1984-03-07

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the seatbelt laws now in force in most provinces apply to passenger cars, but in most cases do not apply to school buses and commercial buses. Statistics have shown that seatbelts have proven themselves in the prevention of serious accidents and many traffic deaths. However, it is disturbing to pick up a paper and read about school bus accidents that have resulted in death and serious injuries to school children that could have been prevented if seatbelts were available.
In Vancouver last month, serious injuries to ten young special-needs passengers were prevented when a school bus, equipped with seatbelts, was hit by a car and flipped over. Because of the seatbelts no one was thrown around and suffered severe injuries.
Just as vulnerable to serious injuries and death are those passengers travelling on public buses each day here in Ottawa and other municipalities. These passengers, including those standing in the buses each morning and evening, are more vulnerable to any accident that may take place, because of the absence of seatbelts. 1 realize that seatbelt legislation comes under provincial jurisdiction. However, I urge the federal Government to take the initiative by urging its provincial counterparts to pass legislation to make seatbelts mandatory on all school buses and on all commercial buses across Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, before the House rose for a one-week break, and again this week, Opposition Members were wailing about job grants on a "you got more than we got" basis. My riding of Parkdale-High Park was named by the Toronto Star on February 10 as the top money-receiving constituency in Metro Toronto. I am
proud of that record because it meant more jobs for unemployed Canadians.
Who really got job-creation grants? Are the grants the property of MP's or ridings, or are they grants to assist unemployed Canadians in a region? The point of the Opposition's protest could be understandable if the funds were going into the pockets of MP's. They are not. The funds are going to community and municipal groups. These groups or municipalities, in putting forward projects, think in the context of their communities, not that of federal ridings. People provided with employment opportunities as a result of job-creation grants are not hired on the basis of Party affiliation or even what riding they live in.
This Government recognizes that people want jobs. Are the Opposition Members trying to tell them they should not have a job because a Liberal MP was on the ball and obtained a grant, while they played "poor me" politics? Maybe the Opposition should be thinking more about employment opportunities afforded by this Government to unemployed workers on the basis of need, not their residency location or political affiliation, rather than thinking of what MP got what.
The Opposition would have a scandal if they could give a concrete example of, say, a worker from a neighbouring riding such as Etobicoke Centre being rejected because he or she is not in the riding of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member's time has expired.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was reported that another $550 million of taxpayers' money has been jettisoned into Canadair and de Havilland. The magnitude of that dollar amount is beyond the comprehension of most Canadians, especially to the two million unemployed.
I am sure the workers of de Havilland and Canadair are worried about mismanagement, the lack of controls, and the lack of accountability, because this could lead to their unemployment as well. These Government bailouts are like trying to fill a bottomless pit.
There is an alarming, growing trend in this country- Maislin, Dome, de Havilland, and Canadair. This is the list of financial disasters and failures that the Government opposite has seen fit to prop up with Canadian tax dollars. The

March 7, 1984
Government has gone wild with our tax dollars. It destroys small business and jobs, with taxation and regulation. It threatens to destroy the very fibre of our economic base with its lack of accountability and total disregard for managing the Government's purse strings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, oh, the high priest of all things mean, tough, and nasty, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), finance critic for the Conservative Party, recently announced his Party's policy on family allowances and old age pensions. The Conservatives would go back to the days of means tested benefits, forcing senior citizens and poor women to suffer the indignity of detailed examination of all of their income and assets, by snooping public servants.
The CCF and NDP, and in particular pioneers such as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and J. S. Woodsworth, fought long and hard for decent pensions and family allowances. We have called, for example, for an immediate 25 per cent increase in universal old age pensions and increases in the GIS to bring poor, elderly Canadians, a high proportion of whom are women, above the poverty line.
Given the new Conservative policy as announced by the Conservative finance critic, it is no wonder that Maureen McTeer recently said:
Because of the type of people who supported the present leader, there is a nervousness... there is a tendency ... to think the Party is moving backwards.
Under the mean, tough, and nasty hand of the Hon. Member for St. John's West and his Conservative colleagues, women and senior citizens will be the first victims. Burnaby women and seniors, beware!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a national advisory panel to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) has developed a 10-year plan designed to help re-educate our nation in order to cope with technological change. The plan calls for the Government to take immediate action to implement programs to reduce illiteracy among Canadians, and to create programs to cope with growing job obsolescence.
The proposed scheme would provide employees with time off to take courses which would improve their skills or retrain
them for other jobs. Employees would earn the time off as they now earn vacation pay or sick leave. A tax credit for employers participating in the program would mean that public funds could be used to help workers retrain. At the same time this would help relieve the unemployment rate by paying for unemployed workers to be hired on a fill-in basis. I urge the Government to give considerable priority to this proposal as it offers a progressive model for the lifelong learning process which I believe would benefit the Canadian work force.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government is again betraying the western farmer. The Liberal Minister, when introducing the Western Grain Stabilization Act, told western producers that the fund would provide a cash flow in times of need. In 1982 western grain farmers suffered a loss of income, and they suffered another loss in 1983. Last year 154 prairie farms went bankrupt, with hundreds more on the verge of bankruptcy.
The complicated formula used in the Act covers too large an area and provides for a payout in the fifth year. This could be changed by the House in 10 minutes if the Government would bring in the Bill as it promised to do in the last Speech from the Throne. The stabilized fund now contains over $900 million, and the farmers need the money now. Their cash flow has seldom been worse. This hoarding of the farmers' money is aggravating and, worse still, the farmers are not even permitted to opt out and get their own money back.
Progressive Conservative Members of the House have urged the Government for months to provide a payout, but the Liberals have consistently refused. The Government has locked the farmers into the Act, refuses to let them opt out, and refuses to provide a payout. It almost seems as if the Government wants western farmers to go bankrupt.
The frustration and dissatisfaction of our farmers are so great that hundreds would opt out now if they could. I ask the Government to bring in the Western Grain Stabilization Act for amendment forthwith, and provide for a payout now. Yes, now!


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak in the House today because, after spending a week in my riding, I found that one of the major concerns of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, a riding that is one of the Francophone
March 7, 1984

bastions of Canada, is what is happening in Manitoba, especially with respect to French language rights outside Quebec.
The point 1 wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that it is high time the Leader of the Opposition clarified his Party's position once and for all. The Liberal Party of Canada which, over the years, has welcomed Canadians whatever their language, culture or race, is now asking the other major Party in the House, which claims to be the Party that might take over from the present Government, to do likewise. I wish they would stop telling Quebecers that their Party is open to the French fact and to official policies on bilingualism, because it is the same Party that convinced Manitobans their rights would be endangered if they were to give rights to Francophones! What the Conservatives of Manitoba have done is politically unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Party should say so. He should discipline future candidates in his Party who supported the Provincial Conservatives in Manitoba, as well as members of his Party who, in the past, have taken a stand against this country's policies on bilingualism. If this is not done, Mr. Speaker, their Leader will have shown that he is not a man capable of holding the office of Prime Minister of Canada nor of leading his Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE LATE C. J. MACKENZIE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay belated respect to a great Canadian who passed away last week when the House was not sitting. C. J. Mackenzie enjoyed a long life-he was on this earth for 95 years. Yet when one reviews his numerous accomplishments, it is hard to believe that one person could have done so much in such a short time. He was one of the greatest forces in Canadian science. He was, among other things, the head of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in its infant years, and later the President of the Atomic Energy Control Board. But Chalmers Jack Mackenzie will be most remembered as the head of the National Research Council during World War II and the late 1940s.
It was during this period that the NRC, and Canada in general, established an expertise in scientific research that brought our country a world-wide reputation and a range of economic and non-economic benefits that Canadians enjoy today and will for decades to come.
Canada owes a great deal to C. J. Mackenzie. It is only fitting that this House commend his memory today.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AID


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON UNITED STATES FOOD PROGRAM
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, mankind has wrestled for centuries and aeons with the problem of matching food production with consumption and with world population. Yesterday at the United Nations the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) dealt with that difficult problem to some extent, but in a way uncharacteristic of him. A good part of his remarks criticized the United States for its "payment in kind" program through which it has attempted to reduce the overburdening surpluses of feed grain and wheat in the American market, which were overhanging the rest of the world. The Minister labelled this an unchristian kind of approach.
I urge the Minister to rethink his attitude. Is he saying that the response of Third World countries to the crisis by reducing their birth rate is unchristian, that it is not the Moslem or Buddhist response? This is the only way that the United States has, with its system, of attacking that particular surplus problem.
Did the Minister describe the Canadian answer to surplus production through the handling of dairy production, eggs or poultry, as unchristian? No. he did not, but it is definitely controlled production. I think it is not the role of Canada to criticize other countries for applying a different system.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday in Kitchener a tape was played on which a tax collector, referring to a businessman, said:
I want to see you in our office by noon tomorrow; otherwise we'll put you out of business.
This was confirmed by the head of the Kitchener tax office. The Kitchener tax office supervisor said that it was just one of those stupid things and the employee was reprimanded.
Evidence was heard, finally, regarding the collection process in Kitchener, as follows:
-that this office has been far too soft in its collections approach and you haven't had any seizures in here and we're going to get some-that's where the real fun of collections is.
These are very, very serious allegations, Mr. Speaker. What steps have been taken to correct them?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of the question of the
1846

March 7, 1984
Oral Questions
Hon. Member, I want to tell him and the House that such conduct by an employee of the Department is totally improper and, as the Hon. Member has acknowledged, the man was reprimanded.
On the second point, I think it is important that we have effective collection action in the Department when money is owed to it. With respect to the more general problem of management in the district office, that problem has been dealt with.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I find the Minister's answer to be totally unsatisfactory. The part that concerns Members of the House on all sides, I think, is the comment "that's where the real fun of collection is", with reference to making seizures. That is the concern of Members on this side.


SEIZURE OF TAXPAYERS' GOODS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister put responsibility on a person who is the head of collection services in Kitchener, who is saying that it is fun to seize the goods of other Canadians? Does he allow this to happen?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member maliciously refused to listen to my answer. I clearly informed him that such attitudes were not acceptable, that it was not the philosophy of this Government nor that of the Department, and that corrective action had been taken.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO COLLECTION HEAD IN KITCHENER OFFICE
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister what action has been taken with respect to the head of collections in the Kitcherner office who gave instructions to her employees that it would be fun to make seizures of taxpayers' goods. What corrective action has been taken with respect to her, the head of collections?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I informed the Hon. Member that such actions were not departmental policy. All employees, managers, and department heads in the Department are regularly informed of any unacceptable practices that may have occurred, and they have very specific guidelines on how they should deal with taxpayers.


JUDGE'S CRITICISM OF SEARCH CONDUCTED BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, as the Progressive Conservative task force crosses the country, more and more horror stories are being discovered. I would like to tell the Minister with respect to this matter that when the excuse is given that each of these malfeasant actions constitutes isolated instances, and we have hundreds and hundreds of isolated instances, it becomes a pattern of conduct.
I want to refer the Minister to a case in Saskatchewan where Judge Linton Smith was severely critical of the tactics of Revenue Canada with respect to a Canadian of Chinese descent in the case of the Queen versus Den Chow. The judge indicated that the search by the Department was unreasonable and illegal, that Mr. Chow had been browbeaten and tormented, that his home was taken over, and his privacy totally invaded by departmental officials. He was threatened with prosecution for drugs when they found innocent medications. There was evidence of malicious actions which were contemptuous of the dignity and privacy of a private citizen. Those were the findings of a judge.
Would the Minister tell the House what he is doing to prevent the employees of his Department from engaging in these kinds of activities? Is he going to wait until all of these investigations are complete? Why does he not take action now?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I did not wait for comments from Opposition Members before taking action within my Department. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that whenever a case is brought to my attention, either by Members of this House or by taxpayers who get in touch with me in my capacity as Minister, I examine and review each case, and if there has been unacceptable behaviour on the part of employees of our Department, we apologize, both the individuals responsible and myself as Minister, to the people concerned. I can inform the Hon. Member that we regularly issue reminders of our policies on the attitudes people in our Department should have in dealing with taxpayers.


INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN NOT TO CO-OPERATE WITH PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE TASK FORCE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain to me why he, on February 23, issued a directive to all regional offices instructing all employees of these offices not to co-operate with the Progressive Conservative task force which is crossing the country so that, for a change, we can hear what the people want to tell the Government of this country? Why has he sent out this directive prohibiting employees from co-operating with our
March 7, 1984

task force? Is this his idea of trying to deal with the serious allegations against his Department?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave the Chairman of the Progressive Conservative Task Force that is now travelling around the country, was given in the light of the rules and guidelines that ought to govern the work of parliamentarians. The Progressive Conservative Task Force and the Progressive Conservative Members themselves have decided to play politics with a matter as serious as the Income Tax Act and its administration. This is an obvious sign of their irresponsibility, and I refuse to play their little game.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the status of women. The Minister knows, I am sure, that unemployment among women is estimated to rise to something in the order of 35 per cent by the year 1990, as a result of technological change. I am sure the Minister is also aware that there is estimated to be a loss of something like one and a half million jobs by the year 1990 as a result of this same technological change, and that most of those who will lose employment opportunities are women. In view of this problem, can the Minister explain why, given that 1990 is only six years away, there was not one single program in the most recent Budget of the Minister of Finance dealing with the question of job loss for women between now and the year 1990?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather unusual that the Hon. Member takes this new-found interest in women, but I welcome it. I also would like him to know that the Figures he is bandying about are really guesstimates. There is no really true number out there. No one really knows. The fact of the matter is that as women we are going to be profoundly affected by technological change and we must be prepared for it. There is no new funding in the Budget because there is already a tremendous amount of funding in place. I suggest the Hon. Member familiarize himself with government programs which address the problems of women.


OUTREACH PROGRAM FUNDING
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the programs, as are many other people, particularly the women affected. Surely the Minister knows, having looked at the most recent statements of the Minister of
Oral Questions
Finance and others, that the programs beneficial to women have been cut by something like $2.4 million, and there will be a net loss of 25,000 job placements for women as a result of cuts in the Outreach Program. In March of 1983 the Minister of Employment released a study of the Outreach Program in which it was stated, as a primary recommendation, that the Government should affirm the legitimacy of the program and make it a part of the permanent national employment system, and that there should be a commitment made for long-term funding.
How does the Minister square her so called interest in providing employment for women who are, as she admits, going to lose their employment opportunities during the course of the next six years as a result of technological change taking place, with the fact that there has been a cut in the money to be spent under the Outreach Program, and no additional funds provided under any other program to try to provide employment opportunities or even training for those women?


Judith A. Erola: Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to state once more that the Hon. Member is obviously out of touch. There has not been a cut in Outreach Program funding. Indeed, we have solidified the Outreach Program. I suggest he update his facts.


PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN EMPLOYMENT CREATION PROGRAMS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister suggesting there was no $2.4 million cut? Is she suggesting for one moment that that will not result in 25,000 jobs being lost to women who otherwise would have been employed? On November 1, 1983, the Minister of Employment stated that employment among women was not a priority. He went on to say that the numbers of women who participate in government job-creation programs was way below their proportion in the labour force. That condition continues today.
Does the Minister think it reasonable that women, who make up 52 per cent of the population, and 42 per cent of the labour force, should have been employed in only 31 per cent of the Canada Works projects and only 20 per cent of the NEED Programs? Will the Minister take steps to guarantee that half of the $150 million allocated for Canadian youth will be directed to employment opportunities for young women?


Judith A. Erola: I am delighted the Hon. Member has made reference to the youth programs because it is in this particular category that the participation of females is particularly high; it approaches the 50 per cent rate. We do take measures in our job-creation projects to ensure women are hired. However, the Member does play fast and loose with figures. The facts are that the male unemployment rate has risen much faster than the female unemployment rate, and therefore it is logical that there would be more males employed in job-creation projects.

March 7, 1984
Oral Questions
Elowever, I assure the Elon. Member that I am concerned about the number of jobs available to women and 1 am working very closely with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to make sure that affirmative actions are in place in those job-creation projects.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians are shocked at the continuing drain on the public purse to bail out de Havil-land and Canadair. The most recent figures bring the losses to some $2 billion between the two companies. The bailouts total $1.25 billion. Many employees of de Havilland and suppliers to de Havilland are very concerned about the continuing viability of the company, they are worried by the continued evidence of mismanagement and continuing weakness of those companies. They are concerned that the brave words of last year just are not being translated into action.
Can the Prime Minister give these people any assurance that there are some plans to assure the long term viability of these companies so they can look at these sources of employment from a long term point of view?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking me to say there are long term plans for the viability of those plants. I am happy to see that he and his Party are now supporting those enterprises. I remember a few months ago his colleagues, and I believe he himself, were suggesting it was scandalous that we were keeping those plants open. Now he is saying we must have long term plans in order to keep them open. That is what the management is presently engaged in doing. The Hon. Member will realize that the payments in the Supplementary Estimates are payments of debts. They are not enough to keep the plants open forever. We will have to come before Parliament with long term plans if indeed those plants are to be kept open.
What does the Hon. Member want-long term plans without any money at all from the federal Government? I do not know what he is suggesting, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that these plants, which were in the private sector, were very heavily in debt. That is why the private sector wanted to dump them. They wanted to dump them, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member should realize the truth. The Government was not in the market for aeronautic industries. These plants were going to be closed by the private sector. In order to keep this technology alive in Canada we rescued them. We would like nothing more than to be able to give them back to the private sector. Those are the facts that the Hon. Member should realize.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when I raised this matter before, I said it was scandalous the Government kept pumping money
in without providing the attention and management to solve the problem. That is what I was criticizing. The Prime Minister must realize there are suppliers and employees of these companies in Toronto and Montreal who are very worried that these companies will be closed down by the Government because it simply cannot afford to keep them open.


BUSINESS PLAN FOR CORPORATIONS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Is there a business plan in place whereby the Government can assure these workers and suppliers there is a long term future for de Havilland and Canadair? Can he also tell the House that when he approved this latest amount of $550 million he reviewed those plans personally to assure himself that there was a long term proposal for the companies?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, this additional expenditure being proposed to Parliament was reviewed, not only by myself but by Cabinet as a whole. The Minister responsible for the Canada Development Investment Corporation, the Senator in the other place, will be appearing before the appropriate committee to defend this Supplementary Estimate. At that time he will be in a position to go into detail about the plans in question.
I welcome what my hon. friend now seems to be saying about his and his Party's willingness to make sure those companies continue to operate assuring the existence of the jobs. What a conversion, Mr. Speaker. St. Paul on the road to Damascus has nothing on my hon. friend.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the President of the Treasury Board and concerns a request by the two aircraft companies for a total of $500 million. Senator Austin has said he would be able to submit a full report on the financial restructuring of this company by the end of March. In that case, it would seem reasonable to ask Parliament to appropriate $500 million at some other time. Can the Minister give the House the assurance that he will wait until the report is submitted, which Senator Austin said he would do, before requesting $500 million for these two companies, since Canadians are not concerned about how important it is to keep this industry alive in Canada, but about the manner in which it has been managed during the past two years. In the circumstances, can the Minister give the House the assurance that the Government's request for $500 million to give the two companies a financial boost will not be made until the report on future plans is known to the general public?
March 7, 1984


Mr. Lalonde:: The Conservatives wanted to close down Canadair!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, according to my information, Senator Austin intends to appear before the Committee with the promised information. It would therefore be more appropriate if the Hon. Member would ask for the information at that time. I am interested in what the Hon. Member has to say, because I feel his comments differ from what the Hon. Member for Etobicoke said a few weeks ago. I am also very pleased to have his support for Canadair and to receive advice from the Opposition.


Marc Lalonde: They wanted to close down Canadair!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE FINANCIAL UNDERTAKING
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for being so pleased to hear us today, but my question is: Can the Minister give the House the assurance that no supplementary funding will be granted the companies before a report or recommendations by Senator Austin regarding long term projects is tabled? We want this industry to be viable. We want it to be profitable, now more than ever before. However, we want to know and Canadians want to know, before re-investing $500 million, what the exact plans are for these two companies, and if those plans are reasonable, you can count on our co-operation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, Senator Austin intends to appear before a number of committees to give the information being sought by the Hon. Member. If Hon. Members are not satisfied with the information, they have the option of not approving the requested appropriations, but I am sure there will be sufficient information to convince even the Hon. Member that the jobs in these two companies are important to this country.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the status of women and concerns the problems faced by women in the post-secondary educational system. The problems are particularly severe for women who are part-time students, whose numbers increased by a startling 250 per cent over the last decade. Most women attending post-secondary institutions on a part-time basis are doing so because full-time studies are not accessible to them.
Oral Questions
Does the Minister know that the federal loan system to part-time students discriminates very sharply against part-timers, most of whom are women? Has she done, or will she do, anything to ensure that the federal loan plan is amended immediately so that they will be treated as fairly as are full-time students?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, it is a problem which 1 have discussed with the responsible Minister. I must clarify that it discriminates against part-time students, not specifically against women, though women are the unfortunate recipients. It is something which requires some consideration.
I congratulate Hon. Members opposite for bringing up the subject of women today on the eve of International Women's Day. It is refreshing to have the subject discussed in the House.


Ian Deans: We are always bringing it up. It is time you listened.


REPAYMENT REGULATIONS
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not seem to be aware of the fact that women constitute the bulk of the part-time student population. Is she aware of the fact that the part-timers must start repaying their loans immediately, that there is no moratorium on interest, and that they do not get the $50 allocation for books? Is she aware of the discrimination in the Student Loan Act? What is she going to do about it?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I am painfully aware of that fact, as my sister suffers under those consequences. I reiterate that my concern is her concern, and it is something that I believe we should do something about. But again, I state very clearly that the law is not there to discriminate specifically against women. It does discriminate against part-time students, and unfortunately women are the ones who suffer most. But 'twas ever thus in our society.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. On February 7 the Minister announced a contract for the purchase of 81,000 new rifles for the Canadian Armed Forces. At the time he stated to the press that he hoped this would help the re-election of the Member for Kitchener and other Liberal

March 7, 1984
Oral Questions
Members. I think we now understand why he made that statement.
It turns out that these rifles are costing the Canadian taxpayer $1,314 each, while the U.S. Army, for approximately the same number of identical rifles, is paying $660 per rifle. That is nearly half.
Can the Minister possibly explain how he could sign a contract that results in Canadian taxpayers paying twice as much in Canadian funds as the U.S. Army for an identical rifle?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. gentleman is paying attention to what is happening in the Department, especially when we are dealing with something as important as the replacement of the small arms presently used by the Canadian Forces.
I might point out to the hon. gentleman that he has indeed made the mistake that was made by the journalist who wrote that story, namely, simply to do a division of the number of rifles into the total price of the contract. What the hon. gentleman does not know is that the contract price includes the amounts that have been invested in Diemaco in order to set up a Canadian source for small arms. The company is receiving $15 million to be able to provide a source of small arms in Canada for an indefinite period in the future. In addition to that, the amount of the contract involves the payment of a licensing fee to Colt. That fee is paid, of course, to secure for Canada the licensing of the technology in order to ensure that Canada has a source of the best small arms available in the international arena and that we are also able, as a result of the transfer of that technology, to go into the international arena and market that particular rifle with our allies if we are able to compete with other suppliers.
I might point out that, as a result of the expenditure of public funds, we are also creating over 1,900 jobs in Canada. I am sure that the Canadian people, including the Member for Kitchener, are appreciative of that.


Harvie Andre: I wonder how the Minister will compete internationally with a rifle that costs twice as much to make in Canada as in the United States. Aside from that, the Minister has his figures wrong. It is 1,900 man-years, or 150 jobs, which works out to $355,000 per job. On the surface of it, it would be cheaper to buy the rifles from the same place that the U.S. Army is buying them-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -and to give 150 Canadians a quarter of a million dollars each, and we would still be money ahead.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE CONTRACT
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, given that this contract was not a result of competitive bidding, and given that it is an outrageous figure to be paying for rifles when the Americans pay half the price, would the Minister table that contract and table the background studies? Would he give some substance to this vague contention of his that somehow it makes economic sense to pay twice as much for rifles for our Army as for the U.S. Army? Can he table the documents to back up his contention because, frankly, his credibility and that of his colleagues is in doubt with the Canadian taxpayers?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. gentleman is asking the question because, if he had seen what we have been doing in terms of military procurement in the recent past, he would have seen that we have concentrated on the creation of jobs in Canada. When I hear the Opposition saying on an ongoing basis that we should spend more on defence, are they saying that we should be exporting more dollars into the United States in order to purchase armaments in the United States to the detriment of the creation of Canadian jobs?
Additionally, the hon. gentleman is wrong when he says that this procurement was not done on a competitive basis. We identified two finalists, the Belgians and the M-16 technology, we created the competitive environment, and we made a selection. After selecting the Diemaco company and the Colt technology, we went on and negotiated with Diemaco. The deal which we made is one that is good for the Canadian Forces and for the creation of jobs in Canada.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence table the contract, and table the background documents?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the representations of the right hon. gentleman and I will give them due consideration.


PROPOSAL TO BUILD HOSPITAL AT CFB ESQUIMALT
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence. On February 24 the Minister announced the construction of a new hospital and dental clinic at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt. Construction is to be completed by mid 1985. Could the Minister explain to members of the House why this item did not appear in Supplementary Estimates or the Main Estimates which were tabled here three weeks ago?
March 7, 1984


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, it is because the expenditures had been forecast. Indeed it is a highly technical question. I would be pleased to take notice of it, review it, and provide the hon. gentleman with additional details if such are required.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Incidentally, this item appeared in the 1981-82 Estimates at a cost of S6.4 million. Since then it has gone up to $11.8 million, an increase of 84 per cent over $5 million, on a relatively small contract.


OMISSION FROM ESTIMATES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know why it is not mentioned in the Supplementar-ies or in the Main Estimates. Otherwise, could the Minister assure the House that there is not now a large number of similar Treasury Board agreements that may or may not be mentioned in the Estimates? The Estimates have now gone for consideration by the committee and I am questioning whether we can believe that what is in the Estimates actually represents the spending of the Department of National Defence, or is this just some kind of giant make work project for MPs serving on the standing committee?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. gentleman was rising to commend me for spending money in his province and his general area. The hospital was announced for the riding of Victoria.


An Hon. Member:: Esquimalt.


Mr. Blais:: It is in Victoria, it is Esquimalt, and it is in his area. Undoubtedly the hon. gentleman from Esquimalt-Saanich is very pleased about this amount being spent within his riding.
In terms of the specifics, as to whether it is in the 1981-82 Estimates or the 1983-84 Estimates, I will be before the committee, if not next week, the week after, and I would be very pleased to discuss the whole matter in detail with the hon. gentleman.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to ask a question of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, but while I am waiting for her return I will direct a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, two days before the constitutional conference opens, the Prime Minister said that the Cabinet had not yet made up its mind on whether it would advocate entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution.
Oral Questions
I have a letter today from a Mr. Tom Pelletier inviting members of the Native Liberal Caucus to meet with government Members to discuss constitutional issues and to advise the Government on them. The letter places all of this in the context of campaign readiness for the next election.
Why is the Government dealing with the aboriginal peoples and constitutional questions on a partisan basis, when the aboriginal peoples have recognized leaders to speak for them? What advice does the Government expect to get from the Native Liberal Caucus that it could not receive from more representative leaders?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall having met this Mr. Pelletier personally, but from what the Hon. Member quotes in his letter, I see nothing offensive in it. If he is a Liberal who is trying to get Liberals to move in the direction that the Hon. Member suggests, I cannot see how he would be objecting to that either.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Yesterday, in response to my question about Indian Act discrimination against Indian women, the Prime Minister said that this had been ended by the Charter of Rights. Since Indian women still lose their status when they marry non Indians, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that discrimination has been abolished, or will he try to educate the Prime Minister on this important issue? Will he bring in a Bill that will end this discrimination?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Hon. Member how much I appreciate his statement about support for such a Bill. I assume he is committing his Party to it. I know the Prime Minister is supportive of a Bill of this nature. I have had a chance to discuss it with the Prime Minister and with my colleagues. I will be talking about this initiative which the Hon. Member outlined, with the Indian leadership during the course of the next few days.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. If we are to judge him

March 7, 1984
Oral Questions
from his most recent Budget, it would appear that he believes the Canadian agricultural economy is sound. Does he understand that in the last four years since the Liberal Government came into power, agricultural bankruptcies have increased over 400 per cent and, more disturbingly, that in January, 1984, farm bankruptcies had increased over 60 per cent year over year? Is he aware of these facts? If so, why did he not take them into consideration in his last Budget?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have seen those figures. If the Hon. Member looks at the percentage of bankruptcies in the farming sector compared with those in the industrial sector, for instance, he will find that the agricultural economy has performed remarkably well under difficult circumstances. As far as possible measures are concerned, the Hon. Member knows that there is a Bill before the House which was introduced by my current Parliamentary Secretary, as well as one which was introduced by the Government under the Bankruptcy Act, which would help farmers. I hope this Bill receives early and complete consideration by the opposition Parties.


PLIGHT OF FARMERS WITH HIGH INTEREST RATE LOANS
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I know he will be aware, despite his protestations, that those figures represent only the tip of the iceberg and that general farm economy indicators show that there are serious problems, problems which will spread across the country and create havoc in the agricultural industry unless the Government responds.
Is the Minister aware that there are over 8,000 Canadian farmers locked into loans with interest rates up to 16.75 per cent, with the Farm Credit Corporation? Is he taking into consideration with his colleagues some relief measures for these people who are locked into these high interest rates, people who were given a program by the Government for relief of up to 4 per cent and are now, after having been considered to be in distress, faced again with high interest rates of 16.75 per cent? Is he prepared to do anything to help them?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think the Conservatives could be helpful by supporting the Bill under the Bankruptcy Act which is before the committee and getting it back into the House and passed soon. In addition, the Hon. Member will remember that we introduced measures to help farmers in difficulty, and that several tens of millions of dollars have been used for that particular purpose.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION FUND
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He will know that there is now nearly $1 billion in the Western Grain Stabilization Fund and that there is some concern with regard to the operation of the Fund. Is the Minister satisfied with the present formula for payout of moneys from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund? Bearing in mind that a study is under way at the present time, could he indicate to us how soon some amendments might be introduced, and what form those amendments might take?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member knows that in an exchange in the House before Christmas I expressed the same concern as he did, that the present operation of the Fund does not allow an effective payout during a time when there has been a reduction in farm income. As a result of that, my colleague, the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board, is presently working on a number of proposals which should be considered by Cabinet in a very short period of time. We hope they will relieve the present situation.


INFLATION FACTOR
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister anticipate a short period of time? Would it be before the start of the next crop year? In making any changes to the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, would he consider the inflation factor and increases in production which come about either by the opening of new lands or by an increase of efficiency on the part of farm producers?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has presented two very important considerations which will be taken into account during that examination. I cannot give him a precise period of time in which the changes might be made. It all depends upon agenda and timing. However, I can tell him that we consider it to be a very serious matter and one to which we are paying close attention.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but I do not know whether he has left the House or has gone fishing. I guess he has gone fishing. Oh, here he is!


An Hon. Member:: Holy mackerel!


Mr. Nielsen:: My cod!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Minister is aware from his own statements that our Atlantic salmon stocks have been seriously decimated. We learned only yesterday in committee that the Greenlanders
March 7, 1984

have caught something like 600 tons of salmon out of a quota of 1,200 tons. At three pounds per salmon, this works out to something like 441,000 salmon. What plans, if any, is the Minister making to reduce not only this quota but the interception and massive slaughter by Greenlanders of Canadian salmon?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has brought a very important issue to the attention of the House. As he noted, Greenland catches salmon, half of which originates in Canadian waters and half in Europe. I think he would agree with me that the only sensible way of approaching that problem is for there to be a joint effort by Canada and Europe to try to get Greenland to reduce its fishing of the salmon resource.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER NEGOTIATE WITH GREENLAND FISHING INDUSTRY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister has stated, some of the salmon caught by Greenlanders originates in Europe, and some in Canadian waters. However, there is a different fishing season for European salmon as opposed to Canadian salmon.
Has he given any thought to meeting with representatives of the Greenland fishing industry in the hope of convincing them to rearrange their salmon fishing season so that more European salmon are caught, as opposed to catching Canadian salmon carrying a Canadian passport, before the day arrives when we have absolutely no salmon industry left for Canadians?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, the information of the Hon. Member does not coincide with mine. My information is that it would be very difficult to make a distinction between European stock and Canadian stock. Perhaps the Hon. Member would suggest that we offer Greenland some fishing allocations off the Scotian shelf in return for reducing its salmon fishing. Perhaps that is one thing upon which the Hon. Member could reflect.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. By now I hope he will be aware of the two waitresses who were reported in the Winnipeg Free Press to have been driven into bankruptcy by the actions of his Department and the retroactive inclusion of tips in taxable incomes. Could the Minister indicate at this time whether he will do anything about that policy? When will his Department start to pick on people its
Oral Questions
own size, go after some of the big boys who are not paying taxes when they should be, and leave waitresses and other low-income Canadians alone?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, should the Hon. Member take time to ponder over his allegation, he will realize that it is totally irresponsible. He seems to think that a group of taxpayers does not pay enough income tax, but that does not justify him saying that other taxpayers ought to be relived of their responsibility to pay their taxes. I would urge him not only to read the Income Tax Act but also to examine the standard returns sent to taxpayers on which it is clearly indicated that all income must be declared, whatever the source. Unfortunately, some people disregard that basic principle from which the fairness of our income tax legislation stems. Naturally, after those people have had their returns audited, they may be forced to pay penalties and additional taxes as well. I am convinced that the Hon. Member is not suggesting in any way that the Minister of National Revenue should arbitrarily dispense any group of citizens whatever from their obligations under the Income Tax Act.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. The Minister will know that, with the application of the new Western Grain Transportation Act, a serious dislocation has been caused in the trucking industry, particularly in British Columbia. It has created some problems with regard to producers who rely on the movement of specialty crops, all as a result of the method of payment. What action is the Minister prepared to take to correct this problem, which is not only having a very serious impact upon the trucking industry but also a serious impact upon the producers who have relied upon the trucking industry to move these specialty crops?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for drawing this problem to the attention of the House. It has also been brought to my attention. I believe it is serious. It demonstrates that there are some anomalies in the workings of the Act, particularly as they affect trucking firms which are supplying service from the West Coast. The new Grain Agency Administrator has authority under the Act to negotiate new arrangements with trucking firms. Unfortunately, he does not have the money to do so. That is something that I will have to take up in terms of my own budget and determine whether there is some way to respond to that. I have a very deep concern about it. I intend

March 7, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon
to respond to it. I hope the Hon. Member might provide some assistance in helping me to work out a solution.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) on Tuesday, March 6, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders, as to form.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Fsquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, as it is appropriate on the first possible occasion to raise a question arising out of Question Period, I would like to stand today on a point of order to reserve my right to raise a question of privilege if I discover from my research that the reply given by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Hon. Member has a question of privilege, he can serve notice to the Chair tomorrow prior to the commencement of proceedings and he will be recognized. If he has a point that he wants to raise now, he can state it. There is no point of reservation.


MR. MCKINNON-CHANGE IN RECORD OF STATEMENT BY MR. FERGUSON
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some regret to raise a point of order concerning the recording of the debates in this House as reflected in today's copy of Hansard. A change has been made to an intervention by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ferguson). What I do not like is that he made a change after we had had a disagreement as to whether he knew what he was talking about when he made the statement. Subsequently he changed the statement, obviously when he was given a copy of the "blues". Of course, I received a copy of the same "blues" and it was as he said it in the House. This morning I checked the electronic transcript of the proceedings in the House of Commons yesterday afternoon when the Member in question said:
I hope that, as we look at the GIS increases and as we examine the war veterans allowance in more detail, no means test will be associated with it.
That caused me to rise in my place during the Question Period and question him on that. I said, and I quote:
In his closing remark he also said that the war veterans allowance top-up would be paid without a means test. He either does not know what he is talking about or he has just announced a radical change in government policy over the
years. If that is so, would he reassure us that he is serious and knows what he is talking about and that we are now going to have the war veterans allowance without a means test?
The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
I am sorry that my remark was taken out of context. I was referring to the means test referred to by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). This referred only to old age pensions in the past.
That is all very well on a point about debate at that time, but I object very much to having a gentleman in the House set about to win a debate by changing the record when presented with the "blues", which are not there to enable a Member to change the meaning of what he said but rather to make small and non-argumentative corrections of errors that may have slipped into Hansard. I think the Hon. Member owes the House an apology and I hope this will not happen again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will look into the matter raised by the Hon. Member for Victoria and reserve comment for the present time.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if this was taken wrongly by the Hon. Member, I should say that I fully realize that the war veterans allowance is income tested as is GIS, and there are references in there to both OAS and GIS. If I made a mistake, I apologize for it. I know the difference between the two. We are dealing with it from our constituency office. If it came out that way, it certainly was not the way it was intended. I apologize to the Hon. Member if it was taken out of context. I hope it will be taken in that context.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will accept the apology of the Hon. Member. Thank you very much.


MR. KEEPER-QUESTIONS FOR MRS. EROLA
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of Question Period. This is International Womens' Week. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women stayed in the Chamber for only half of the Question Period. We had further questions for her.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member does not have a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 71, I have the honour to present the following petition. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, concerned about the human rights violations
March 7, 1984

in the Soviet Union, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that Your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that they urge the Canadian Government to make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union concerning the release of Mykola Horbal, a Ukrainian poet, composer and musician who is now incarcertated in a Soviet concentration camp. In the opinion of the petitioners, the simple desire that people in the Ukraine enjoy the same human and national rights as do people everywhere in the free world does not constitute a criminal offence.
Wherefore the 450 signees petition for the release of Mykola Horbal, and as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 327, 328, 329, 376, 544, 616 and 684.


Mr. Stevens: In (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980 (d) 1981 (e) 1982 (f) 1983 what was the total number of passengers (i) enplaning (ii) deplaning at Mirabel International Airport?


Lloyd Axworthy: (i) Enplaning passengers at Mirabel International Airport: (a) 1978: 738,500, (b) 1979: 750,900, (c) 1980: 674,300, (d) 1981: 608,900, (e) 1982: 596,500, (f) 1983: data is not currently available.
(ii) Deplaning passengers at Mirabel International Airport:
(a)	1978: 771,500, (b) 1979: 800,300, (c) 1980: 733,000, (d) 1981: 635,900, (e) 1982: 616,900, (0 1983: data is not currently available.
Note: The data shown above represents revenue passengers carried on total unit toll and total charter services using aircraft over 18,000 pounds (8165 kg).


Mr. Stevens: In (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980 (d) 1981 (e) 1982 (0 1983 what was the total number of passengers (i) enplaning (ii) deplaning at Toronto International Airport?


Lloyd Axworthy: (i) Enplaning passengers at Toronto International Airport*: (a) 1978: 6,170,300, (b) 1979: 6,999,500, (c) 1980: 7,234,100, (d) 1981:
Order Paper Questions
7,232,000, (e) 1982: 6,746,100, (0 1983: data not currently available.
(ii) Deplaning passengers at Toronto International Airport*:
(a)	1978: 6,192,200, (b) 1979: 7,041,100, (c) 1980: 7,288,500, (d) 1981: 7,305,300, (e) 1982: 6,787,800, (0 1983: data not currently available.
Note: The data shown above represents revenue passengers carried on total unit toll and total charter services using aircraft over 18,000 pounds (8165 kg).
* Lester B. Pearson International Airport


Mr. Stevens: In (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980 (d) 1981 (e) 1982 (0 1983 what was the total number of passengers (i) enplaning (ii) deplaning at Dorval Airport?


Lloyd Axworthy: (i) Enplaning passengers at Dorval Airport: (a) 1978: 2,796,500, (b) 1979: 3,084,400, (c) 1980: 3,156,600, (d) 1981: 3,112,300, (e) 1982: 2,716,900, (f) 1983: data not currently available.
(ii) Deplaning passengers at Dorval Airport: (a) 1978: 2,788,300, (b) 1979: 3,078,000, (c) 1980: 3,147,800, (d) 1981: 3,107,100, (e) 1982: 2,721,100, (f) 1983: data not currently available.
Note: The data shown above represents revenue passengers carried on total unit toll and total charter services using aircraft over 18,000 pounds (8165 kg).


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the current fiscal year how many persons are employed in the office of the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat and what is the total estimated cost of salaries?
2.	For each of the two preceding fiscal years what amount was spent for salaries?


John Leslie Evans: 1. There are 28 persons employed by the Secretariat. The estimated salary costs including overtime will be $833,000. Three provincial secondments are included in this cost as the Secretariat reimburses the provincial governments for the cost of these salaries.
2. 1982-83-$707,000 (includes three provincial secondments), 1981-82-$781,000 (includes seven provincial secondments).


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information was available, what proportion of the employees of the Department of Public Works were women?


Hon. Romeo LeBIanc (Minister of Public Works):: As of
January 27, 1984-23.7 per cent.

March 7, 1984
Order Paper Questions WAITING PERIOD FOR PENSION REVIEW


Mr. Towers: To the knowledge of the Government during what average period is a veteran required to wait after having made an application for a hearing to the (a) Pension Review Board (b) Pension Commission (c) War Veterans Allowance Board (d) Bureau of Pensions Advocates?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) Pension Review Board: nine months, (b) Canadian Pension Commission: 10 months, (c) War Veterans Allowance Board: appeal cases, two months and five days, review of cases, one month and 24 days, (d) Bureau of Pensions Advocates: five and a half months.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead): Is the Government considering the establishment of a Crown agency, or other Crown emanation, to operate Canadair CL-215 aircraft in the Northwest Territories or other locations and, if so, for what reason?


John Leslie Evans: No consideration is being given at present.


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House, and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary, Question No. 717 which stands on the Order Paper and was placed on the Order Paper covering the period of February 26 to March 3. I would not wish to impugn the reputation of any Cabinet Minister of the Government. However, they are involved in a leadership campaign. There have already been allegations made as to the misuse of government aircraft, so I would mention to the Parliamentary Secretary that although I do not expect the question to be answered today, I expect it to be answered next week. Each and every week between now and the leadership convention the same question will be placed on the Order Paper. If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot find it in his heart to answer those questions week by week, then the Canadian public can make a judgement as to the illegal, improper and expensive use of taxpayers' money in a narrowly political campaign. I give the Parliamentary Secretary fair warning. Please have my question answered week by week so that the Canadian public will know what is going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to answer the Hon. Member's question, but I think he said that the question was put on the Order Paper during the week when the House was not sitting. This week is the first week we are back from our winter break, and that means that we have had notice of this question for only three days. We will do our best to answer that question and subsequent questions that Hon. Members in the Opposition put before us, but I think it is only reasonable to expect that a little bit of time should be given in order to answer questions that are put on the Order Paper. Three days are certainly not adequate.


Eric Cook: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary overlooked the entire nature of my remarks. I was putting him on notice that I wanted the question answered. It actually appeared on the Notice Paper yesterday. I did not expect an answer today, but I wanted him to know that I will be rising to my feet after a length of time has gone by without an answer to that question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point.
[ Translation]


John Leslie Evans: I 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 stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1984-85, I wish to place the terms of the Bill within the context of the two most recent Budgets, the April 1983 Budget and the Budget of last month. The Budget of last month does not represent any departure from the fiscal policy developed in last April's Budget. In fact, it represents a confirmation and continuation of that fiscal policy.
The objective of both Budgets has been to encourage an investment-led expansion of economic activity that will create
March 7, 1984

the employment that I am sure all of us in the House seek without the resurgence of inflation that has hindered our economic growth in the past. Our objective has been pursued both through short-term demand side policies designed to provide immediate stimulus and jobs and through longer term supply side measures which have been designed to increase investment and productivity in the Canadian economy. A fundamental dual strategy has included the acceptance of higher deficits in the period from 1982 to 1984 while simultaneously putting in place specific policies to help ensure that the federal deficit declines with economic recovery and expansion.
In the most recent Budget, Mr. Speaker, there were only minor changes made in the economic and fiscal projections contained within last April's Budget. The stability in our fiscal forecast is an indication that we are fully committed to the fiscal strategy set out last April and confirmed in the most recent Budget. This continuity in fiscal policy will also help provide the public with greater assurance about the future, including our commitment to medium-term deficit reduction.
Interest rates, exchange rates, business investment plans and many other important economic variables obviously depend to a great extent upon the public's expectations about the short to medium-term future. I wish to say a word about that point before turning to the terms of the Bill itself. The Budget of last month gives Canadians every good reason to expect that economic recovery will be followed by solid expansion. We in the Government are not relying on "quick fixes". We have put policies in place that will contribute to the completion of recovery and the introduction of rapid expansion in our economy. Most of the jobs required over the next several years must come from the private sector and not from government. That was a key element in the Budget of last April and again in the Budget of last month.
A principal point in our strategy to facilitate a sustained expansion is policies to promote business investment. The recent Budget contains measures additional to those of last April's Budget designed to support business cash flow which will facilitate additional investment. The small business tax rate now applies to more businesses. This will increase aftertax earnings, and the tax simplification that was introduced in last month's Budget will reduce administrative costs faced by small business.
In the energy sector, and additional year of suspension of the incremental revenue tax will increase the after-tax earnings in the petroleum sector. Over the longer term, the imaginative and far-reaching pension reform proposals contained in last month's Budget will increase the savings rate, providing a larger pool from which to finance private investment.
The major policies designed to bolster business investment were announced in last April's Budget. The Budget of last month is a continuation of the proposals set forth in last April's Budget. Those included a liberalization of the investment tax credit, the share-purchase tax credit, the indexed share investment plan, extended loss carryforwards, research
Borrowing Authority Act
and development tax incentives, and the suspension of the incremental oil revenue tax. The legislation for those policy initiatives has now been passed. Also announced in last April's Budget were a number of spending initiatives designed to support private investment, such as the Special Recovery Investment Fund, technology policy initiatives, and an expanded mandate for the Federal Business Development Bank. These policy initiatives will have a significant effect on business cash flow and investment in the time immediately ahead.
In the current fiscal year, financial requirements, excluding foreign exchange transactions, are now expected to be $27 billion, little different from the projection made in our Budget of last April. The economy has in fact been expanding in much the way the Government expected that it would in the projections offered a year ago. Indeed, in several respects the performance of the economy has exceeded those forecasts. Our fiscal plan is on track.
I should like to remind the House, however, that forecasting is an art, not a science. The precise estimate of financial requirements provided in last month's Budget should be interpreted as the most probable outcome, with some variations naturally occurring above or below the forecasted line. The difficulties in providing a highly accurate forecast are heightened when it is done before the close of the fiscal year. Given the arbitrary cut-off date for the fiscal year, relatively short delays in receiving revenues can have a significant impact in year to year movements in financial requirements. Similarly, expenditures may be deferred from one fiscal year to the next simply because of a month or two delay in letting contracts of a major character or in the delivery of material.
For the 1984-85 fiscal year, financial requirements, excluding foreign exchange transactions, are projected to be $25.5 billion, or roughly $1.5 billion less than the estimated requirements of the current fiscal year. This substantial decline in financial requirements reflects an acceleration in the growth of budgetary revenues, a slower growth in budgetary expenditures and a small decline in the net source of funds from non-budgetary transactions.
Having noted the reduction in the financial requirements for the 1984-85 fiscal year, I should like to turn now to the question of the borrowing authority itself.
Under the Financial Administration Act, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament. Accordingly, the Bill currently before the House seeks new borrowing authority of $29.5 billion. This is an amount equivalent to the $25.5 billion financial requirements set out in the Budget, plus a non-lapsing contingency amount of $4 billion to be carried forward for possible use in the fiscal year 1985-86.
As Hon. Members know, the request for a non-lapsing contingency amount is not new; there is nothing unexpected or radical in the provision. In the past, however, there has been some misunderstanding of the purpose of this important provision of the Bill. Perhaps that misunderstanding can be reduced

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
if I outline the background related to prior requests for amounts and the reasons for the $4 billion in the new Bill.
Throughout the mid-1970s, when new borrowing authority was sought by way of appropriation Bills which was our practice at that time, a contingency amount was always included. Likewise, in more recent years when borrowing authority has been sought by way of special Bills, a non-lapsing contingency amount has always been included. Recently the contingency amount has been in the order of $4 billion. I want to stress that this amount is intended to cover contingencies only; it does not permit spending beyond what has been approved by Parliament. It does not run counter to an authority given on an on-going basis by Acts of Parliament. Examples of the latter are unemployment insurance benefits, public debt charges, and transfers to Provinces.
The contingency amount is largely designed to cover two special situations of critical importance. The first is the need to accommodate the impact of large and unpredictable foreign exchange operations on our financial requirements, and the second is to ensure that the Government will be able to continue its regular debt program if the House is not in session or if it has been dissolved.
In the case of foreign exchange operations, either upward or downward pressure on the Canadian dollar can give rise to the use of the borrowing authority. In the case of downward pressure, official holdings of foreign exchange are depleted, creating a possible need to undertake foreign borrowings. In the opposite case, foreign exchange is acquired through the sale of Canadian dollars, thereby adding to cash requirements.
In the past, the Government has always acted responsibly in utilizing such contingency amounts when they have been provided. We on this side of the House recognize the need to resolve any uncertainty as to how long non-lapsing contingency amounts authorized in previous Bills and that requested in the Bill before us should remain outstanding. As a result, Clause 3 of the Bill before us is designed to eliminate any such uncertainty. It provides that any unused borrowing authority carried forward from previous fiscal years shall expire either on April 2 of this year or when the Borrowing Authority Act, 1984-85 comes into force, whichever is the later date. Consequently, with the passage of the Bill before us, the only contingency amount outstanding would be $4 billion. It is intended that once new borrowing authority is obtained for the 1985-86 fiscal year, any remaining unused portion of the $4 billion contingency amount would be cancelled.
We believe that the Government should proceed in this way on a regular basis. Thus we envisage an on going process which provides a non-lapsing contingency amount which would give the Government some flexibility but, at the same time, would be unavailable to be carried forward beyond the coming into force of the new authority. Such a scheme is fiscally responsible. It would ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate borrowing authority for each fiscal year. The method of providing some contingency which is subsequently cancelled annually provides a reasonable balance between the responsibility of Parliament to review the granting of borrowing authority and, at the same time, provides sufficient flexibility to ensure an orderly debt program.
Let me explain in a little more detail why providing some flexibility with respect to borrowing authority is important. The Government, like any responsible corporate borrower, must be in a position to conduct its borrowing operations without any timing constraints. In this way it is possible to take advantage of market opportunities so as to minimize overall debt charges. In view of the size of the federal financial requirements and the relative size of the Government's debt operations in capital markets, timing can be of critical importance. The level of outstanding government debt will increase by an average of about $2 billion every month. In addition, previously issued debt is coming due and must be refinanced. Each new issue is carefully tailored to meet the prevailing market conditions and investor demand. Any disruption in the ongoing borrowing program might lead to unnecessary disruptions and erratic pressures in capital markets. In turn, this could lead to pressures on interest rates, higher debt charges for the taxpayer and higher borrowing costs for both individuals and businesses across our country.
Clearly, given the size of the Government's financial operations, even a savings of a small fraction of 1 per cent can involve significant dollar amounts. Because of the relative importance of public debt charges in total government expenditure, it is our primary goal to minimize such charges. This goal can only be achieved if ample borrowing authority is always available so as to ensure that the large borrowing operations of the Government do not interfere with those of other levels of Government, provincial or municipal, or the private sector. We have a collective responsibility to see that the goal of minimizing public debt charges is vigorously pursued.
Another factor requiring the ongoing availability of borrowing authority concerns the impact of exchange market operations. Of special importance in this connection is the possible situation when the Canadian dollar is under heavy pressure and U.S. dollar working balances are low, thereby requiring that they be supplemented by drawing on the standby lines of credit which the Government maintains with Canadian and international banks. Toward the end of March when the borrowing authority is nearing exhaustion the Government may find itself in a position where it is unable to utilize either of its two standby lines of credit, if the need arises. Should such a situation materialize, the only alternative may be higher domestic interest rates.
Finally, I would note that the first fiscal quarter is usually a period of particularly heavy seasonal cash requirements because of tax refunds and other factors. Such a cash drain may be financed by market borrowings. Also, there is a large marketable Canada bond issue maturing on April 1. When the $967 million in maturing bonds is refunded in mid-March, there may be an opportunity to raise new cash. This can only
March 7, 1984

be done if there is sufficient borrowing authority available to the Government.
As a matter of interest to Hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, I should like to outline how the Government has made use of the borrowing authority which was conferred on it by Parliament for the current fiscal year. The total mount of authority provided for 1983-1984 was S26.7 billion, which was equivalent to the financial requirements projected in the April, 1983 Budget. This borrowing authority consisted of $2 billion of non-lapsing authority carried forward from the Borrowing Authority Act, 1982-1983, $14 billion from the Borrowing Authority Act, 1983-1984, and $10.7 billion from the Borrowing Authority Act, 1983-1984 (No. 2). To date in the fiscal year, domestic borrowing operations have used about $26 billion of borrowing authority, composed of: $11.5 billion through the issue of Threasury bills, $8.5 billion through the issue of marketable bonds, and $6 billion through net sales of Canada Savings Bonds. However, total use of borrowing authority so far this fiscal year has been reduced by net redemptions of foreign denominated loans. Three foreign loans have matured so far in 1983-1984. The foreign exchange reserves which were used to redeem these loans were partially replaced when the Government borrowed U.S. $500 million in the Eurobond market in October, 1983.
On balance, therefore, foreign borrowing operations have reduced total use of borrowing authority by about $500 million this fiscal year. This means that a total of $25.5 billion of the $26.7 billion of borrowing authority provided by Parliament has been used to date. There is currently about $1.2 billion of unused borrowing authority. The Government expects to use most of this remaining authority by the end of this fiscal year.
While it is obviously desirable that Parliament have adequate time to study the new borrowing authority Bill, its early review would result in an efficient use of parliamentary time. The Estimates have been provided to the House and the debate on the Budget was completed yesterday. Thus the essential prerequisites for determining the level of borrowing authority, which are the planned sources of revenue and expenditures, have now been provided in complete detail and should contribute to the orderly completion of the debate on the Bill now before us.
To sum up, dealing with this Bill in a responsible manner will benefit the taxpayer by helping to minimize public debt charges and avoid unnecessary pressures on financial markets and interest rates. It will also facilitate policies to support the smooth functioning of the exchange markets. I have great confidence in the resourcefulness and strength of Canada's financial markets. They are among the most efficient anywhere in the world. During the recent years of difficult international economic circumstances the Government has been able to meet its financial requirements without any evidence of crowding out other major borrowers from domestic markets. At the same time, we have benefited from an appreciable decline in interest rates. The projected medium-term decline in the financial requirements of the Government should help to provide the necessary room for other major
Borrowing Authority Act
borrowers during a period of sustained economic recovery which Canada is currently experiencing.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister in explaining his Bill said that the Bill represented a continuation of the Government's plan for the economy. Well, Sir, that is exactly what it is. It is a continuation of the Government's plan for the economy to put the economy into irreversible insolvency. Indeed, Sir, these borrowing Bills which keep coming before us time after time after time, should be named now no longer "borrowing authority Bills", but rather "Liberal national insolvency Acts". This Bill should be named "Liberal national insolvency Act No. 1 for the second session of this Parliament".
The amount of this Bill, Sir, strikes a new level in borrowing demand. This Government is coming to the House and asking that the House approve its going to the markets for $29.5 billion of authority. That is $10 billion higher than any other previous demand. It is the highest demand on Parliament in the history of Parliament. It is unconscionable. It is improper. It cannot be supported by any thinking Member of the House. This House should rise up, Sir, and demand an end to this, not only on behalf of us as Hon. Members and of our constituents, but on behalf of our children, our children's children and our children's children yet unborn or even thought of.
The amount of debt this Government has incurred must be put on record. When this Government took office after the February 18, 1980 election, our net debt was $68,595 billion. That was an enormous amount bearing in mind there was only $17 billion owing when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office in 1968. However, since March of 1980, this Government has pushed the net debt to the point that by March 31 of this year it will approach $151 billion, an increase of at least $92 billion in this Parliament alone. This Parliament, Mr. Speaker, will go down in history as a Parliament of spendthrifts, wasters and profligates, a Parliament that should have been turned out. When we retire from this place, how can we look at our grandchildren and say we sat in this House and did this to them? Yet that is what this Minister and this Government are asking us to do. By the end of the next fiscal year, Mr. Speaker, by March of 1985, if this borrowing plan carries on, this country's net debt will be $180 billion. Having put the nation in this position of bankruptcy, how can we face the nation?
Today our dollar is under attack on world markets. When I came to the House our dollar was trading at 79.3 cents U.S. It has been under attack and is slipping badly. Yesterday the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) was quoted as saying that he was not going to lose any sleep over that.


Roy MacLaren: Nor are you.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: He does not care about the confidence the world places in Canada, or the confidence the people of Canada place in this Government. He is not going to lose any sleep because the Germans can keep interest rates down and

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
their currency gets stronger. Ele is not going to lose any sleep because the Japanese can keep their interest rates significantly below ours and their currency gets stronger. He does not care that the British can get their interest rates well below ours and their currency gets stronger. No, he is not going to lose any sleep over the condition of the Canadian economy. He is just going to borrow more and spend more, as the Minister said, at least $2 billion a month more. He will roll over the existing debt on shorter and shorter terms so that now it will all be due in less than three years. And we as Members of a responsible Parliament should stand by and allow this condition to continue. It is a travesty on the concept of Parliament from the very beginning.
I suppose part of the problem with our dollar is that the world now knows that the Prime Minister has resigned. People had some confidence in him, thought he was a good leader. But they look at this Cabinet-we cannot see them here today-and they see yesterday's men. They know that if any one of them takes the leadership of the Liberal Party things will get even worse. They do not have a fresh idea or a fresh way of approaching the problems. The Minister said today that we must have the flexibility to keep the market going so that we can borrow more and more. Every week the Government will borrow 500 million fresh bucks, every business day $100 million more will go into the maw of this Government. The Government has to borrow 31 cents of every dollar it spends. The blue book we received the other day should not be a blue book; it should be a red book, because it is a red ink Government all the way.
This cannot be allowed to continue, Mr. Speaker. We saw the other day that Statistics Canada could not figure out what happened to $6.6 billion which was supposed to be in the current account surplus. They wondered about that, and StatsCan made the observation that the $6.6 billion, known as errors and omissions, seems to have gone to finance illegal drugs, U.S. real estate and stocks. They suspect a lot of money is being laundered through Canadian subsidiaries in countries with friendly tax regimes such as the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas.
Well, what is happening? Not only has the world no confidence in Canada, but a lot of Canadians have no confidence in Canada because they have this Government here and it borrows and spends and wastes. They are taking their cash out of Canada despite our trade surpluses. That is why there are errors and omissions of this nature. They are not errors or omissions, they are people taking their cash out of this country because this Government gives them no confidence. That is why conditions in the U.S. are far better than here. The U.S. federal reserve estimates that U.S. industry is operating at 79.9 per cent capacity. American unemployment is significantly lower than ours. American business has optimism. And now we are faced with being crowded out because as American business expands, it borrows and we will not be able to tap the American money market as we have in the past. We will have to depend on Canadian savings, which are running away from Canada. It is not a simple matter, but it has to be addressed
and cannot be left to this Government, which will carry on in its usual fashion. We will get the usual borrowing authority Bill, the usual $29.5 billion of demand on the credit markets of the country.
Within 100 days or so, Mr. Speaker, the Government is going to select at the Liberal Convention a new Leader. That person will presumably form his own Cabinet and will either go to the country for a mandate, as he properly should, perhaps in August of this year, or he will try to hang on by his fingertips for the balance of time constitutionally available to this Parliament. In any case, Sir, this House can meet on the first Monday after Labour Day of this year. The House should have until then to determine how it organizes its priorities and spending demands and to take a fresh look at where we are taking our families, our children and our children's children.
We are going to have a new Government, whether a Liberal Government or a real new Government created by Members on this side in this Party. There is going to be a new Government in the country very shortly. That being the case, there is no justification for voting borrowing authority beyond the life of the Government. It would be improper for the House to vote borrowing authority to carry the Government beyond October 31 of this year. The House should give the Government no more than $15 billion in borrowing authority. The Government has $4 billion to $5 billion in the bank now. The reason this Bill expires on April 2 is that the Government intends to borrow by then the additional $1.2 billion for which it has authority. The Government will go into the new fiscal year with a good hunk of dough in the bank. If it has borrowing authority for $15 billion, under all circumstances it should have more than sufficient to carry it, even with the squandering, wasting and throwing away of money which the Government has done.
Therefore, the very best we can do at this point is to limit the borrowing authority to carry this wasteful Budget only until the end of October. All it requires is $15 billion, and that is where we ought to cut this Bill off.
I have spoken before about wasteful and profligatory spending. The chief economist of the Conference Board, Tom Maxwell, said, as reported in the Montreal Gazette:
The question ... is no longer whether we are dead in the water but when?
He said that what's happened in the U.S. over the past four years shows how difficult it would be for Ottawa to solve its debt problem, if it decides to try.
We have to try to cut back our expenditures.
I would like now to quote Paul Volcker speaking to the American budget committee. Speaking of the American government, he said:
In essence, the demands of the federal Government limit the rate of growth of other credit-absorbing sectors of the economy. The rationing device is interest rates held higher than would otherwise be the case. Under the circumstances, the more rapidly the economy grows and generates private credit demands, the greater the risk of rising interest rates.
March 7, 1984

He went on to say:
We cannot reasonably escape from these problems by "monetizing" the Treasury debt through excessive expansion of bank credit and the money supply. The federal reserve could, in concept, take an approach which inflated all the numbers. But it cannot increase savings and reduce the savings-investment imbalance by undermining confidence. What must be done is to deal with the source of the problem-the excessive deficits. While it is already late to make significant changes for fiscal year 1984, action now affecting fiscal 1985 and later years can only work in the direction of moderating potential pressures, if sufficiently forceful. The market could then well anticipate the time the actions become effective. At the least, the risks of eroding confidence and new market pressures should be relieved . . . The large deficits now being projected can be self-perpetuating.
Mr. Volcker went on to say that the credit crunch, the tight money period, and the recession we had did much to eliminate inflation. All that will be lost if we continue trying to borrow and to print ourselves rich. We cannot run this country on a VISA card any more than you and I, Mr. Speaker, can run our families' household budgets using a VISA card to buy the groceries.
People have asked what we are going to do. First of all, we cannot continue any longer having 31 per cent of the expenditures of the Government financed with borrowed money. We have to consider where we are, where we have been and what our spending priorities are. The Budget provides for a 22 per cent increase in moneys going to Crown corporations.
Two days ago in the Supplementary Estimates we got the next tab for Canadair and de Havilland. By the end of this fiscal year, through the past 15 months, we will have paid to those Crown corporations $1.25 billion. We have not come to grips with the issue yet. In Question Period today the Prime Minister said we will have to spend more money. That is waste. There is something wrong. We cannot continue this way. We do not have the savings in the country to continue this way. We cannot operate with that kind of expenditure. We cannot operate with expenditures which contemplate giving the Post Office $1 billion over a two year period. We cannot operate with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation becoming larger and larger. It now costs $900 million a year. I doubt if we can continue to pay people to insulate their homes or change their furnaces. I do not believe I should receive a grant to buy a heat pump because it may save me some oil and put some money in my pocket, whether or not that grant is taxable. I do not believe I should tell my constituents, or you, Mr. Minister, should tell your constituents that the country should go into the credit markets of the world and create massive deficits to buy me a heat pump. That is what we have in legislation and that is unconscionable.
I believe that without interfering with social programs at all we could cut $5 billion from our Budget deficit. I received a letter from a former civil servant. He says:
i am not alone in stating this inasmuch as 35 years of service culminating by promotion to upper levels of management has provided ample opportunities to observe waste, sloth and over staffing especially abroad at Embassies and High Commissions to say nothing at this time of UN offices where we are represented.
The Government says that there is nothing that it can do. That is unacceptable to me, my children and my grandchild.
Borrowing Authority Act
We have proposed that the House of Commons establish a committee of the House to set priorities for the expenditures of Government. We believe that the social programs, such as pensions, family allowances, the child tax credits, the health care provisions and the educational provisions rank first. While there are many other expenditures which may be necessary, surely there is a time for priorizing. Surely there is a time to ask if we can afford the amount that is being spent on art, for example, when the Government must pay interest rates which exist today. Can we really afford a broadcasting system such as we have when the Government is paying the bank what it is currently paying? Can we really afford to go to the markets every week to auction Treasury bills at $2 billion each to pay for the losses in Devco, Canadair or de Havilland?
We are elected to make decisions. The present system prevents Members of Parliament from making decisions with respect to priorizing the expenditures of Government. There is no mechanism for deciding whether matters which come before the Broadcasting Committee take higher priority than the expenditures that are proposed in the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion. There is simply an alphabet soup of programs for which there is no priority. The existing programs seem to expand every year. There is no zero based budgeting. No attention is being paid to the future or to serious current planning and budget controls.
Our Party has made a pledge to this country. Let me quote from a speech made by my Leader to the Young President's Organization at the National Club in Toronto on February 23. He said:
We need to take a hard look at current planning and budgetary controls.
Ask any civil servant involved in the process, and he or she will tell you that the current system, while a major improvement over its predecessor, still encourages padding of stated requirements and unnecessary spending to consume reserves.
One reason why the Minister has so many demands on money in the first quarter of the year is to pay bills that were incurred in the last quarter of the fiscal year. Departments scramble over themselves to spend all the money in its Estimates. Yet there is no effort made by Treasury Board, the Finance Committee or any committee of the House to control that kind of spending.
My views about whether the Government can carry on in this fashion have been expressed by others. For example, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), in his previous capacity as Minister of Finance, said on June 28, 1982, as recorded at page 18883 of Hansard:
Some say the government should print more money. Others say it should let the deficit rip.
But that would fail miserably. Inflation and unemployment would get worse. Interest rates would rise even more. Canada would price itself out of world markets. Recovery would be postponed.
His deficit program in June of 1982 was $25.25 billion.
What has the Government done? The deficit rips, the borrowing rips and the demands get larger and larger. We are being asked to rubberstamp a borrowing Bill for $29.5 billion. We cannot as the House of Commons in good conscience allow

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
this Bill to pass in its present form. I have suggested that the Bill be reduced to $15 billion and that Parliament work together, as it should, to priorize government expenditures. All the Liberal members will not be involved in their convention. A number of them will be here since they have responsibilities to their ridings as elected Members of Parliament. That is what they are being paid for. We can sit down together to discuss government expenditure priorities. We can work on the problem of government expenditure programs, as parliamentarians should. We can develop recommendations for the new Government of Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, because problems must be faced by Parliament. I suggest that it is totally irresponsible for us to pass this Bill in its present form.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority to the Government of Canada. The Bill asks for authority to borrow $29.55 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85. Page 5 of the Budget Speech indicates that the Government's borrowing requirements for the full year would be an additional $25.6 billion, leaving a discretionary $4 billion for unforeseen contingencies. I suppose such contingencies would include intervening in the foreign exchange market to support the dollar, which is where many billions of dollars have gone in the past.
My speech follows that of the spokesman for the Official Opposition, the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). Lie pointed out some of the problems in granting such a large amount of money for such a lengthy period. He has proposed to reduce that amount by half on the assumption that, since the Government will no longer exist six months from now, half of the spending authority should be quite adequate. I presume that the adequacy of the amount will be argued in Committee of the Whole.
I would like to spend a few moments at the outset of my remarks to consider the assumption that there will be a new government. Apparently my friend from Mississauga South assumed that there would be a new Progressive Conservative government and left the impression that there would be a great change as a result of such a switch in label. I found that very interesting, as I am sure many people in Canada did, because it has been the primary topic of conversation throughout the country. The perception has been left that the Conservatives would gain control of the public debt and bring matters into a manageable form. This caused me to obtain some of the tables showing past perfomance in this area. I received a publication from the Canadian Tax Foundation entitled The National Finances. It was an analysis of revenues and expenditures of Governments of Canada up to 1982-83. It contains an interesting table on page 156 which goes through the years from 1940 to 1982, at which point the table ends. It takes public debt and shows it as a percentage of the gross national product of the country for each year. I will not read the entire table into the record, but there are some periods of time which might be of interest to those who look at public debt over the long term.
Immediately after the Second World War we had, as would be predicted having spent a great deal of money in the war effort, a net debt of 113.1 per cent of the GNP. We came out of the war years with a total debt of more than one year's GNP. That was a tremendous debt. We went into the war attempting to fight deficits, trying to keep expenditures down, and suddenly, when faced with the prospect of war, the purse strings were loosened and expenditure took place. Full employment occurred and we incurred a debt as a percentage of GNP of 113.1 per cent. We worked very hard at reducing that debt in post-war years until about 1964-65 when it was down to about the 30-per cent range.
Having watched the Liberal Government over the past five years or six years, I thought it always increased national debt in relation to gross national product. However, I have to confess that the facts show otherwise for the period from 1965 to 1977-78. It actually declined. The public debt as a percentage of the GNP was down to the 13-per cent to 15-per cent range for a few years in the middle seventies. In 1978, the net debt was 19 per cent of that year's GNP. Given the rhetoric we have been hearing in the House and the perception on the streets, on public television and in other media, one would think that in the 1979 interim when we had a Conservative Government that percentage would have been under attack and would have gone down from the 19 per cent with which we were left after the high-spending Liberals were defeated. It did not happen. At the end of 1979 when the Conservative Government fell, rather than being 19 per cent, our percentage of debt to gross national product was 24.2 per cent. There was a rapid increase in just nine months or ten months of Conservative Government. Our debt began to get out of hand in 1979. It started with our friends, the Conservatives. Granted, it was continued by the Liberals. It continued to remain in the middle 20 per cent range. Today we are approaching 30 per cent of our GNP being net debt. However, the big change occurred when we had a Conservative Government.
It was with a great deal of dubiousness that I sat and listened to the speeches of my friends to my right. They told us that they and only they would get public debt into perspective. The facts of the matter are that the only time in the last few years when they had that power, they abused it or gave up the chance, and it jumped from 19 per cent to 24.2 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You know better than that.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Read the record.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Read the record yourself.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Relying on Progressive Conservatives to get the public debt in order is a rather unlikely scenario.
My own Province of Saskatchewan has a long history of CCF and NDP Governments. I would like to look briefly at how they handled deficit financing. After the war like many provinces, particularly western prairie provinces, when the CCF under Tommy Douglas came into power, Saskatchewan
March 7, 1984

inherited a Liberal and Conservative nightmare of spending. There was a large public debt. It took eight years to reduce that public debt so that subsequent budgets would be breakeven budgets without going into deficit financing. That tradition continued until the defeat of the NDP by the Progressive Conservative Party. In two short years that little Province of Saskatchewan with approximately one million people had in excess of $600 million of debt. The estimates indicate that the budget which will be levied in that province shortly will show an increase in the deficit one more time, again under a Progressive Conservative Government, the very people who have been saying that they know how to handle public debt and deficits. They certainly do! They are the growth Party- the Party that is able to make deficits grow very quickly. That Party's slogan in the last Saskatchewan campaign was, "There is so much more we can be". It is becoming very clear what that slogan means-further in debt.
The per capita debt for the Province of Saskatchewan in the last year rose from just over $4,000 to just over $5,000. That was an increase of more than $1,000 per capita or an increase of 25 per cent in the gross debt of the province in one year of Conservative Government. They know how to handle the situation! Therefore I understand why the rhetoric continues without reference to the facts.
I listened to my friends on both sides of the House who spoke before me. There are places where the public debt incurred by these Governments could be reduced in ways which would add to the gross national product instead of detract from it by way of increasing the amount of interest payments on the public debt that taxpayers have to come up with. Better management is not something that is easily described, but certain things have gone on of which the public is well aware that do not indicate careful management and good husbandry. We only have to look at the Canadair debacle where $ 1 billion went down the tube. The Auditor General was critical of the handling of the situation. All Hon. Members of the House have been critical of it as well. It proceeded for several years and no one seemed to take any interest in solving the problem until $1 billion or more of taxpayers' money had gone into that particular operation.
There are incentive programs offered which are of questionable value to Canadians. I will not spend a great deal of time talking about some of the ones to which the Hon. Member for Mississauga south referred. He raised a question as to whether public funds should be used to help him finance buying a heat pump. He can question that kind of spending. We all do. At least that particular expenditure results in increases to GNP and employment, unlike many of the incentive programs supported by both the old Parties which do not necessarily produce more jobs or increase the GNP. One of the more visible ones in that category would be the Petroleum Incentives Programs, the PIP grants, which have often been described as a colossal waste of money, something like $1.6 billion plus each year to drill holes in various parts of Canada Lands in an attempt to find oil. I think the track record has been oil in two of those holes to this point. Some gas has been found, but very
Borrowing Authority Act
little oil. Oil has been found in sites where it is economically impossible at this point to bring it to market. These are very questionable expenditures.
Some of the Liberal slush funds that have been discussed in this House in the last three or four months are very questionable in terms of adding to the gross national product or adding to employment opportunities, even though that was the designation of many of these. A great many of them have dubious value in terms of supplying long-term employment.
I turn now to some of the really big ones, such as deferred corporate taxes. What we have here is bookkeeping operations where we accelerate depreciation that really does not occur. We are giving a benefit for an expense that never really occurs. We are in effect allowing corporations to depreciate assets, which normally depreciate over 10 or 20 years, in two or three years and to set aside the funds for their own use. The problem that this raises is that it gives a direct benefit to those kinds of operations, an advantage of sourcing funds at virtually a zero interest rate as opposed to the sourcing abilities of small businessmen who are not always in a position to have that amount of funds available to them by way of accelerated depreciation. The beginning business and the small businessman is put at a disadvantage compared to the large corporations which are able to accumulate something in the neighbourhood of $22 billion or $23 billion in funds which they are allowed to defer for income purposes. They have the use of those funds at a very low rate, if any rate at all. The real risk takers, the small businessman and those attempting to start new businesses, have to get their capital at the market value, which is a much higher price.
The response of the Government when this has been pointed out has been strange and, I suppose, predictable. I do not see that either one of the two major Parties would approach the problem any differently. For example, the Budget before last allowed for an Indexed Securities Investment Plan for the middle-size and small investor. They can now go to the stock market and set up an ISIP and avoid part of the capital gains tax that such investments would normally have accrued to them.
People who purchase securities and stocks of publicly-traded companies get a tax advantage. They can avoid the normal capital gains tax that small businessmen and farmers, people like you and I, would have to pay if we were operating a small business or farms. Because they trade under this allowable loophole, the Indexed Securities Investment Plan, they do not have to declare all of the capital gains as income, not even half. In fact, it is about one-quarter. Therefore, there is an advantage for publicly-traded securities which private individuals trying to run a small business or farm do not have. They are at a disadvantage compared to those kinds of investors.
Either Party would operate pretty much the same because there was support from the Government and the Official Opposition for these kinds of tax breaks. This creates two

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
levels of investment citizens. There are the ordinary citizens attempting to set up and continue a small business or farm who operate at high interest rates, a money from the bank situation. Their competitors, the large, publicly-traded and incorporated firms, are able to get their funds at lower rates. Not only do they get them at lower rates, but they are able to pay much lower taxes than the individual attempting to get the economy going by starting his own business, operating a farm or a service industry.
The giving up of money which the Government has allowed has created inequities. It has not solved the problem of deficit spending. In fact, it has exacerbated it, creating more hardship for Canadians like you and I. What can be done? There are a number of areas where some expenditure would help. There are a couple of areas where we proposed to make expenditures where we should have second thoughts. One is just a small one, but it is very important. It gives an impression to the world and to Canadians regarding what we think of expenditures and the use of tax funds. I refer to the proposal to expand the size of this House. It will involve an annual cost of $14 million to $15 million, not big in the scheme of things. It would add 28 Members with concomitant staff. The people of Canada will not be better represented by having an additional 28 Members and another 100 and some staff members. There are better ways to create employment. That is one area where Members on all sides of this House should act to show there is some concern for public expenditures. It would in a small way to show that some effort is being made to get public expenditures under control.
Our Party has put forward a number of proposals that would increase the gross national product and not increase the public debt. It would provide a great many jobs, particularly for young people who are discriminated against when it comes to job availability. A certain number of jobs can be created by improvements to municipal infrastructures such as bridges, sewer systems, changes to the railways that go through certain cities, and ports. A great deal needs to be done in the way of public and co-operative housing. There is still a great need for housing and the very act of creating housing is one of the useful job-creating tools which is still available to this economy.
For the long term, forestry regeneration must be addressed now. Our forests are not being regenerated as quickly as they are being depleted. Forestry regeneration is something that cannot wait. It takes 80 years to 150 years in parts of our country for a forest to revitalize and regenerate. We cannot afford to be without an adequate supply of forestry products for that amount of time, so it is very crucial that we address reforestation now.
Along with reforestation, we can improve the spawning habitat of some of the fisheries by reducing the amount of silt flowing into the river system, thus improving and enhancing the ability of those river systems to spawn fish. Then, rather than cutting back on the amount of fishermen who are allowed
to fish along our coasts, we can meet their requirements and provide fish stocks for those fishermen. There would then be regrowth and regeneration in that important sector of our economy.
During the so-called Crow rate debate, we outlined a transportation policy for most of Canada that I think is still very apropos and must be acted upon soon. This policy consist of rebuilding and combining the two railway systems so that they can be operated in a more efficient manner.
I see that my time is coming to an end, Mr. Speaker. Last but not least, there is one area of federal Government spending for which there is a great need and which will produce a great many benefits now and in future years, and that is an increase in the amount of money that the federal Government provides for post-secondary education. I think that training the young people who are waiting to get into our labour force is of utmost importance in an age of high technology and rapid change. Well educated people have a better opportunity to survive the kind of rapid change that is about to occur in the economy, both in this country and in the world, and expenditure in education is probably one of the best investments that we could be making at this particular time.
I believe that if we look at reducing the incentives and giveaways made by way of accelerated depreciation and for-giveable capital gains on ISIPs, we could easily finance the expansions to the economy which I have mentioned. This would result in more jobs, a reduced deficit and an increased Gross National Product, the first steps toward getting the economy back on the road to recovery.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker,
I suppose that this is the eleventh or twelfth year that I have been called upon to speak on a borrowing authority Bill and some years I have been called upon to do so two or three times a year, so I am certainly not new to this kind of Bill. When I listen to speeches made by Hon. Members on the other side of the House and particularly to speeches made by members of the Tory Party, I find that a great many of them use raw numbers without offering any kind of explanation or understanding of the meaning of those numbers. For instance, they talk about a deficit of $29.8 billion as if it existed in some kind of a vacuum. It is a large amount of money, but no figure exists in a vacuum. One must deal with deficit numbers in terms of the Gross National Product and in terms of things like the gross capital formation or the savings ratios. Understanding these things are all fundamental to understanding the nature of the deficit.
Another thing that is very fundamental to understanding the nature of the deficit is understanding the way that money is spent and in which ways one could cut back on the deficit. I hear many Members on the other side discuss how we could reduce the deficit at a tremendous rate. I think that the Tory finance critic is being very honest when he says that reducing the deficit hurts very badly and that they will have to be mean about it. I guess that is what must be done if we really want to cut the deficit.
March 7, 1984

As well, there is constant reference made by Members on the other side to how well things are done by the Reagan government in the United States. I take it from the finance critic and from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) that we should move much closer to the way the Americans do things and particularly to the way the Reagan government does things. I would like to deal with these things and try to develop some notion of what the deficit means and its significance in terms of what is happening to our economy. I would like to try and compare the two economies with the information that I have available. I do not have complete information available and I would certainly be loath to say that I do. However, with the information I have available, I would like to see how we would fare if we were led by a government which has not really told us where it wants to go but has given a pretty good indication that it would like to follow the route taken by Mr. Reagan.
The nature of borrowing itself is something that I think should be understood when making a comparison between borrowing here and borrowing in the United States. In the United States, the government puts a lid on the total amount of money that can be borrowed. In this country, it is done on a different basis. I do not know that I could say that one way is better than the other, but in Canada the Government asks to borrow a certain amount of money and that is the limit. It does not put a lid on the debt. At this particular point we are asking to borrow $29.8 billion. With the authority that we still have left, we actually need something like $25.9 billion or $25.8 billion. About $4 billion worth of borrowing authority is not absolutely necessary but I think it is prudent to ask for it. The money is not actually borrowed until it is spent. We are only asking for the authority to borrow such an amount at this particular point.
Let us look at that $29.8 billion figure in terms of the Gross National Product which, in the year 1983, amounted to about $366.6 billion. That $29.8 billion represents about 8.1 per cent of the Gross National Product. However, by 1984 that amount will be reduced to about 6.8 per cent of the Gross National Product because there will be a decrease in the amount of the deficit itself and there should also be a 3 per cent or 4 per cent increase in the Gross National Product.
I find it difficult to understand how the Tories could simply use raw figures when describing this kind of situation. Let us say that I own a small company and I have assets of half a million dollars. I approach my bank and say that I want to borrow $50,000 against those assets. That is one situation in which I could find myself. Another situation would be if I were to have assets of $100,000 and I wanted to borrow $50,000. That is a very different situation. We cannot talk about a $50,000 loans as something which exists in a vacuum. It is a loan against the securities that I have.
When we talk about the deficit, we are talking about the deficit as against a certain Gross National Product and that is the only meaningful way to look at it. In other words, the Gross National Product of the country this year is something
Borrowing Authority Act
in the order of $366 billion and the deficit is a little over 8 per cent of that Gross National Product.
That is one way of looking at the deficit. The other way of looking at the deficit has reference to savings. Again I shall return to simplicity although I do not like to do so because there are different ways of explaining these things. However, let us take a simple situation. Let us say that I have a certain amount of savings invested in stocks or securities of some kind.
I go to the bank to borrow half as much as I have saved this year. That is not such a bad deal. Let us say that I saved $50,000 and I want to borrow $25,000; that is not such a bad deal.
Let us see how this compares with the American system. In this country the savings ratio this year is a little over 12 per cent and I am told that in the United States it is about 5 per cent. With the deficit at 8 per cent, against a capital formation in the area of 12 per cent, that will not push interest rates up to the same extent as is being done in the United States where the savings ratio is about 5 per cent. The deficit in the United States this year is a little over 6 per cent of the GNP but as a function of the capital formation it is much higher. The congressional budget office tells us that the deficit will absorb almost 100 per cent of the capital formation.
The situation in the United States is much more dangerous than it is in this country. The very high rate of savings here makes a great difference in the way the numbers come out. These things have to be dealt with if we are to deal intelligently with deficits.
Let us consider how this money is spent, Mr. Speaker. The Tories have talked about how they will reduce the deficit and cut spending, but I should like to know just where that will happen. The blue book shows projected expenditures in the order of $94.6 billion in total, or a $9 billion increase over the previous year.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I appeal to Hon. Members not to interrupt the Hon. Member who has the floor, as provided in the Provisional Standing Orders. May I refer Hon. Members to Standing Order 15(3), which reads as follows:
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between that Member and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I find that Members are either responding in this way or they are asleep. At least I am not putting them to sleep and I am pleased about that.
Of the $96.4 billion, $46.4 billion represents transfers to the provinces for such things as health and welfare. The national debt takes up $20.3 billion. When the amount of transfers is taken away from the amount of expenditures, what is left pays for the operations of the Government-the post office, Department of National Defence, employees of the House of Com-

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
mons and of the Government, transfers to Crown corporations, et cetera. It represents 28.3 per cent of the total spending.
How much could the Opposition cut back in this area which represents 28 per cent of total Government expenditures? Will they have to dip into the other 72 per cent which represents transfers to people, and so on? The largest transfer is for health and welfare. Health costs in the United States are much higher than ours but they are paid for privately. They represent 10 per cent of the Gross National Product in the U.S. compared to 8 per cent in Canada.
Substantial cuts can be made only in two areas. The first is the operational area of government, the goods and services that the Government exchanges; the other is in the large area of transfers to people for health, welfare, pensions and other things. Where will those cuts be made? I submit that there is always some fat that can be cut out.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When did you ever do that?


Paul Edmund McRae: In the next year we will reduce the deficit by about $3 billion. Most of the cuts will have to come from these transfers to people. If the Tories believe that the deficit is the greatest problem, then pensions, health services and such things will have to be cut, particularly if the cost of defence is to be increased. I do not know where the cuts will come.
For an indication I can look at what President Reagan has done in the United States. He has cut school lunches, social security and so on, areas that we have not cut. Basically this is a compassionate Government. I should like to refer Hon. Members to an article that appeared in The Sunday Star of Toronto of February 12 this year.


Mr. Crosbie:: The bible! The bible tells me so.


Paul Edmund McRae: I consider Joseph Schlesinger to be a very reputable correspondent. He wrote:
Canada and the United States have both been going through tough times the past three years with high unemployment, increasing poverty and strained budgets.
But there is a major difference in how the two countries have dealt with the victims of the hard times.
Call it the Compassion Difference.
Paraphrasing the President of the United States, he has said that a lot of people sleep out at nights because they choose to do so. A former assistant to the President, the Attorney General of the United States, says that people go to soup kitchens to eat because it is cheaper that way. This shows a lack of compassion and there have been large cuts in these areas.
One would not think that these cuts would have created growing deficits in the United States. There were large tax cuts for people earning $80,000, for instance, which amounted to $15,000; but for people earning under $10,000, it amounted to $240 per year. The congressional budget office tells us that if defence expenditure increases and tax cuts had not been brought in, the United States would have no deficit by next year. That is what happens under a very conservative government, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot tell whether the Official Opposition would do the same thing if it formed the government but it seems as if it is indicating it would. That gives me great concern about what would happen to pensions, family allowances and health services, for instance. The Tories talk about cutting back on such things and increasing defence spending. They sound exactly like President Reagan.
This Budget brought in some very important programs. A lot of Canadians are afraid for the future and in some areas the fear is legitimate. Contrary to what I see in the United States, I see in this Budget an attempt to eliminate some of the worst fears. I believe the worst fear which Canadians can have in an economic sense is the fear that when one retires there will not be enough money to keep oneself going. That is particularly the case with private pension plans where very often when the husband dies, he being the person who worked and who put money into a pension plan, the wife receives nothing, or two years of benefit or something of that nature. We are saying we must get these private pension plans working. We must make sure that people have good incomes after retirement. It is very important that people be secure. These pensions must be indexed so that people can continue to live in a decent way. This kind of thinking is very different from what I see of the Reagan government in the United States, and it is different from what I believe is going to happen if those people opposite come into power.
There is another area where there has been a good deal of concern over the past few years. We have had a lot of cases in Thunder Bay where people buy a house, put down a nice down payment and are managing very well. Then all of a sudden interest rates climb. They have to renew their mortgages and they are caught. Perhaps one member of the family loses a job and they cannot make the payments. As a result, they lose their home.
We have fought very hard for a solution in my own constituency, and I commend the people in my office particularly, who have written very many letters about this kind of situation. We are now putting a plan into action which will give protection to Canadian home owners so that they will be secure in the knowledge that their mortgage will have, more or less, a fixed interest rate. These are the kinds of things which a compassionate government does, and which we have been doing. But I am very much afraid, and I believe Canadians are very much afraid, that in the future, if the government changes, this will not be the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. A period is now provided for questions and comments. Questions, comments? Debate.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak this afternoon on Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority. I feel a great deal of compassion-and I would like to express it at this time-for those members of the Government, such as the previous speak-
March 7, 1984

er from Thunder Bay, who must attempt to defend this borrowing authority Bill. That Hon. Member indeed danced around in a vacuum and really gave no explanation, as far as I am concerned, for the horrendous debt which this Bill intends to impose on the people of Canada.
Bill C-21 is a short Bill; it has three paragraphs. But I do not want Hon. Members of this House, or the people of Canada, to be misled by its shortness into believing that Bill C-21 is insignificant, because this Bill packs an immense wallop. It has enough of a wallop to bankrupt most of the small businesses of this country when the rippling effect is finally felt throughout the system in high interest rates and inflation. It has a wallop big enough to destroy the middle class in this country when the rippling effect of inflation and high interest rates is felt, and that is bound to occur when this Bill hits the money markets. I tell you, Sir, that no one in Canada should ignore this "small" Bill because we and our children are going to be living with it for a long time.
This Bill provides to Canadians, to this House, the philosophy of the Liberal Party starting from 1968 when this Government came into power. The Liberal philosophy is reflected in this borrowing Bill because its philosophy is to overspend- overspend yesterday, overspend today and overspend tomorrow.
What do I mean by overspending? My definition of spending is when government taxes people and uses that money for the operation of government. Overspending is when government does not have any money and spends anyway and must borrow outside the country. That is the Liberal Government philosophy-overspending. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it has been so successful in that philosophy it has out-NDPed the NDP. That poor Party has no place to go now because the Liberals have taken over its socialist position of heavy spending.
This Government's spending since 1968 is well detailed as a percentage of the Gross National Product, and I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that this is on a national accounts basis. My figures do not seem to agree with some of the other figures which have been bandied about, particularly by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) who spoke for the New Democratic Party. We had a lot of humbug from Humboldt. My figures show, and I believe these are accurate figures, that in 1968-1969 we were spending 17.4 per cent of the Gross National Product. That figure has increased steadily. The only time it showed a decrease was during the period when the Conservatives were in power. That was in 1979-1980, I believe, and the figure decreased by one percentage point that one year. In the previous year government spent 21.3 per cent of the Gross National Product. The following year when the Conservatives were in power, it was 20.7 per cent. The year after when the Liberals again became the Government, spending went up to 21.2 per cent, and today it is 25 per cent. Spending is going up, up, up, and there is no indication it will go down.
That is an example of the Liberal Government's philosophy. We have a Budget of $100 billion. We have an annual deficit of $30 billion. We have a total deficit of some $180 billion at
Borrowing Authority Act
the end of this year. Not very many people can comprehend $180 billion. However, I believe everyone can comprehend $6,000 to $7,000 a year, and that is the debt which every child born today is burdened with. That is our children's heritage because of the overspending of the Liberal Government over the past number of years. The minute a child is brought into this world he or she owes a debt of $7,000. How it is going to be paid is really a good question.
What has concerned me, and I believe what concerns a lot of Canadians, is how can anyone spend so much money? How can one overspend to the extent of $30 billion a year? We have been provided with some very good examples and I do not intend to go into all of them, but I would like to mention a few which the average Canadian can understand. However, first of all, I would like to tell the average Canadian that the deficit of $30 billion is probably not an exact figure. I will quote what the Auditor General said in his report about that deficit;
The increase in the national debt is important to all Canadians. Parliamentarians have the need-and all Canadians the right-to know the actual deficit, the actual debt as precisely as can be stated.
He continues, and this is the important part:
My opinion on the Financial Statements of the Government of Canada illustrates that those amounts would differ by many billions of dollars from what is presented-
That is the $30 billion figure. So we are not even getting the facts on this horrendous $30 billion annual deficit. As I was saying, how do you overspend that kind of money, Mr. Speaker? Well, let us go to something Canadians can understand, the Auditor General's report. He talks about a horror story in New Brunswick involving the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. It guaranteed a loan for some $315,000 to build a 22-unit hotel. The motel did not make its payments. The trust company seized the hotel and sold it. But did they do it properly? Not at all. A corporate guarantee by the same hotel owner was never pursued by the Government. The Government failed to ensure that a protective bid was placed at the auction, nor was it even represented at the auction to ensure the proceedings were conducted in the best interests of the Crown. What happened at the auction? We sold the motel for $200. The successful bidder, and I will guarantee you he was a Liberal, sold the property the next day for $75,200. A nice day's profit. The fellow who brought it mortgaged it a month later for $285,000.
That is how this Government overspends. It gives money away, throws it away. You may say $315,000 is not a lot, and perhaps not. But it is a lot of money to me and my constituents in the Okanagan where we have 20 per cent unemployment. We can use that kind of money. All I am saying is that that sort of thing is repeated time and time again, and how do you explain it?
What about Centennial Towers here in Ottawa which we were talking about the other day? The Department of Public Works wanted a building so they put out bids and got 32 proposals. Number 24 on the list was the so-called Centennial Towers. Not the second, third, fourth, fifth, tenth or fifteenth

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
but the twenty-fourth. The Department is paying $1 million a month and the building is still empty. Why? Because they were told the Security Service would be in effect by that time. This Parliament still has not passed the Act to set up the secret police, the super-snoopers, and probably will not. The building is right down here on Kent Street and it is empty. I pass it every day. It used to be an apartment block and now they are getting $ 1 million a month for the thing standing empty. And one wonders why this Government is overspending, why it has a $30 billion annual deficit! That is why. I suppose the person who did that has been promoted.
It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. However, perhaps the public is most interested in another aspect of Government overspending and waste, the porkbarrelling aspect of these programs. We have heard a lot about these programs, but I would just like to read from an article in The Globe and Mail which referred to "porkbarrelling the Axworthy way". At least, that is what I call it. It begins at the Winnipeg airport where several tens of millions of dollars have been spent. There is a housing project as you drive into town, then a giant excavation for the Air Canada Computer Centre. Then there is $13 million for another complex, $8 million for a Senior Citiznes' Home, and $41 million for the National Research Council. There is $8 million for a South Winnipeg Training Centre. It goes on and on. I guess there is nothing wrong with all that money being spent in Winnipeg.


Mr. Huntington:: Seven hundred and eighty million dollars.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Yes, for Winnipeg. I do not know why they should be taking taxes out of Okanagan North when we have 20 per cent unemployment and pouring it into Winnipeg. They are very deserving people but so is the rest of the country. Why do we porkbarrel only where Liberals are? Surely the rest of the country is entitled to be treated in equal manner. That is how we arrive at a Bill asking for the authority to borrow $29 billion. This Government has overspent and is still overspending.
It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about porkbarrelling, to realize that in this little Bill there is a request for some $4 billion which is not even set out in the Budget. We do not even know what it is going to be used for. A contingency! You get a little upset when you hear about that and you know there is going to be an election pretty soon. You hear reports from the Nova Scotia Liberal caucus that they are going to win the election like they did before; they are going to keep Quebec, ignore the west and porkbarrel southern Ontario. Maybe that is what the $4 billion is for; a nice, neat contingency fund. I do not know but I wish someone on that side would explain to us why then need that $4 billion. I charge the Government with defrauding the Canadian taxpayer, because that is exactly what it is.
Another question we should ask is why every spring do we have these immense borrowings by this Government. As someone said earlier, this is the largest borrowing Bill ever to come before this House. Number one, of course, is to pay the people of Canada their income tax refunds. That is money the
Government of Canada has taken from people wrongly, has used it and is now paying them back without interest. Every year we have the same problem. Another more serious reason is that at year end every Department of this Government is scrambling to find ways and means and schemes to spend all the money they budgeted for. Every year it is the same thing. I have talked to civil servants and they say it is the hardest task they have all year. One would think that a properly run government could work out a scheme whereby every year there is not a scramble to use up money which should not be used. Surely that is not so difficult. They do it in the private sector, why can it not be done in the public sector?
The overspending scenario of the Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker, has gone on in the past and is obviously going to go on in the future. But how are we to pay for these deficits? Not so long ago, in 1980 when the Government got into power, the annual deficit was $10 billion. It is now $30 billion. Can anyone comprehend the waste? The Government has made no effort at all to hold the line.
How do we pay for it? Number one, we print money. Over the past 12 years the Bank of Canada has monetarized some $12 billion of Government requirements. We print money and that causes inflation. Also we borrow it. Federal borrowing is 58 per cent of new debt security in Canada. This year the Government is asking for $29 billion and total private savings were $32 billion. We are asking the people of Canada to cough up 91 per cent of their private savings. The Hon. Member from Thunder Bay talks about our rate of savings in comparison to the U.S. No matter what the rate is, we are using it all. There is nothing left for the private sector. That is what the people of Canada have to look forward to when they see this little Bill that we have before us.
Who are the people who really suffer because of this deficit, Mr. Speaker? It is the people of Canada who have suffered, are suffering and are going to suffer. To print money only cheapens our currency and the cost of living goes up. Certainly it is going to cost more to pay off our foreign debt. It is going to cost more to purchase the equipment we need from abroad and it is going to cost more to put food on our table. As we all know, we get a lot of food from outside this country. That is what printing money does. We only have to look at countries in South America to see that we will become another Argentina if we are not careful and if this Government is not put out of office pretty quickly.
What does borrowing do? There are those who say it boosts the economy. I can tell the House that it is going to increase interest rates in the country and start a recession, the likes of which we have never seen. The markets are already showing that and interest rates are already going up. We already have unemployment because of past high interest rates and we are going to get another round of it. There has to be a stop to this but it appears the Government does not intend to stop. It puts up speakers to argue it is a good thing and that this high deficit does not matter in our situation. I do not think anyone
March 7, 1984

is prepared to accept that kind of nonsense. It is really the back door to socialism. In fact, it may even be the front door.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre spoke about what his Party would do and how they would spend. I would like to quote from a report of Mr. James Laxer, who is the the key intellect of the NDP. He argues that their policies are not appropriate today. He said:
Just where would the NDP notion of economic recovery lead if it was actually implemented? ... to a skyrocketing deficit in manufactured products, trade, to a disastrous balance of payments situations, to a falling dollar-
That is what is happening right now.
-to higher interest rates. Leaving the structure of the Canadian economy the way it is and stimulating consumption would result in a huge leakage of dollars out of Canada . .. Such a policy would quickly return Canada to a disastrous balance of payment crisis-
That is exactly what the Hon. Member proposed in his speech-increased spending and more debts.


Mr. Gustafson:: Payment for overexpenditure on Crown corporations.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: That is what the Liberals have been doing, Mr. Speaker, for the last 16 years. It is time they relieved the Canadian public and left office.


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, would the Hon. Member care to reply to a couple of questions? He had a lot to say about mismanagement. He gave a number of examples of mismanagement. I suggest there is nothing inherently Liberal or Conservative about mismanagement. Certainly Members on this side would like to see every effort made, and they do make considerable efforts in standing committees of the House, as do Cabinet Ministers, to try to manage better.
I would like to move to a couple of fundamental questions which I do not believe he addressed when he spoke of the deficit. The Hon. Member's Party and Leader advocate increased spending on health care. The Progressive Conservative Party advocates increased defence spending. They also say one of the problems with our economy is that we do not spend enough on research and development. Furthermore, they argue we should have increased investment incentives. At the same time they say the deficit should be reduced.
Has the Hon. Member added up how much his Party proposes to spend in each of the areas I have listed? Could he give us some indication of the areas where his Party would cut spending if they formed a government?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer), I would like to remind Hon. Members that questions and comments must relate to the specific remarks of the previous speaker. No new issues should be raised. However, I give the benefit of the doubt to the Hon. Member and he may respond if he wishes.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear the Hon. Member outline the policy of the Conservative Party. So often in the past we have been accused of having no policy. In five,
Borrowing Authority Act
six or seven areas he specifically spoke about our policy. I am glad he told the people of Canada that we have a good policy.
The other day an Hon. Member on this side of the House said the Government is spending $1 billion on advertising. We will cut that out and save $1 billion right there. That is a good start. The Government is spending millions to advertise the fishing industry and at the same time cutting back on the fishing industry. The Government says it sells no fish. There is something wrong with that kind of approach.
There are many ways and as time goes by we will tell you how. After all, we are not the Government. You are the Government and responsible for the mistakes you make. I know back-benchers bleed profusely and are helpless when the front bench makes mistakes.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to my colleague for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). We read the Auditor General's report every year. The situation does not get better. It gets worse. The Auditor General has pointed out that the Liberal Government does not have the will to implement controls. It does not believe in cost benefit analysis. Its theory is blank cheque government. The Auditor General points out that cost overruns on major capital projects total $1.1 billion. It is obvious there is no management when there are that amount of cost overruns. No business could survive with cost overruns like that. Is there any reason we could not get proper management to do cost benefit analyses on these major capital projects to bring a stop to these cost overruns? Some years the overruns are well over $1.1 billion.
There are other areas where we could cut back on expenditures. As an example, in a short period of time 35 Cabinet Ministers were flying all over the country in Jetstars.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member. However, I appeal to Hon. Members to relate their questions and comments to the specific remarks of the previous speaker. This is not a time to raise new issues. Remarks must relate to those made by the previous speaker. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) seems to be stretching the matter beyond the Hon. Member's speech.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will just point out that the use of JetStar aircraft cost Canadians almost $1 million in a 100-day period of use in August of 1983. We have had situations where Liberals have taken three JetStars to fly campaign workers to Winnipeg.
Will the Hon. Member make comments on the Auditor General's report regarding the will to bring expenditures under control and to do something about these cost overruns?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, it is true that every time the Auditor General's report comes out there is a lot of wringing of hands and people saying they will try to do better. I am not saying the Government has not the will to do better. However, since they have not done any better they either have not the will or the ability. In other words, they have lost control of government. That may well be the answer. Perhaps the

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
administration has become so large that the Minister and the Government can no longer control the vast number of people under it. Elowever, it is the same both ways. If the Government is not doing the job it should get out and let someone else in who probably could do it.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Hon. Member referred to government spending as a percentage of the GNP. I believe he said it was 17.4 per cent. I think he indicated the period 1968-69 and that it was at the same level in 1962 under a Tory government. Of course, during the course of a recessionary period such as the one we just came through, this naturally increased due to the safety nets that were put in place in society by Liberal governments over the years so that we would not have to go through the hard times that existed in the 1930s.
With respect to lack of revenue and the increased expenditures by the Government to provide these safety nets, how can the Member use that as a logical comparison when, in fact, the net public debt as a percentage of Gross National Product in 1982-83 was actually lower than it was during the Diefenbaker period in the early 1960s?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I think the subject of the Diefenbaker period was raised earlier. Mr. Diefenbaker was paying for the war which we had just gone through. It is pretty understandable. As well, at that period, during the early years of the Liberal regime, the deficit was not nearly as high.
I am not saying that some of the deficit is not due to the recent recession. I am merely saying that the recession was made much worse and more harmful to Canada because of Liberal Government policies. I am also saying that the Government has not shown any will or ability to cut that deficit down in terms of the percentage of GNP. That is all I am saying.
In the relatively short period I have been here, the Government has said every year that it will cut the deficit in the next year. However, it is never done the next year but always the year following. It has done the same thing this year. The Government says it will cut the deficit next year to $24.4 billion from $25 billion, then to $23.6 billion from $24 billion and then to $23.1 billion. Wait until next year, if the Member is still around; I bet it will go up again. That is why I suggest we cannot believe the Government or its figures when it presents a Budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! Debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-21, the Government is asking the House for permission to borrow the monies it needs
for the proper administration, and I emphasize the words proper administration, Mr. Speaker, of the country's business.
I do not intend to elaborate on the basis for this request, which is fair and reasonable, since I believe my learned colleague from Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) already did so very successfully. I would rather discuss a number of situations that prevail in my riding as they do generally across Canada, and that justify this request for supplementary borrowing authority. That the Government is asking a little more than it needs merely proves that the Government would rather be safe than sorry. The affairs of state must be administered with an eye to what the future may hold in store, and I think it is quite normal that the Government should ask the House for sufficient borrowing authority to cover its requirements.
I think it is hardly necessary to recall the state of the economy in preceding years, especially since 1981, or perhaps towards the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1981. The economic situation has become extremely difficult, and at the same time it has been necessary for the Government to protect jobs and especially to plan ahead for new generations entering the labour market. When I say that we should open up labour market opportunities, I should add that every effort ought to be made to bring back into the labour market those of our fellow Canadians who have lost their jobs.
I would like to quote a few figures on the amounts of money earmarked by the Government to meet the needs of the people in a region such as mine. If we add up all the money spent not so long ago in Eastern Quebec in particular on unemployment insurance and social assistance, we find that the Canadian Government has been paying out $1 million every day. It seems to me that, in such circumstances, any intelligent person would eventually wonder whether those funds might be expended in a more productive and constructive way than keeping people idle and giving them unemployment insurance benefits or social welfare hand-outs. That is why we have set up very worthwhile programs by using the funds allocated under the provisions of Unemployment Insurance Act Section 38.
Mr. Speaker, a significant part of Quebec forests cover my region-the entire territory of Temiscouata, Kamouraska, Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe-and everyone knows that it has been extensively ravaged by the spruce budworm. Thanks to the funds made available through unemployment insurance under Section 38 of the Act, we were able to carry out major reforestation and silviculture projects, to the extent that our forests have been given a new lease on life. Millions of young trees were planted, and all those projects have kept Canadians at work to ensure a much brighter future for ourselves and our children. It may have cost a little more than paying unemployment insurance benefits, but the Government and various groups of people put in additional funds to see the projects
March 7, 1984

through under those programs, and even some companies and institutions pitched in so that a great many people, thousands of my fellow citizens, have been able to earn an honest living while doing something useful for the community. Our intention is to maintain those programs and to encourage people to undertake worthwhile projects under them.
With respect to social welfare, we realize now that it is becoming increasingly imperative for the well-being of our community and Canada as a whole to make sure that people who are penalized because they lack adequate training or face job shortages can benefit from some of those programs with a view to becoming active in their community and eventually finding gainful employment.
In this regard, Hon. Members learned last week that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) had signed an agreement with the Quebec Minister of Manpower and Employment Security under which the Canadian Government agreed to increase its contribution by about $60 million over two years to enhance the social assistance program.
Now let us see how these funds will be used to improve the welfare of all the young people who will benefit from them, and I mention young people because this program is intended for those under 30. In addition to receiving the social assistance to which they are entitled, they will be getting an additional amount of $150 a month. Three avenues will then open to them. First, they may continue their secondary or even postsecondary education. They may also gain experience in the workplace by way of contacts with businesses and non-profit organizations, or alternatively institutions will be able to use the services of these young people who will then be gaining an extremely important experience in the workplace. In addition, these young people will be able to take part in projects to meet the needs of the community.
Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do how extremely important it is to see that this whole section of our population, namely our young people under 30, is integrated as much as possible into what is usually considered a normal society, in other words, people who have as many opportunities to work as possible. However, you also know that in view of the deterioration of the economic situation, there have been serious problems; and if we add to this the thrust of technological changes and everything that will come up in the future, some of our fellow citizens are ill-prepared to take up these new challenges. The program I have just described and on which the federal and provincial Ministers have agreed will offer thousands of young people a very interesting opportunity to improve themselves by taking part in creative and innovative projects for the community.
I also want to deal with certain programs administered by the Department of Employment and Immigration. As I was saying, a number of young men and women have to return to the labour market and the Department of Employment and Immigration is offering them some very useful programs.
Borrowing Authority Act
Programs such as the Youth Job Corps and Career-Access even allow these young people to submit their own projects to the Department and do what they really want.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a program developed by Employment and Immigration Canada and administered by the Department of National Defence. I do not believe that it is out of order for me to describe the use that is made of the tax dollars paid by the Canadian people and of the funds for which the Government requests some borrowing authority. In addition to the vast amounts used for the financing of established programs, particularly health and education, there are a number of programs which are necessary and which must be maintained. Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention more particularly to a program which I find extremely interesting for young people. You do remember that the Department of National Defence was asked to develop and implement a whole system of training and employment for some 5000 young people, in its various centres in Canada. The goal we had in mind was to give these young people a special but rewarding training and at the same time an opportunity to explore some trades or professions otherwise unfamiliar to them. In my own area, in Rimouski, enlistment is done at the recruitment centres of National Defence, and 75 young people have taken advantage of that program. They have been with National Defence for a year now.
In the Sept-Iles area where employment problems are very serious, 75 young people have joined the program. In the Atlantic area, for example, 1,057 young people are with National Defence, 1,247 in the Quebec region, 1,809 in central Canada or Ontario, 1,103 in Western Canada. This means that 5,216 young men and women are with National Defence benefitting from a most interesting personal training. In addition, they can learn several trades in those various centres. For instance, those young people can find themselves in the bases in Cornwallis, St. John, Petawawa, Valcartier, Calgary, and so on, and get training in various skills or professions such as administration and finance, the postal service, all technical services. Training can be had in nearly all the trades connected with the navy, even in music, which is not to be disdained. This means that many thousands of young people are now availing themselves of a special program that is worthwhile, both for National Defence and society in general. I remember some parents who told me at home: Perhaps if you had fewer programs or no programs for the young, the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice in some provinces might have to expand their facilities. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the programs now being offered by the Government of Canada, to women and young people in education or manpower training or the retraining programs for adults are absolutely vital and are only an addition to the normal services the Government of Canada should provide to all Canadians. In the light of the current situation, of course this is expensive. It is extremely

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
costly to ensure that the greatest possible number of people can earn a decent living, making a contribution to society rather than living off it. But it must be recognized that the monies invested in training or adult education are also an asset to us, they are an investment, and it seems to me that it would be niggardly at this point to suggest the funds are being misused or misspent by the Canadian Government. The economic situation we have been going through has been extremely difficult, not only financially, but also, as we know, it has created serious social problems for many individuals and families. In a region such as Eastern Quebec where at one point the unemployment rate almost reached 50 per cent between 1981 and 1982, while the current rate is still 21 to 22 per cent, we have a responsibility in my view to alleviate the hardships or despair which the lack of jobs might cause to many people.
The programs I have just referred to, such as welfare which was once considered as somewhat degrading for the people who are entitled to it, are now enriched because education has been added. People who want to make the effort will be able to go back to school, or train on the job or acquire work experience and do community work. It is simply a matter of giving Canadians, especially young men and women, an opportunity to upgrade their training and get better jobs. They feel more integrated when they can be positively and constructively involved. Like all of us, they now feel they are contributing to building this country while helping their fellow Canadians and hoping that their experiences will enable them to fulfil their role as citizens. This has been our goal when designing stimulating, innovative and flexible programs which will provide young men and women with the opportunity to use their imagination in making the best possible contribution to their community. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will support the Government's request for authorization to borrow sufficient funds, because as I said earlier, this money is needed to effectively manage public affairs in the best interest of Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Questions. Comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a few comments on the legislation tabled in the House today, in which the Government is once again asking for borrowing authority, this time for nearly $30 billion.
I listened carefully to the Member for Rimouski (Mrs. Cote), and I noticed the depth of her concern for the problems facing young constituents in her riding. Our problems are the same. I was shocked when she mentioned an unemployment rate of 50 per cent, 22 per cent today, and of course I understand her comments and her concern for the problems facing this group. Mr. Speaker, when we hear that in the Hon. Member's riding alone, the federal Government spends $1 million a day on unemployment insurance and welfare, the
Hon. Member should realize, with respect, that this testifies to the Government's complete failure to take any kind of meaningful action. The Hon. Member has just confirmed and proved that over the past fifteen years, the economy has deteriorated to the extent that in her riding, it costs the Canadian Government $1 million a day to keep people on unemployment insurance and welfare. Mr. Speaker, may 1 remind the House that in 1969, on August 13, the Prime Minister said: "If we do nothing to slow down increases in expenditures, we are headed towards financial disaster." That is what the Prime Minister of Canada said in 1969. That is exactly the kind of disaster that was described by the Hon. Member for Rimouski, and I think that the concern that could be felt in the comments she made earlier is familiar to all or nearly all representatives of Canadian constituencies.
She is pleased to see that an agreement has been signed with the Quebec government whereby our young people who are on welfare and who must be satisfied with a pittance because jobs are non-existent will receive $150 more from the Federal government. She also said that from now on they will have a decent income of, I think, nearly $300 per month, that is, $75 per week.
I do not consider this as a decent income, Mr. Speaker. Not at all nor do I think that the hon. member for Rimouski would be satisfied with it. I am sure that she would rather see these young people, who are her constituents, with permanent jobs. Try as it might, the government could certainly not justify these $30 billion in borrowing powers on programs which are at best temporary, due to the devastating economic situation. That is why it is developing programs, Mr. Speaker, in view of the disastrous state of our economy. The Prime Minister, therefore, had foreseen a rise in government spending. But what has his government done since 1969, a time when it appeared so concerned about increases in spending? Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note what various people had to say about this. For instance, not so long ago, more specifically on January 12, 1980, the Prime Minister of Canada made the following statement: "We will maintain the rate of increase in government expenditures below the growth rate of our GNP, thereby decreasing gradually our deficit. All new spending programs set up to meet the changing needs of the Canadian people will be financed through a redistribution of current expenditures or revenue increases. We will not increase the deficit by setting up new programs". Thus spoke Pierre Elliott Trudeau, our current Prime Minister, on January 12, 1980.
Mr. Speaker, I quoted only two remarks from the Prime Minister, and yet we see what situation we are in. The government invokes now, just as it did in 1969, the need to reduce the deficit. Since then, we have had eight requests for borrowing power like today's request. We were successively asked for $ 12 billion, $14 billion, $6 billion, $4 billion, $19 billion and finally $29.5 billion. Mr. Speaker, as one of my colleagues put it, this
March 7, 1984

really borders on insolvency. Any individual who wants to borrow money from the bank must justify his request. There must be a climate of confidence. He is asked "How is business going?" These questions are asked today. The government is being accused, and with good reason, of being insolvent, irresponsible and hence incompetent. We know it full well, and Canadians are witness, they are worried regarding the growing per capita debt of Canadians, who are into debt for generations to come, Mr. Speaker, and you are aware of this as we all are.
The Government proves that it is unable to make both ends meet. They are asking us today for the eighth time to trust them and vote this borrowing authority bordering again on $30 billion. This is too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. It is too much to ask and most Canadians, according to surveys, no longer trust this Government, and they would surely blame us, and rightly so, for being remiss if we trusted the Government. However, this does not keep the Minister of Finance awake at night, as he stated last night, whether it be the value of the Canadian dollar or the deficit. It is obvious that the Minister of Finance will not spend sleepless nights because of what he considers as a small deficit. It is obvious that the Government has completely failed in terms of keeping its spending, as we ask, under tight control, in particular the spending of Crown corporations which do not hesitate to spend or even squander taxpayers' money and then, submit their deficit to Parliament. And the Government is wont to tell us that the indebtedness of Crown corporations is partly due to the House itself. That would not change anything, Mr. Speaker, and you know it. We get the bill at the end of the year and we cannot do anything about it, although people think we are responsible for the debts of Crown corporations and the way they squander public funds. Today, the Minister offhandedly brings before the House a piece of legislation and asks us to trust him. During all these years, the Government indebtedness has been steadily increasing. You know, Mr. Speaker, the Government reminds me of the chap who, in a hopeless situation, has to sell his stove to buy wood. There is not much difference, and the Government is sinking into debt. On January 12, 1980, the Prime Minister of Canada also accused the Conservatives of increasing by 100,000 the number of unemployed, but he added that the Liberals were going to bring it down, Mr. Speaker. Today, as you know, the Government in spite of countless efforts has to spend incredible sums of money to keep the 1,500,000 officially unemployed, and this does not include those whose claims have lapsed. We know that there are in fact 2 million people unemployed in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and that a good many of them are on welfare and will not even benefit from the agreement just signed relating to youth employment, because they are over 30 years old. At the dawn of the 1980s, we should not forget that the biggest challenge-I am still quoting the Prime Minister of Canada-"confronting our country is job creation, particularly for our young people."
To justify its expenditures, Mr. Speaker, the Government will obviously pride itself on having created thousands of jobs
Borrowing Authority Act
last year, but these are temporary jobs and this fact will never be emphasized too much. These are temporary jobs only lasting for 20 to 26 weeks which means that these young people or not so young will have to claim unemployment insurance again and finally when their claims have lapsed, they will have to be satisfied with the meager pittance provided by welfare benefits. This has been an on-going process, Mr. Speaker. The Government has to borrow more money and therefore asks for additional borrowing powers. The following statistics, Mr. Speaker, speak for themselves; in all cases, they are reasonably adjusted. The number of unemployed in February 1980 was 874,000! In January, 1984, one million three hundred and seventy four thousand, that is, half a million more than anticipated. Youth unemployment: in February, 1980: 12.9 per cent; in February, 1984: 18.7 per cent, five per cent more, Mr. Speaker; 563,000 jobs have been lost during the recession, and the Canadian labour force is still 193,000 short, of what it was before this recession. The unemployment insurance scheme costs between $11 and $12 billion. This figure exceeds total expenditures made last year by the four Atlantic provinces governments combined.
When one looks at the debt and at this government's mismanagement for the past 15 years, Mr. Speaker, . . . The Prime Minister of Canada, who announced he would step down in the near future, obviously because he wanted to avoid being accused of this dismal failure, had predicted himself that this bankruptcy was bound to happen if we did not control government expenditures. They did not control their expenditures and we are on the verge of disaster, of bankruptcy. There is not a single businessman who would have put up with such bad managers for more than a few months; and Canadians have been putting up with them them for 16 years.
Given the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is very difficult and indeed impossible for me to approve this request. This is a matter of confidence. And I cannot believe the Minister is introducing this bill as a normal piece of legislation. Bankruptcy after bankruptcy, and deficit after deficit. For years, we have been calling for adequate control of government expenditures by elected Members of this House, but to no avail. The Right Hon. Prime Minister and his ministers couldn't care less.
Given all this, you can logically expect us to reject this request by the Government. In fact, I believe we are not only right to do so, but it is our duty.
The Government proposes, Mr. Turner said on June 23, and I have met him before-


An Hon. Member:: Charles?

March 7, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Roch La Salle: No, not Charles, John! The Government proposes, he said, to lead the way in terms of restraint by bringing its spending under tight control. At that time, that Minister of Finance had already introduced deficits, starting with a $5.5 billion deficit in 1975. All things considered, that deficit was quite similar to that proposed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde)!
In his Budget, the then Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, stated on November 16, 1978: There can be no weakening in our determination to keep expenditu.es under tight control.
That is what the then Minister of Finance, who is now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, said on November 16, 1979: that deficit was $12 billion!
On February 15, 1984, our present Minister of Finance said the following: . . . this budget is fiscally responsible. The time has come to control the expenses incurred by this Parliament: a deficit of $29 billion, Mr. Speaker! And the most recent figure is a deficit of $31 billion!
Would you say, Mr. Speaker, that this Government deserves the confidence of the Official Opposition for such mismanagement, and for what appears to be, even to those who hardly know how to count, such a sorry state of financial affairs? I think it is important that Canadians should realize that our national debt, which was approximately $10 or $15 billion fifteen years ago, has gone up to $150 billion. Mr. Speaker, in my mind, it is unthinkable for us to accept the invitation of this Government. Moreover, it is important and even essential for us to condemn this mismanagement and these shameful expenditures generally, this lack of control and this refusal on the Government's part to give back to this House some control, especially over Crown Corporations. Of course, Government expenditures have to be completely reassessed. We must also be given the controls we are requesting, and I have known this for at least ten years because that is how long we have known that under this Government our country was heading towards very serious financial difficulties. That is exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker.
What is most incredible, when one listens to, and especially when one rereads the statements made by the various Ministers of Finance from Mr. Turner to this date, is the knowledge that this Government has literally deceived the population.
The Members opposite were elected after they had promised to control their expenditures, to reduce the deficit and consequently, to free certain amounts from the costs of financing the national debt. Now, the Government has the gall to ask us close to $30 billion and to tell us: "We only need $25 billion."
Their estimates having long been inaccurate, they mistrust their own projections. That is why they are asking $30 billion when admittedly they need only $25 billion. It is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker.
This is the reason why we will vote against such a confidence motion, because through this bill they are asking us to trust them. The public has lost all confidence in the management of this government and so has the Opposition, being in a better position to watch the actions of those responsible for government administration. They lost our confidence a long time ago, Mr. Speaker.
And since they would not support the measures we had been advocating in the best interest of Canada, to give this country more buoyancy through proper economic management, we will not agree to the request of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. It would be unthinkable, Mr. Speaker, because we cannot agree with a government which has failed so miserably. It is our duty to condemn this government and request elections as soon as possible for the simple reason that it has lost public confidence over the past 18 months, according to the polls.
And I do commend the Hon. Member for Rimouski-Temis-couata (Mrs. Cote) for her compassion towards her constituents. But, as a supporter of the scaring and harsh economic policies of this government, she cannot disclaim responsibility and is to be blamed for their plight. Canadians have started to realize that, and I hope they will let these Members know what they think of such mismanagement which has gone on too long, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to Hon. Members .. . Order, please. If Hon. Members wish to leave for supper, they should give the Chair the opportunity to adjourn the House.
It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 8, 1984