In considering the entrenchment of property rights I believe we cannot discuss it in a vacuum. I believe that we muste understand the context of the real world in which constitutionally entrenched property rights would operate. We should and must take into account the important interests of society which justify reasonable and fair restrictions of property rights. Not the least of these
Constitution Act, 1982
interests are the interests of women. That is the area I would like to address today.
It is imperative that we act in a manner that least affects the exceedingly hard-won gains that women have made toward equal opportunity and employment and economic issues in recent years.
Let us consider the issues that women's groups have brought forward. They have argued that the entrenchment of property rights might jeopardize the interest of women, and we need to analyse some of those issues to reassure ourselves and society at large that such an initiative is well and thoroughly considered. For example, women are concerned that the protections we have won under the family law reforms might be annulled by the application of constitutional property rights protections. Matrimonial property legislation now provides for the division of assets upon divorce and separation.
The courts are empowered to divide assets among separated or divorced persons irrespective of the apparent legal title to those assets. Spouses are deemed to have acquired an interest in property by virtue of the marriage relationship. The extent of the interest varies with the circumstances. The types of property to be divided on marriage breakdown range from the matrimonial home to automobiles, from personal possessions to pension rights. The practical effect of these laws is to recognize the mutual contribution of homemakers and breadwinners to the success of the family as an economic and social unit. They also prevent the equal partners in marriage from suffering unequal burdens upon marriage breakdown.
What women's groups are asking is whether the entrenchment of property rights could be accomplished without dismantling the matrimonial property systems that have been set up under family law reforms. We should recall the wording of the clause proposed in the resolution of the Legislature of British Columbia, my home province. That resolution proposed that Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be amended to add the right of enjoyment of property to the rights already enumerated therein. Everyone would have the right not to be deprived of the enjoyment of property except in accordance with principles of fundamental justice.
The constitutional protection of property rights proposed by the Legislature of New Brunswick is worded somewhat differently. That Legislature resolved that the Charter should be amended to add Section 7.1 which would read, "Everyone has the right to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law".
The women's groups are concerned that whatever form of wording is chosen the result will be to allow the courts to interpret "due process of law" or the "principles of fundamental justice" as a guarantee of substantive due process.
Let me explain. Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In American jurisprudence, due process has in the past been

December 6, 1984
Constitution Act, 1982
given a substantive as well as a procedural connotation. Due process has involved the American courts in assessing the substance of legislation. In the early years of this century, the American courts frequently challenged legislation on due process grounds.
Members may recall the case of Lochner versus New York, an early leading case in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a statute prescribing maximum weekly and daily hours of work for bakers on the grounds that it affected the deprivation of property rights without due process of law.
The American courts also applied a substantive due process of law doctrine to invalidate statutes relating to minimum wages and child labour.
Women's groups have expressed the fear that Canadian courts might adopt a substantive due process approach to property and other rights and they worry that on such an approach important reforms in the interest of women will be put at risk. Most Canadian courts have so far taken the view that fundamental justice refers to procedural due process only. That accords with the views expressed during Parliament's consideration of Section 7 of the Charter. Women's groups have taken the position that a substantive due process interpretation cannot be ruled out and, indeed, in two recent Superior Court decisions, the courts have suggested that the protections afforded by Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and fundamental justice specifically, may be more than procedural.
That question is now pending before the Supreme Court of Canada, and 1 shall therefore not to go into further detail on that legal issue. However, if the courts were to adopt a substantive due process approach to property rights protections, womens' groups are afraid that socially progressive legislation such as matrimonial property laws might be struck down by the courts on policy grounds as restrictions on the property rights of spouses. The provinces are similarly concerned, we have heard, that a substantive due process approach might endanger these and other important pieces of provincial legislation.
Women's groups are also concerned about the hardship and the cost of judicial review of family laws under property rights guarantees. Their view is that the cost and the burden of judicial review would fall on individual women. They point out the so-called "persons" case, a case that we all know and admire so much. In 1928, the "Famous Five" had to fight hard and finally appealled to the Privy Council to determine that women were indeed persons for the purpose of being appointed to the Senate.
The point that is made on behalf of women is that there is a financially limited capacity to individual women to take on these cases. Their concern is that important test cases would have to be mounted to determine the scope of entrenched property rights and their application to newer controls on individual property rights. The argument is that the cost and hardship of constitutional litigation would fall on those who are least able to bear it.
I would note that women's groups have acknowledged the positive aspects of the entrenchment of property rights. They have suggested that if property rights were entrenched, procedural property rights guarantees could be beneficial to women under a broad interpretation of property. They have taken the position that a broad interpretation of property might include interests in such things as social benefits. The property in such benefits would be premised on the expectations that arise from social assistance legislation. Under this interpretation, recipients could not be deprived of such benefits except by procedural due process.
Again, in the United States, the Supreme Court has on a number of occasions applied the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution to protect that so-called new property. The Supreme Court has held that an expectation of academic tenure, a driver's licence and disability benefits are property interests deserving of protection under the due process clause. It seems that women's groups might be more favourable to the entrenchment of property rights if "property" were given a broad interpretation along the lines of the American example, an interpretation which would provide protections in respect of social benefits received by women.
Women's groups as well as other groups and provinces have sincere concerns about the effects of entrenching property rights. We have an obligation to take their views into account and to seek, if possible, a consensus on this matter. Even if it is not possible to achieve unanimity, in the spirit of consultation and conciliation, we should make an effort to reconcile those with different views.
My Party is committed in principle to the entrenchment of property rights, but we cannot do so hastily and without reflection on the possible impact of such constitutional amendments on the interests of over half of the population. There are important and legitimate concerns that the Government needs to address over the first portion of its mandate. I look forward to the opportunity of discussing this matter not only in Private Members' Hour but on future occasions when it comes forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.
December 6, 1984

Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place this evening with great regret because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has chosen to ignore the very critical issue of steel labelling, and the Prime Minister's representative here tonight, I hope, will be able to tell the House, and in particular the workers in my riding of Hamilton East and the workers in ridings across Hamilton, just what initiatives this Government has in mind with respect to the steel labelling issue.
The Prime Minister is no doubt aware that during the election he personally thought this issue was so important that he sent letters to constituents across my riding urging them to support the Progressive Conservative Party because he would personally lead the fight to save steel jobs. Yet we have seen, since the election of this Government, a Prime Minister who treats the issue of steel jobs and the labelling issue with the same kind of lack of interest and denigration with which he has treated a number of other very serious subjects explored in this House.
I was frankly shocked, when I raised an issue which involved the lay-off and the potential lay-off of more than 2,000 steelworkers in Hamilton, that the Prime Minister was not even aware that the current labelling requirements as passed by the U.S. Congress are a violation of GATT.
Will the Prime Minister and the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) clarify to this House whether the International Trade Minister-who has already stated publicly that the labelling requirements are a non-tariff area and thus a violation of GATT-is speaking for the Government or whether it is the Prime Minister who is doing so. I understood that the Prime Minister, in his completely inadequate response to my question on this issue this week, was unclear whether the labelling issue was a violation of GATT. I would support the statement by the Minister for International Trade that the labelling provisions is a violation of GATT and that the Prime Minister has an obligation to the voters of my community and to the steel workers across Canada, including the steel workers in Sault Ste. Marie who are watching this issue very closely, as well as steel workers in other parts of the country. The Prime Minister has an obligation to get tough with the Americans and he has an obligation to suggest to his very good and great friend, the President of the United States, that if the U.S. Congress is not prepared to exempt Canada or to lift the labelling requirements with respect to steel imports, then it is time that the Canadian Government followed the initiative suggested by the steel industry, and that is, with retaliatory measures.
The Prime Minister in the House talked about retaliatory rhetoric. He joked. He threw the question off into oblivion because he felt it was not an issue that should be dealt with seriously by parliamentarians here in the House and by the people of Canada. I would like a clarification from the Prime Minister as to whether he believes that the labelling require-
Adjournment Debate
ments are a violation of GATT. If he believes, as does his Minister for International Trade, that they are a violation of GATT, why does the Prime Minister not shrink back from the commitment he made to the electorate of Hamilton East when he said that if he were successful in becoming the Prime Minister of this country he would personally lead the fight to save steel jobs?
We know that over 2,000 jobs are already on the line as a result of a downturn in steel production since the election of this Government. More than 2,000 people in my community have already been laid off or are facing a potential lay-off in January of next year. Yet, faced with this, the Prime Minister stands in the House of Commons and laughs and jokes and tells the workers, who are looking forward to a very bleak Christmas, that he does not have answers. He is only concerned with retaliatory rhetoric.
The response of the Prime Minister is not sufficient. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in the House tonight to deal with an issue that involves the potential loss of thousands of jobs for Canadian steel workers. I ask that his representative clarify the GATT requirements and clarify the position that this Government is taking. Will he clarify to the Canadian voters why the Prime Minister did not see fit personally to intervene with the President of the United States after the United States Congress introduced the tariff regulations which are in violation of GATT?
These are very serious questions. The voters of Hamilton want answers to these questions. The Prime Minister's comic relief in the House earlier this week is certainly not good enough.


Mr. Stewart Mclnnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to reply to the Hon. Member's question on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher).
The Government submitted a note to the U.S.A. administration on October 1 identifying the proposed marking regulation affecting steel pipes and fittings, which was contained in the draft U.S.A. Trade and Tarrif Act of 1984, as a serious non-tariff barrier to Canadian exports and inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the GATT. Our Ambassador in Washington also wrote to key Congressmen and met with administration officials outlining our concerns over the new marking law.
After passage of the legislation by Congress on October 9, the Government submitted another note setting out our concerns. We also made representations to the U.S. administration on the technical aspects. A further note was submitted on November 1 after the Bill was signed into law. In this representation, we sought the least restrictive application of the marking regulation, while pressing for repeal of the legislation when Congress reconvenes in 1985. In addition, the

December 6, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Minister for International Trade called Mr. Brock, the United States Trade Representative, on this issue.
In part as a result of our representations, the administration issued a directive on November 14 which instructed U.S. Customs to administer the new regulation on an interim basis for 120 days. This is in fact a moratorium of the law that was enacted by Congress. Application of the new marking law on this basis will cause minimum disruption to Canadian trade and provide time for the administration to seek repealing legislation.
In addition to our bilateral representations in Washington, we raised the issue in the GATT. Consultations are scheduled to take place in Geneva on Friday, December 7. In our view, the new marking law is inconsistent with United States GATT obligations, in particular Article IX:4, which deals with marks of origin.
In light of these developments, both the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade have indicated that it would be premature for the Government to discuss the possibility of retaliation at this time.
The Government, as it has from the beginning, continues to work closely with the Canadian industry to safeguard access to the important U.S. market. Indeed, the Minister met with the industry and provincial representatives in Toronto on Monday of this week to ensure that there is a co-ordinated plan of action. Canadian exports of pipe and fittings to the United States totalled approximately $125 million U.S. in 1983, down from approximately $233 million U.S. in 1982. Exports to the United States in the first half of 1984 are already over $125 million U.S.
I want to assure the House and the Hon. Member that the Prime Minister is very sensitive to this Government's obligation to the steel industry. His primary consideration is that jobs that are in jeopardy be preserved. It is in furtherance of that particular concern that these measures have been taken. We have had a very reasonable and appropriate reaction from our U.S. friends. I trust this answers the inquiry of the Hon. Member.


INCOME TAX-RATES CHARGED BY DISCOUNTERS. (B) CHEQUE-CASHING SCAM
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, several days ago I brought to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) the plight of several hundred thousand Canadians who are being ripped off by companies which discount income tax refunds. This situation is growing more serious every year.
In the 1970s, when Members of Parliament and the Government learned that some people were having their income tax refunds discounted 50 per cent to 60 per cent, legislation was passed entitled the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. That was in 1978. It provided that discounting companies such as BenTax and H & R Block could provide cash advances on income tax refunds and charge a fee of 15 per cent of the total amount of the tax rebate. Since 1978, the number of Canadians who are
having their tax refunds discounted more than doubles every year. In 1982, there were 60,000 Canadians who did this. In
1983,	there were 153,000 and in 1984 there were 380,000 who did this.
Let us ask ourselves who the people are who have their tax refunds discounted. They are not Members of Parliament, bankers, lawyers or doctors. The clients of the discounters are the poor. They are the single mothers who are heads of families. They are native people and people who are on welfare. In fact, 64.5 per cent of those who discounted their returns in 1982 had total incomes of less than $8,000 per year. They are people living in poverty. The median income of those people was $5,700 per year, and 41 per cent of them were women claiming the child tax credit, a social program intended to help lower-income families. Those people who discount their tax returns are not getting the benefits which Parliament wanted them to have.
The discounters themselves estimate that 50 per cent to 65 per cent of their clients are unemployed or on welfare. These people need the money in March or April when they discount their return, but they need it later on as well. They receive no benefit from doing this. They take a substantial loss by getting the money to which they are entitled early.
In 1983, the discounters charged an average of $114 per return. On the basis of the number of returns they processed in
1984,	discounters made about $43 million. They took that money out of the hides of poor people. They took it despite the fact that the legislation was designed to help those people.
The 15 per cent fee which is permitted to be charged by the discounters under this law works out to an exorbitant rate of interest if calculated on an annual basis. Given the fact that most of the returns are processed and returned by Revenue Canada within one or two months, discounters are basically providing loans to their clients at annual interest rates of 90 per cent or more.
Not only are the large companies I have already mentioned getting into the business, but there are now smaller companies which are not in the financial business at all entering the business. There have been instances of car dealerships enticing people to buy or lease a car by offering to cash tax rebates minus the 15 per cent fee, of course.
I believe that the Government can take action. The Minister said his Department is studying the matter. The Government is studying it but is doing nothing. I believe that the Government could pass legislation making it illegal to have tax rebates discounted. Just because something is not illegal does not make it desirable.
I believe that rebating serves no useful purpose. The Government should give consideration to an outright ban of such discounters. It could make tax rebates non-transferable. If the Government does not want to ban discounting, it could pass legislation to bring discounting rates into line with normal consumer loan rates. After all, the risks are minimal yet the interest rates charged are exorbitant. Using normal consumer
December 6, 1984

loan rates of about 15 per cent on an annual basis, such companies would get a fair return for giving money to people a month or two before they would normally receive their rebates. As I pointed out, the average return is back in four weeks and 15 per cent is charged, which would work out to 180 per cent annually. If the return takes two months, the effective rate of interest is 90 per cent.
If the Government is not prepared to amend the legislation,
I would urge it to meet with the banks and the credit unions to persuade them to extend discount options to their customers at the rate of consumer loans. That would at least reduce the social cost of the discount to poor families.
The banks have been given the ability to become the most profitable organizations and the largest corporations in the country. Surely we can ask them to show some social responsibility. Surely we can ask them to show some consideration for these people who are among the poorest in the country. Surely we can ask them to co-operate in getting rid of this blight which is being forced upon them.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has asked two questions. He is concerned about the tax rebate discounting process which is now being followed, as well as with cheques which are being cashed for a fee.
With respect to the tax rebate discounting question, I wish to assure the Hon. Member that the entire issue is being studied very carefully by this Government. By way of background, I wish to remind the House of the purpose of the Tax Rebate Discounting Act. It is to protect the interests of taxpayers who give up the rights to their anticipated tax refunds, in exchange for a minimum of 85 per cent of the value of the refunds, in order to receive immediate cash. The statute was enacted in 1978 at the urging of provincial Governments.
The legislation appears to have addressed successfully the problems it was intended to remedy. Consider the situation of those who, as the Hon. Member puts it, simply cannot wait to receive the money in the usual fashion. These people may have very urgent and pressing financial needs and may be unable to obtain credit in the traditional ways. No longer is it necessary for them to seek out loan sharks or to lose as much as 50 per cent of their tax refunds. Now they can obtain at least 85 per cent of their refunds in advance in an atmosphere which is legitimate and business-like.
Nevertheless, this Government recognizes that, as with any new piece of legislation, particularly when it relates to a growing industry, certain new factors may be encountered. That is why we must continually, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, monitor these processes which from time to time may get slightly out of hand. However, we have no reason to suspect that they are out of hand. Indeed, representatives from discounters and such concerned groups as the National AntiPoverty Organization have already been studying it. We are in
Adjournment Debate
close contact with them in order to try to avoid any possible rip-offs which might be occurring in the industry.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question on chequecashing operations, I wish to advise the House that this matter is also under consideration.
The Hon. Member has suggested that legislation should be passed to outlaw these businesses. Indeed, the recent development of this type of business, which now has at least 20 offices operating across Canada, could give rise to concern. Such concern, however, need not lead directly to the conclusion that cheque-cashing services should be outlawed. The rapid growth of cheque-cashing services indicates that some Canadians are prepared to pay up to 10 per cent of the value of a cheque merely to have it cashed. Their reasons for doing so may derive from such legitimate interests as greater convenience.
Although the Department has received no complaints from the users of cheque-cashing services, the House can be assured that we will continue to monitor the development of the cheque-cashing business.
In closing I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North for the opportunity to address his concerns.


FORESTRY-JACKPINE BUDWORM INFESTATION. (B) REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE INSECTICIDE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question with the Acting Minister of Forestry a few days ago in the House concerning the jackpine budworm infestation which has swept across Ontario this past year. Actually, in 1983 there were some 67,000 hectares of jackpine infected. By this year, 1984, there is over 1.5 million hectares infected. Of this amount, 1.5 million acres are in northeastern Ontario. In the Eddy forest products limits north of Espanola and up towards Timmins, some 150,000 acres to 200,000 acres, which have high concentrations of jackpine, are highly infected. In total, some 800,000 acres are infected.
I asked the Acting Minister if he would make representations to the Ontario Government to put in place a control program for 1985 so that the decision could be made now. In that way the control program can take place in late June of 1985. I also asked the Acting Minister if he would make representations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to have the biological insecticide, Bacillus Thuringiensis, approved on an emergency or operational basis for use during the 1985 year.
We must appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that the economic viability of whole communities such as the town of Espanola are at stake here. We are talking about thousands of jobs both in the plant and in the bush. I appreciate that the Ontario Government has not been too active with regard to this kind of control program. I am told that in this past year only 3,000 hectares were actually under a control program for the spruce budworm, which is a similar type of infestation, whereas in Nova Scotia some 21,000 hectares are under control. Quebec has some 600,000 hectares under control and New Brunswick has
990

December 6, 1984
Adjournment Debate
over one million hectares under control. But just to put this into perspective, I am told this is one of the fastest expanding infestations which has ever been witnessed by scientists. It has spread from 67,000 hectares in 1983 to over 1.5 million in 1984. I am told that with respect to the Eddy forest products limits alone, their losses by stunted trees and so on during this one year will equal their total plantings during the next five-year or ten-year period under its reforestation program. We can see, therefore, the economic loss and danger to the forests.
I was trying to make the point in the House that there is an urgency for decisions to be made now. The B.T. insecticide needs to be approved for use in the infected jackpine stands in Ontario. I am told that the effectiveness of this insecticide for use with the jackpine budworm infestation can be provided within a two-week to three-week period. Then it is simply a case of the Minister of Agriculture approving it.
I also want to point out the urgency of a decision being made by the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources to approve a plan for next year. It is not just a case of turning on the plan at the whim of the Minister. There are long-term preparations which have to be made. Pesticides have to be ordered. I am told there is a three-month delivery date and there has to be a period of public hearings or approvals after the Minister makes the decision. Planes have to be contracted for. These decisions cannot be put off until January or February at the whim or convenience of the Ontario Minister.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that we are very fortunate to have a Minister of Forestry in the Government of Canada who has extensive experience in these problems in New Brunswick. I am very pleased that he is in the House this evening to respond to my representations. I simply hope that he will give an indication that the federal Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, will act expeditiously to approve the insecticide and that he will use his influence with the provincial Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Agriculture to approve a control program at a very early date. I say this because, although the actual responsibility for the control program is under the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources, our scientists at the Great Lakes Research Laboratory in Sault Ste. Marie are very involved in the actual egg counts, the scientific analysis and investigation of this infestation. Clearly, given the experience of our Minister, his recommendations and representations will have a great deal of influence on the Ontario Minister of Natural Resources in this matter.


Hon. G. S. Gerry Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Algoma
(Mr. Foster) for his kind comments. I have had some considerable experience in dealing with such matters, coming as I do from the Province of New Brunswick. I also want to apologize to him for being absent when he asked his question. I was addressing a very major group of the Western Forest and Conservation Association in California regarding issues of great concern to Canada-and the Canadian forest industry.
When we have an infestation of any insect, as we have lots of them in this country, it is a matter of great concern to our country and certainly to the forest industry. Believe me, we have agonized in some detail over these infestations and how to deal with them effectively. As the Hon. Member has rightly pointed out, management of the forests and the spray programs are essentially the responsibility of the provinces. We have been working very closely with the province here and I will outline in some detail the steps we have taken to ensure that his legitimate concerns are being addressed.
There is unfortunately only one chemical at this time which has been registered for the jackpine budworm, and that is Fenitrothion, which we have used of course in the Province of New Brunswick. However, the CFS has been working in the Forest Pest Management Institute in Sault Ste. Marie in collecting insects and doing research to find out if it is possible to have a biological insecticide suitable for fighting the jackpine budworm. We would prefer that if it is possible to do and within reasonable cost.
My officials in Sault Ste. Marie met today with the manufacturer of another chemical, Aminocarb, to discuss possible testing of that insecticide to combat the jackpine budworm as well. The Hon. Member may be aware that there is a group called the jackpine working group. They met yesterday to discuss ways of controlling infestation. Present at the meeting were members of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, my own Great Lakes Forest Research Centre and, of course, the Forest Pest Management Institute. We invited representatives as well from the E. B. Eddy Company, a very large employer in the Hon. Member's riding. In the near future we hope to be able to provide the test data to the manufacturers and to Agriculture Canada on the results of our testing. I mention that because of course the registration of pesticides is their responsibility. If they are proven to be effective against the jackpine budworm, it will then be incumbent upon the manufacturer to seek a label amendment from Agriculture Canada. If that is approved, the new insecticide could be available in time for the program next spring.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, having been a forestry Minister in a province of Canada I know how much time it takes to take all the necessary steps to make sure you have a program prepared to go. I do want to inform the Hon. Member that while steps are being taken by CFS, the decision to go or not go in the Province of Ontario does rest with the province. While we understand that there are some people who have concerns, rightly so, about spraying chemicals or even biologi-
December 6, 1984

cal insecticides, we want to say that they can only be applied if approved by the federal Government and by the provinces, and applied by licenced applicators according to the label instruction. Having worked on these programs for a number of years, I know the controls are pretty tight.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned.

Friday, December 7, 1984