1984-11-30

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the people of Laval-des-Rapides, I wish to express before the House my indignation about some comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) before members of the National Editors and Writers Society in Toronto last week. According to reports, the Minister of Finance asked the media to apply restraint in their articles on the Government's intentions to cut back social programs, so as to avoid creating a panic among recipients of family allowance and old age security payments.
Is the Minister now going to ask the media not to publish information on cutbacks in equalization payments so as not to create panic among provinces receiving such payments? If the information media and even parliamentarians no longer have a right to comment on the Government's policies, I wonder what kind of information the public will receive. Not the press but the Progressive Conservative Government decided to make cutbacks in social programs. It is clear that the Government wants to tamper, either directly or indirectly, with the universality of social programs, but it would prefer to keep it a secret.
If the Minister of Finance wants to reassure Canadians and allay the very real fears he raised among those benefiting from social programs, all he has to do is say publicly, and say it now, that universality will be fully maintained and that the Government does not intend to tax all benefits received, and then Canadians will breathe easier. Then there will be no question of creating panic among senior citizens and other beneficiaries of social programs, and the media will be able to do their work unhindered.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw to the attention of the House an unfortunate situation which must be reviewed if the unemployment insurance system is to be considered fair and just to all workers. I refer to reports that the Commission's office in Barrie, Ontario, intends to appeal decisions of the local board referees interpreting the vacation pay, lay-off notices and unemployment insurance provisions in favour of the workers at Black and Decker.
The Liberals put into place a system and a mind set which consistently denied fair interpretations without the realization of a basic fact, that when a plant closes down completely it is not a case of a worker trying to beat the system but a case where the system must start working for the worker.
That same nonsense occurred in Midland, Ontario, when the RCA plant closed in 1982.
I ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) who, the House knows, dislikes technicalities which persecute the unfortunate, to have her officials investigate this fully before the Government takes any further appeal procedures.
I also ask the Minister, who, I know, is concerned about the shambles in which the Liberals left the system, to consider a complete review of the vacation pay, lay-off notices and unemployment insurance provisions.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern on behalf of 250,000 employees of the Government of Canada over the Government's decision to delay the proclamation of the health and safety provisions of the Canada Labour Code until March or June of 1986. This decision will have the effect of continuing to deprive these public employees of any legislative health and safety protection. I am particularly concerned because even 1986 is not given as a firm date.
These employees were to have been brought under the Code, according to the amendments. I believe that the delay is a breach of faith by a Government which promised consultation

November 30, 1984
and co-operation when it was campaigning to become the Government last summer.
The present situation is a grace and favour relationship in which less than 10 per cent of federal employees, I am told, have an effectively working health and safety committee, because of the refusal of the Government and the Treasury Board, as the employer, to implement a decent system of health and safety.
In regard to its own employees, I suggest the Government should be a model of progress and not a model of looking to the past. The current situation has proven that a voluntary system from the Government is not workable, and when all Parties agreed last June and endorsed Part IV of the Canada Labour Code that would give this protection to federal employees, it is wrong for the Government to delay its proclamation.
I call on the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) and the Government either to proclaim the protection now-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Lion. Member that his time has expired.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in 1975 the United Nations officially opened the International Decade for Women by highlighting the problems of women in the Third World. Unfortunately, as the decade draws to a close, many of the problems persist.
An area of particular importance is the role of women in development. If effective and lasting development is to take place in the Third World, women must be integrated into the process. For example, many African agricultural training projects fail, simply because they focus on men, ignoring the fact that women do 70 per cent of the agricultural work. In addition, while two-thirds of the world's 800 million illiterate are women, women are often left out of literacy training programs. This can no longer go on if proper and dynamic development is to take place.
Fortunately, some positive steps have been taken. The OECD has established guidelines that strongly remind member agencies to treat women in development as the major issue. In Canada, CIDA and Match International have also played a significant role in encouraging development initiatives by women.
Progress has been made, but the problems of women in development, and indeed the problems of development as a whole, if not dealt with more effectively, will be with us long after the decade of women is over.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her time has expired.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, this fall, millions and millions of pounds of subsidized beef have been dumped on the Canadian market by countries in the European Economic Community, such as Denmark and Ireland. Over 45 million pounds of beef, subsidized up to 50 cents a pound, are driving down the price that our Canadian beef producers receive for their product.
[DOT] (mo)
The Government promised in the election campaign "an effective fast track tariff policy, so that responsive action could be taken to protect producers by imposing import restrictions when necessary". Yet today, Mr. Speaker, there is not a single piece of legislation to implement this election promise or any other Tory election promise for agriculture, on the Order Paper of this House.
A recent report of the Farm Credit Corporation showed that 39,000 farmers across Canada are under serious financial stress this winter due to low commodity prices, and 1,700 are actually facing total financial collapse. Mr. Speaker, the Government was elected three months ago but has still not taken action to stop this dumping of subsidized beef by the European Economic Community countries. The Government must move immediately to stop this unfair practice which is driving more and more of our Canadian beef producers into bankruptcy.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on his apparent active inquiry into Canada's need for direct representation in Nicaragua.
As the only Member of this House to witness the November 4 election held in Nicaragua, I assure my honourable colleagues that that election was a genuine, democratic act of choice by the people of Nicaragua. It was not perfect, as elections in Canada are not perfect. However, it formally confirms what has already been plain to observers-the fact that the Government of Nicaragua is controlled by nobody but the people of Nicaragua.
As a sovereign state, engaged in desperate defence against the most powerful state in the world, Nicaragua has sent an ambassador to Canada, and deserves to receive an ambassador from Canada. Therefore I welcome the Minister's report inquiry into the pros and cons of establishing permanent representation there. The Globe and Mail today sums it up well:
The establishment of a permanent Canadian "presence" there is highly desirable-
November 30, 1984

The absence of an embassy in Nicaragua leaves Canada dependent on the U.S. for more than information. Canadians resident in Nicaragua are asked to register with the American embassy. If there were an invasion, Canadians would have to rely upon the invader's embassy to co-ordinate their evacuation. That should be an embarrassment-to Joe Clark and to Canada.
1 urge the Minister to act soon to help head off the dangers of war in Central America.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, a large number of my constituents would like to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for his prompt and exemplary action in delivering aid to Ethiopia amounting to $50 million.
There are some sectors of the Ethiopian Community, however, which require prompt and immediate action, particularly the Falashas, one of the oldest Jewish groups, which faces the possibility of ceasing to exist as a cultural entity.
A group of my constituents who recently returned from Ethiopia, reported that Canadian aid was being hampered due to the civil war raging between the Ethiopian, Eritrean and Somalian factions. Consequently, I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to instruct our Ambassador to the United Nations to seek an emergency session at the U.N. in order to propose an immediate 30-day truce during the upcoming holiday season, among the warring factions in Ethiopia so that Canada, in concert with other nations, could quickly organize an airlift and food drops to the inaccessible and war areas of Ethiopia to avoid an even greater disaster.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, Northumberland-Miramichi is the largest geographical riding in New Brunswick.
Since the mid-1970s there has been a prolonged pause in the Miramichi region's economic development and growth. Poor market conditions throughout North America for pulp and lumber have been responsible, in part, for the closure or reduced operation of many of our pulp mills and paper mills.
The Miramichi must now be considered a problem area in economic terms; unemployment hovers around an astounding rate of 40 per cent; over 12 per cent of the population receives some sort of social assistance.
Against this dire picture enters the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that very few people on the Miramichi enjoy being depend-
Oral Questions
ent on Canada Works grants. There is little permanency. There is never enough money to satisfy the demand.
But having said that, let me here and now acknowledge that the plight of our situation was recognized by the Hon. Minister and, of the projects which had been processed by the previous Government, not a single one had been terminated by her. Compassion, concern, and sensitivity to personal need were more important than partisan politics.
This year the amount of money allocated under Canada Works for Northumberland-Miramichi has more than doubled over the previous initial allocation, to $2 million.
In thanking the Hon. Minister, I assure her on behalf of the people of Miramichi that the money will be well spent-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have the Minister of Finance with us again, and we are relieved he did not forget any briefs in Washington.
Mr. Speaker, on November 8 of this year, the Minister of Finance announced a series of budgetary and extra-budgetary cutbacks, as well as increases in user costs for certain Government services. The cumulative effect of these decisions means that Quebec will be losing about $770 million of its total requirements. Considering the fact that many regions in Quebec have an unemployment rate of over thirteen per cent, could the Minister inform the House what measures he intends to propose to compensate for this loss to Quebec's economy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member if he would outline what the $770 million is for and where he says that job loss will originate. I want to underline the fact, as I have said many times in the House, that if we are to achieve the benefits of a reduction in the deficit, which will be felt in the Province of Quebec as well as in other parts of Canada, there have to be individual spending reductions in parts of the country. That has been spread equitably across the country. The benefits from the increased confidence and the job creation by the private sector which will result from that, will also be felt right across the country.

November 30, 1984
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT ANALYSED IMPACT ON QUEBEC NEEDS
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
1 do not know whether it is unparliamentary to send the Minister a study 1 made of these cutbacks. If not, I could send it to him separately.
However, considering the impact of these cutbacks on Quebec's economy, could the Minister inform the House if his Department has made a study of the impact of these budgetary cutbacks on Quebec's overall requirements and also on the number of jobs that may be lost?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Hon. Member in my first statement, we have tried in a very careful way to have an equitable sharing of the impact of the reductions across the country, by region as well as by individual groups of Canadians. There have not been individual impact studies done because of the fact that the impact will be shared right across the country. However, I underline the fact that it is very important for all of us to understand that there will be positive benefits in the increased business confidence. As the Leader of the Opposition has said many times in the past, confidence is a very important element of job creation. That will come, and that will be shared right across the country.


MONTREAL-QUEBEC GAS PIPELINE-CANCELLATION OF BRANCHES
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker,
I agree with the Minister that this confidence must be achieved in the private sector. And speaking of the private sector, did the Minister consult with the Government of Quebec and the private sector before cancelling construction on branch lines of the Montreal-Quebec City gas pipeline, a cut that will have a direct impact on levels of confidence in the private sector, which had already started to plan a number of investments in connection with the availability of natural gas?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with the Government of the Province of Quebec as well as with Governments of a number of the other provinces. I have been quite encouraged by the degree of support which has been given to me and to the Government to continue the direction in which we have been going in reducing the level of the deficit.
I think the Hon. Member is well aware of the benefits which can be gained by reduction in the deficit. I would encourage him to speak out and to encourage Canadians to accept the broad benefits from the reduction in the deficit as they will affect all Canadians, and not get deflected by the individual spending cuts. Sure, they are going to hurt in individual cases,
but I am convinced that they will be more than offset by the broad benefits.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A report in the Soviet News Agency Tass indicates that that country has now completed development of a long range cruise missile and plans to deploy such missiles on its submarine and bomber fleets over the next year. The Minister will understand the staggering implications that has for the whole North American Air Defence system, and the prospect it holds out for major investments in restoring that system to a point where security can be maintained. Have we had discussions or consultations with the United States concerning this very major new development? What response is the Government planning to take in relation to the major disruption this will cause to the North American security system?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House shares the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry about the development of that capacity in the Soviet Union. We are having discussions with the United States about the modernization of our air defence systems. One factor we are taking into account in those discussions is to ensure that any defence that might be mounted to a cruise threat from the Soviet Union would not involve Canada in other aspects of defence systems of which we might not approve.


SUGGESTED BAN ON DEPLOYMENT OF CRUISE MISSILES BY U.S. AND U.S.S.R.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognizes that the best defence against that development would be a ban on the use of the cruise missile throughout.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Members of this House do not take this question too seriously. I am surprised at the attitude of Members of this House on such an important issue. I would ask the Minister whether we have made representations both to the United States and the Soviet Union, to include on the agenda of the arms talks to begin this January discussion of a ban of the deployment of the cruise missile in an attempt to provide for the best security, which is not to have the missile around for use at all.
November 30, 1984


Charles Joseph Clark: 
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ADVICE GIVEN TO MINISTER PRIOR TO TALKS WITH MANITOBA COUNTERPART
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I think he will understand when I say I welcome him back from his interesting trip, and I hope he did not lose his briefs on the way to Question Period today. My question pertains to that very important subject matter. On Tuesday I asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the documents that were inadvertently left in the hotel lobby in Winnipeg on Monday, whether he would tell the House what the harsh measures referred to in that document were and which are to be kept, for the moment, away from the Government of Manitoba. The Prime Minister said that he was not sure to which document I was alluding. I am sure the Minister does know. Will he now tell the House what are those harsh measures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me first advise the Leader of the New Democratic Party that there was no reference to harsh measures in that particular memorandum. Either he is pulling something out of context, and I am sure he would not want to do that, or twisting something to his benefit. As he is quite aware, there is a certain degree of opposition to some of the measures that were taken in the economic statement as they affect the Province of Manitoba. The suggestion was made, as I am sure he will recognize: Don't hit any harder than is necessary in the discussion of the equalization statement. I would say to the Hon. Member that there was nothing in that memorandum which was not discussed. The tone of the discussion with Mr. Schroeder was perfectly consistent with the memorandum, and Mr. Schroeder appreciated that.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister picked up on the words that 1 used being "harsh message". According to the news story, the wording that is attributed to the document is "harsh message", as opposed to "harsh measures". If the Minister is saying that neither phrase was used, then we will accept his word for that.
I would like the Minister to clarify for the House of Commons and for the people of Manitoba whether or not the Government has reached a decision on the important matter of
Oral Questions
equalization as it affects the Government of Manitoba, as was promised by a number of Conservative Party candidates who were seeking office in the Province of Manitoba during the recent election.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision reached on the question of equalization, as 1 told Mr. Schroeder, and as I said publicly on at least two occasions. When I was in the Province of Manitoba I proposed to discuss this matter with all provincial Finance Ministers before reaching a tentative decision on my own. Because any change in the equalization measures would require an Act of Parliament, I said that I would then have to discuss it with my colleagues in Cabinet and the matter would then have to be brought before the House of Commons. No decision has been taken, and I indicated to Mr. Schroeder that no decision would be taken until early in the new year at the earliest.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT-EFFECTS ON MANITOBA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, dealing with another aspect of "harsh messages", quite apart from the equalization formula as it affects Manitoba and, indeed as it affects a number of other provinces, I would like to ask the Minister if he brought to the attention of the Government of Manitoba the exact impact of the cut-backs in Manitoba that he announced in the House not too many days ago. Did he say concretely to the officials of Manitoba what those cut-backs would be for that province? Will he tell us what their effects will be on the other provinces?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the matters which I did discuss in some detail with Mr. Schroeder, as well as with the Deputy Premier of Manitoba, was the very serious state of the financial position of the Government of Canada as we found it when we took office after the election. That is understood by Mr. Schroeder as well as by the Deputy Premier, and it is in that context that we must review equalization and the other particular elements of the spending reductions in the November 8 statement. We did not get into a full discussion of the individual items. We did talk at some length about the Institute of Technology. However, Mr. Schroeder did not ask me to participate in a broad discussion of every item that was contained in the statement of November 8.


SHOE IMPORT QUOTAS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Trade. Yesterday the Minister announced that the period of extension of the shoe quotas has been reduced by four months. Has the Minister done this because the Government has already made up its mind to reduce the existing extent of protection and

November 30, 1984
Oral Questions
assistance for the Canadian shoe industry and its 20,000 workers from what it is at present?


Hon. Jim Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would advise the Hon. Member that the Government has not as yet made any policy decision with respect to increasing, reducing, or in any way amending the quotas presently in effect. We have extended the period of existing quotas for one year, and have referred the question to the Anti-Dumping Tribunal for a thorough review of the industry. It will hear from all parts of the industry, from the retail market and from the consumers. Upon receiving that report, hopefully in early June, it will be referred to Cabinet. At that time a decision will be made on what the future policy will be.


LENGTH OF QUOTA PERIOD
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the announcement which was made yesterday indicated that the Government had decided to shorten the extension so that it would run from December 1 to November 30, 1985. I would like to ask the Minister why he has created uncertainty by making the announcement before a new policy was in place, and before there had been full consultation with the 20,000 workers and the communities which are affected.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to the first question from the Hon. Member, there has not been any change made. The only reason that the period was reduced from 16 months to 12 months was to fit in more completely with the business year of the industry so that it would cause less disruption. Second, it would allow for a shorter period within which to implement any new recommendations which may arise as a result of the Tribunal's findings.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On February 1, 1985, some 400 employees at the Sears catalogue warehouse in Burnaby will lose their jobs and become eligible for severance pay and early retirement packages. I would ask the Minister how she could possibly justify the Government's proposal, which was contained in the recently tabled economic statement, which would cut significantly the monthly benefits that are available to these workers and their families in the months after they lose their jobs.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the Hon. Member that there have been no changes made to the regulations at the present time. We have said, and we continue to say, that the objective of these measures is to treat all income for unemployed persons in a fair and equitable manner.
Because that is the principal key to the situation, we will take whatever time is necessary to ensure that that objective is implemented.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, there is no fairness or equity in these proposals for working people.


IMPLEMENTATION OF GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very serious effects of these proposed cuts, not only on my constituents but on thousands of workers throughout Canada-cuts which total some $90 million-will the Minister assure the House that, in the spirit of equity and fairness, she will delay the implementation date of these harsh measures, at least until there has been a more careful and comprehensive study of the serious impact they will have on working people and their families?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already assured one of the Hon. Member's colleagues that I will take into consideration proposals which are made by various Members of Parliament. I assure him that I will give consideration to the proposals which he puts forward.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MRS. CATHERINE LALUMIERE, SECRETARY OF STATE ATTACHED TO MINISTRY OF ECONOMY, FINANCES AND BUDGET, RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSUMER AFFAIRS, OF FRANCE
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of Mrs. Catherine Lalu-miere, Secretary of State with the Minister of Economy, Finance and the Budget, with responsibility for Consumer Affairs, and the presence of a French delegation.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services.
His Department is responsible for a major refit of Canadian warships known as the Trump Program.
Could the Minister inform the House of the status of this program and, especially, whether the contract will be awarded to a company that has already qualified for this contract, namely, the Chantiers maritimes de Levis?
November 30, 1984


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that that is certainly the recommendation which I and my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, intend to make. There are negotiations currently taking place, and I hope that within a very few days there will be news which will be favourable to the Hon. Member and his constituents.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Government has announced its intentions to make extensive cuts in all sorts of programs that are delivered to the people of Canada. I would ask the Prime Minister why the review committee which is responsible for deciding where those cuts will be made, is concentrating solely on programs delivered to outside users- to the taxpayers-while leaving untouched the vast administrative components, for example, Treasury Board and the Office of the Comptroller General, which serve purely bureaucratic ends.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, since that is a specific responsibility which the Prime Minister has devolved upon me,
I can assure the Hon. Member that the premise of her question is quite wrong. It is a broad government review, not for the purpose of cutting but for the purpose of identifying programs that overlap and programs that are duplicated. It is intended to eliminate the overlaps and duplications, and to determine the efficiency of the delivery of the programs, both externally and internally.


COMPOSITION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that answer. May I ask him then does he intend to restructure his advisory committee as to reflect the mandate he has just described, because his advisory committee now includes some people who are extremely well qualified as administrators, but does not include people who are qualified to judge the quality of services?


Erik Nielsen: 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the Minister ensure the 126 long-time workers of Allen Industries, whose employer has decided to close the Canadian operation and move to Mexico, that they will not be detrimentally affected by the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance program which will require them to use their pension and severance pay before they can qualify for unemployment insurance?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, the changes to this program have not been finalized. I would be glad to hear from Members of Parliament the way in which they think the regulations should be amended, and the timing that should be involved in carrying that out.


PLIGHT OF OLDER WORKERS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister accept the representation that the timing should be never? She should recognize that the benefits which those individuals get are benefits for which they worked during their working lives, and that most of them are in an age bracket in which they cannot find alternative employment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would emphasize that what we want to do is to treat all income in the same way for the purposes of unemployment insurance payments. We want to do it in a fair and equitable manner. We think that is only fair to both employers and employees. We are studying the best way that this can be implemented. I can assure the Hon. Member that when those changes are made they will be fair and equitable.

November 30, 1984
Oral Questions


PORNOGRAPHY
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I am sure that Canadians were shocked and appalled by the news in the media this morning of a report from a U.S. Customs Commissioner of increased traffic in child pornography into the United States. Can the Minister assure the House that there are adequate measures in place at this time for his officials both to identify and classify materials, whether written or video tapes, in order to ensure that this kind of material is not coming into Canada? Can the Minister, as well, advise us whether he has had reports of any increase in materials from Europe, particularly from the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, of material depicting child pornography?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member that there has been no identifiable increase in terms of the quantity of this material being shipped commercially into Canada. However, one of the problems of my Department, in terms of intercepting shipments, is that usually when this material is imported into Canada it is done so privately by individuals. Often the material weighs less than 500 grams. Consequently, it is considered a letter under the regulations of the Canada Post Corporation Act, and there is no authority to open the mail without the addressee being present.
As a result of this, we do not have a clear understanding of the volume of this sort of material coming in. Clearly, if commercial shipments were intercepted coming into Canada, this sort of material would be considered improper and would be banned from acceptance by Canada.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Speaker:: -Malepart! I am sorry, this is the second time I made that mistake.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
In the Throne Speech, the economic statement and the speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, legislation was announced to extend the spouse's allowance to widows and widowers aged 60 to 64. I would like to know why the Prime Minister's Government has chosen to discriminate against those who are single, divorced or separated and who have the same needs.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the previous Government flatly refused to help widows and widowers aged 60 to 64, or veterans, for that matter. This Government, despite the tremendous financial problems it has inherited, has committed itself to quickly bring in legislation to help these people.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister knows perfectly well that by proposing this measure he is saving money, because between twenty and thirty per cent of the people who will be eligible for the spouse's allowance are now receiving welfare payments. I think the Prime Minister ought to make sure that the money thus saved will be used to help people living alone, and who are in need, whether they are single, separated or divorced, in order to remove the discriminatory effects of this measure.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can inform the Hon. Member that our objective is to help those people in our society who are most in need, and I think that is the basic purpose of any decent social program in this country.
Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a real need for such measures among people between 60 and 64, and also that our veterans who have done so much for this country deserve special recognition, despite the precarious state of the nation's finances.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the laying-off of 485 Alcan workers in the Minister's riding of Kingston over the next 18 months. Since the Minister made a commitment to this House last week to talk to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business about these 170,000 jobs it said were available, I wonder whether the Minister, since she has had a week or so, can report what progress she has made, and can tell us what hope she has that some of those workers in Kingston who are about to be laid off can find some of those jobs.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to report to the Hon. Member that 1 have discussed the situation with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I have also discussed the local situation in Kingston with the Alcan company, with the consultative committee set up by the union, by the company, and by the CEC office, to help redirect, retrain and replace those workers in other jobs. I have, indeed, had a number of consultations, and I will continue to do so.
November 30, 1984


MINISTER'S CONSULTATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can tell us the results of her discussions with the business organization? How many of those jobs actually exist? In the meantime, could the Minister guarantee us that the $300 million worth of cut-backs in the unemployment insurance plan will be delayed until the Minister finishes with her review and consultative process across the country? Or, indeed, are these consultations really just a sham?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my consultations begin on Monday with officials and with Ministers of the Government of Ontario. The discussions will continue with members of the business community, members of labour organizations, members of women's groups, indeed, with members of a variety of groups, during the next two months. I do not consider these discussions a sham at all. I am not going to them and saying, "these are the answers and you have to take them", as did the previous Government. I really do want to see these consultations work.
When it comes to numbers of people who are either to be placed in jobs or are looking for jobs, for every single individual whom we can help place in a job, that is one person whose dignity we have helped to restore-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for York
South-Weston.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John V. Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Solicitor General whether it was the policy of his Government to reveal and comment on criminal investigations prior to charges being laid. This was asked specifically in relation to an RCMP investigation into allegations of the shipment of weapons technology to China. The Minister replied: "I believe it has been the tradition to confirm, when asked, that an investigation was under way. That is all the information that was given". Mr. Neil MacDonald, a reporter with the Ottawa Citizen, confirmed to me that the Solicitor General was not asked whether an investigation was under way. In fact the Solicitor General volunteered and revealed, without being asked, not only that an investigation was under way but he also volunteered, without being asked, the names of the companies under investigation, and the nature of the investigation. Will the Solicitor General clarify for the House this obvious inconsistency and misstatement of fact?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite and his colleagues will have to make up their minds. On the one hand we are constantly harangued about being too secretive. On the other
Oral Questions
hand, we are now being castigated for being too open. I repeat my answer to my hon. friend opposite and assure him that the information which I provided, as far as I am concerned, was proper and in order.


John V. Nunziata: Supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


FINANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Considering the fact that over 600 Sidbec employees living in the Prime Minister's riding will soon be out of work, which will indirectly do away with 200 more jobs, I am sure the Prime Minister would like to cushion the impact this is expected to have on the entire community of Gagnon.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to take steps to ensure that Sidbec employees will not lose part of their unemployment benefits because of severance pay or other compensatory payments?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that the main shareholder in Sidbec-Normines is the Government of Quebec, that the company has been facing tremendous problems due to competition on international markets and that the city of Gagnon has been severely affected by all this. In fact, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has been of great assistance to the population. And I may add that the Minister of Finance has announced tax measures that will provide further relief for people in remote areas, especially in our Canadian North.
I think two important steps have been taken towards providing a measure of justice for those Canadians who live in our remote and distant regions.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short question, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that much of the severance pay, as the Prime Minister knows from when he closed out the iron ore mine at Schefferville, comes from-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.

November 30, 1984
Oral Questions ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY


VALLEYFIELD BRIDGE BLOCKAGE-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is with regard to the Valleyfield Bridge blockage in the St. Lawrence Seaway. Over 100 notices of legal actions have been served on the Authority. There were reports yesterday that some of the shippers, both domestic and international, are considering alternate routes for next year. Will the Minister of Transport, in the interest of reassuring both Canadian and international shipping industry interests, consider establishing a commission of inquiry into the maintenance and operating practices of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Government's main preoccupation is to restore services to the St. Lawrence Seaway system. 1 think the sort of things which the Member has suggested could be considered when we have restored services in the normal way. It is clear that every effort is being made to restore those services. I can advise Members of the House that the schedule for repairs is on target. Work is being carried out on a double 10-hour shift. All things being equal, the bridge should be operational by December 6.


RESTORATION OF SHIPPERS' CONFIDENCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his answer. Would he not agree that since transportation methods for next year are being decided this year, it is important to move immediately, not only to restore the service but to restore confidence that the Seaway system is efficient, will work well, and that people can count on the St. Lawrence Seaway? It is not the Panama or Suez Canal. Would he not agree that it is important to move now to restore confidence which is shaky at the moment?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the best way to restore confidence is to restore the operations of the bridge on the target that was suggested. As I indicated to the Member, we are on target.
With regard to the other point which is being made by the Member, we should consider that this is an unprecedented accident. It has never occurred before. Naturally, the Seaway Authority will be examining its maintenance practices. If it is necessary to consider a further investigation, that will be taken into account after services are restored in the normal fashion.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Canadian working people who
come under federal jurisdiction waited for five years for the previous Liberal Government to pass legislation improving health and safety laws. Yesterday the Minister announced another two-year delay before he will bring in this new law. Could the Minister explain why he is not going to proclaim immediately the changes to the health and safety legislation, since most of those measures could be introduced and proclaimed tomorrow? Why wait two years when most of it could be done right away?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Member, as I did in committee yesterday, that the rationale for the delay in the proclamation of Part IV of the Canada Labour Code is apparent. There are some 21 sets of regulations that must be drafted to reflect the intent of the legislation. The intent of that legislation must be apparent. Consultations in all areas with employers, employees, and those affected, will be reflected in those regulations. We have no intention of proclaiming regulations that are imperfect and have not been the subject of consultation with those who are very seriously affected by them.


EFFECT ON GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that this delay will leave some 300,000 federal government employees with no legislated health and safety protection? Since the Government is the employer, will it either proclaim the sections for health and safety to cover those employees, or take alternative action to give them health and safety protection effective now?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, with regard to my hon. friend's preamble, the employees of the Government of Canada are now covered by occupational and health safety measures. Those measures are not as acceptable as the new measures within Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. If there is any doubt in the minds of either of the hon. gentleman, or of anyone else in the House or outside it, as to the necessity to study and consult on these regulations, in the spirit of openness which the Government believes in, I would ask that they consult my officials. I will make them available so that these people can also understand the necessity for consultation in forming these regulations.


DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. I would like to congratulate him warmly on his assumption of that very important post. My question arises out of his response to my colleague, the Member for York South-Weston.
Would he review the practice of his Department, and perhaps his own approach to investigations, by re-instating the
November 30, 1984

practice that used to apply in this House, and I believe still should, reflecting the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty? He must realize the reflection that announcements of investigations may have on private reputations, and should refuse to reveal whether an investigation is in progress by the police unless and until charges are preferred.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the distinguished Leader of the Opposition, a former distinguished Minister of Justice. I certainly will take his representation very seriously.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transportation. One of the most significant pledges that the Government made to southern New Brunswickers was to restore the Atlantic Limited and put it back on the track. Would the Minister please advise what progress has been made and when this vital service will be restored?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the recently established Rail Action Force is, among other things, mandated to look into the restoration of rail passenger services that were unilaterally discontinued by the previous administration. I can assure the Hon. Member that the restoration of the Atlantic will be considered within that context.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. By now the Minister will have had time to study the Abella Report which points out that the Outreach Program is the most likely way for native people to be employed by her Department which leaves them with no job security, lower pay, and no benefits. Is the Minister prepared to act on the recommendation of the report that Outreach workers should not be hired on short-term contracts but should be made part of the permanent government Public Service?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I will be presenting, along with my cabinet colleagues in the social policy committee, the Government's response to the Abella report as quickly as possible. I have been asked by the Prime Minister to play the lead role in that and to work with other Ministers to prepare a response to the over-all 117 recommendations. I cannot at this point single out one specific recommendation and give a precise answer. How-
Order Paper Questions
ever, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will be dealing with it very expeditiously.


METIS AND NON-STATUS INDIANS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Will the Minister act to remove the double discrimination faced by Metis and non-status Indians who face discrimination in getting employment and yet do not receive federal government help for post-secondary education? Will she urge upon her Cabinet colleagues that Metis and non-status Indians should receive the same kind of help for post-secondary education that Inuit and status Indian people do?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to the Hon. Member's proposal. I will certainly convey that to my colleagues and discuss it with them. I can tell the Hon. Member that, with regard to programs such as Canada Works, the Metis and non-status Indians will not be discriminated against.


CLERK OF PETITION'S REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) on Thursday, November 29, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 29.


Mr. Howie: How many lawyers are employed by the Department of Finance?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: There are 17 lawyers assigned to the Department from the Department of Justice; this includes two lawyers from the

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
private sector who are part of the Interchange Canada program.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 29, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and the amendment thereto of Mr Riis (p. 694).
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker. 1
believe I had approximately a minute and a half left from yesterday's sitting. Perhaps I can sum up, in outlining the two policy decisions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Employment and Immigration, by asking the respective Ministers to consult with the fishermen. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) did not even consult with the provincial governments, the unions, or the Fishermen's Loans Board. After making the policy decision to cancel the fishing vessel insurance plan, he should now go back and consult with the fishermen affected so that they will not lose their boats in this transition.
When announcing a policy to cut back $250 million in unemployment insurance benefits, I would also ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) not only to consult with the provincial governments, the business community or even the unions, but to consult with the unemployed people in this country who will be affected by that measure. If those two Ministers went back and consulted with the people who are affected, I believe they would cancel those policies which were announced by the Minister of finance (Mr. Wilson).
I am sorry that I do not have the time to go into the discrimination in hiring practices as I said I would at the beginning of my address.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a little out of the ordinary but I do not think the House has had the opportunity of congratulating the Hon. Member
for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski) in his capacity as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. The thing that draws this to my attention is that he is today in the chair so resplendent in his new costume that I was drawn to recognize him and, on behalf of all Members of the House of Commons, to congratulate him for looking so good.


John Napier Turner: I do not know where you got your tailor, Mr. Speaker, but I want to congratulate you on your new streamlined look in the House and to say that the affection that we all hold for you is now reinforced by an awesome respect.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I want to thank the Hon. Members. Now that I have my uniform, I hope that I can direct traffic accordingly. I am glad that enough material was found to make this uniform. I recall that the last uniform I had was in 1954 when I played for the Edmonton Eskimos.
I will do my most humble best to look after you in the Chamber. Thank you.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the speech made by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker)?


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Hon. Member stated that the Government applied some discrimination against certain people in regard to hiring practices. However, he did not elaborate on that. Would he explain what he meant by this discrimination in hiring practices?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I had indicated that I did not have time to go into that issue. The point is that when preferential hiring regulations are introduced into the system, they sometimes discriminate against the most needy.
I am pleased that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is in the House to hear what I have to say. Let us examine the two employment programs and their hiring regulations which the Minister announced to the House.
According to the Canada Works Program, first, one must run out of unemployment insurance in order to qualify for that first category to be hired. One has to be drawing unemployment insurance in order to qualify under the second category. Those regulations were brought about because of the NEED program which was established in consultation with the provincial governments. Second, according to Section 38, one must be drawing unemployment insurance in order to be hired on one of those projects.
Under the new direction that the Department is now taking in an attempt to save $250 million through increased interviews for placing people into jobs, as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration have said, there would obviously be preference given to those people who are drawing unemployment insurance in placing them in those jobs.
November 30, 1984

I recently had a case of a widow with one daughter and two sons. The widow works one week out of a month at a corner-store. She cannot get hired because she is not drawing unemployment insurance, but she has worked in the previous eight weeks, which is another condition for hiring. The daughter graduated from trade school after a secretarial and bookkeeping course but she has never drawn unemployment insurance before and, therefore, is in the last category for hiring under any works program.
This widow also has two sons at home who are aged 18 and 21. Since they have not worked before they do not qualify for those programs.
The Minister says that the business community has identified approximately 170,000 jobs so far. If the Minister wishes to take people off unemployment insurance and save $250 million, it will be necessary to have an unemployment insurance officer send notices to those people indicating where those jobs are. Again, there is that built-in discrimination against first time workers or people looking for a job.
This is a very serious situation because we must realize that when someone reaches 18 years of age the family allowance payment stops. Furthermore, in most provinces, those who are 18 or older and living at home cannot even get welfare. This means, in the case of the widow with the daughter who just graduated from trade school and the two sons at home, that she is stricted to the small amount of income that she gets one week out of a month, plus the widows' allowance in Newfoundland on which even one person cannot live, let alone support three children.
Restricted hiring practices have evolved over a period of time because of various inputs, primarily by provincial governments that were more interested in work programs and getting people off welfare than in anything else. This is built into the system. The new measures introduced by The Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Finance in saving the $200 million will now really drive in a wedge and create poverty and give no hope for that time fellow or girl looking for the first job. It is outright, plain discrimination. There are no other words for it.
The Government should change its mind. The people which the Government consults are not these very people. The people the Government consults are perhaps the stiff-shirted, carpet-ed-up-to-your-knees people who think they have the answers to everything. The Government has to turn around and change direction. It should not be saving money on the backs of the poor. It should not have promised the world to these people in every single Department. There were 388 financial promises made. Perhaps two or three of those promises have been kept, but then the cuts came which affected only the poor people. The people will not put up with it. They will not put up with the investigators which this Minister of Employment and Immigration is going to send out to Manpower offices across this country.
Borrowing Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) is rising to ask a question?


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the hon. gentleman refer during his remarks to the fact that the special program for fishermen was cancelled this year. That is not what I understood. Could the Hon. Member explain what he meant?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A brief answer, please.


George Baker: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister stood up in the House the other day to answer a question I had asked. He said there was no such thing as a special program, that perhaps I was referring to the extension of unemployment insurance in the spring. That is not what I was talking about, Mr. Speaker. Whoever wrote the response for the Parliamentary Secretary in the Department of Employment and Immigration should have his head examined. He must have a short memory, whoever it was. It had to be a senior public servant. There was a special program, $15 million was allocated, $9 million was spent. It cost much less. In my riding alone of Gander-Twillingate some $3 million was spent on that program to bring fishermen and fish plant workers up to their ten weeks of unemployment insurance so they would not have to go to the welfare office to get money for the winter. The fishing season is worse this year, but the Minister of Employment and Immigration says there is not going to be any special program. We will increase Canada Works funding up to $3 million in each riding when the very ridings affected were already up to $3 million. That includes even Tory ridings, Mr. Speaker. The worst problem is in the Tory ridings. I am surprised that some of the PC members are not after this Minister of Employment and Immigration to get her to do what the Liberal government did last year and what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) says is "throwing money at problems". Yes, Mr. Speaker, throwing money at problems, but those are problems that affect the poorest people in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time for questions and comments has now terminated. The next speaker is the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your finery and wish you well in your new office. I am sure you will be an adornment on the throne.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am rising to speak on the legislation which is currently before the House, namely the borrowing authority Bill C-l 1 whereby the Conservative Government is seeking authority to borrow some $7.3 billion in the present fiscal year 1984-85, and, going beyond that, to borrow some $16 billion for fiscal 1985-86.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), on Wednesday last moved a reasoned amendment,

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
which was accepted by the Chair. The substance was to call upon the House to recognize in effect that what the Government is seeking is the authority to borrow money far beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances. The amendment proposed by my colleague, the finance spokesman for the Party, reads:
That this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount which is required to meet the Government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle-
The amendment goes on to suggest that the House should not give second reading to Bill C-l 1.
It was not particularly surprising that that reasoned amendment was found to be in order by the Chair. That motion was identical to the motion which was proposed by the Conservative Party when it was in Opposition in 1982. On July 19, 1982, the Official Opposition moved the very motion now before the House.
We have seen in the course of the last seven or eight weeks some very dramatic reversals of policy by the Conservatives now that they are in government. Surely one cannot imagine a more dramatic reversal than what is now happening in this House when the Conservative Government comes before Parliament and says to us effectively, "Give us the money that we need. Let us borrow money, not only for the current fiscal year up to March 31, 1985, but give us an extra $16 billion on top of that for the next fiscal year. We are not going to tell you how it is going to be spent". We all know that the Main Estimates are not tabled until next spring. "We are not going to tell you how it is going to be spent" effectively says that the Conservatives want us to trust that they will spend that $16 billion wisely and with care.
In assessing the request of the Government to trust it, in assessing the Government's request for an additional $16 billion in borrowing authority in the fiscal year 1985-86, I suggest it is appropriate that we look effectively at the requirements for this fiscal year and look at the Government's policies with respect to expenditure, cuts in programs, in services, in increases in taxes for this fiscal year. Then, as Members of the House, we should ask ourselves whether that record warrants the kind of trust we are being asked to give to this Government and whether it gives rise to the confidence that the Government will spend that money wisely.
I suggest the opposite is the case, Mr. Speaker, that the fiscal record of this Government so far is quite the reverse. We should be extremely concerned, if this Government is to be granted that kind of authority, whether it will spend wisely, because we believe the Government will spend according to the priorities of its friends in the corporate sector in the business community. If we need any evidence whatsoever that the big business community is leading this Government around by the nose and effectively calling the economic tune for this Government, we do not have to look further than the announcement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) who said that the changes which this Parliament passed to the Canada Labour Code, which would ensure conditions of work are safer
and healthier, are not going to be implemented for another two years. That is a shameful decision by this Government and a denial of the rights, not just of 300,000 public servants who have no protection whatosever but of many, many other thousands of workers within federal jurisdiction.
It is quite obvious that the reason for that decision was the fact that the corporate sector fought this Bill when it was presented to Parliament. The corporate sector fought it when the Bill went to committee, and now it has found some allies on the government side of the House. It does not take two years to draft regulations. It does not take two years to draft regulations that would require employers to ensure that working conditions are safe and not hazardous. That is the Government which is asking us now to trust it, to trust that it will spend the $16 billion it is asking for wisely.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is not in the House at the present time. At the time the Conservative Party proposed the amendment which is now before the House in identical form, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
The first amendment we offered was to decline second reading of this Bill. There is a well established principle that Parliament only provides sufficient borrowing authority to a Government to allow it to finance its operations within the current fiscal year. It is clear from the figures in the bill and from the statement by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussicres) in response to my question yesterday that the government has every intention of this borrowing authority spilling over into 1983-84.
This is all the more reprehensible because the government has not given us any projections about what will happen in 1983-84.
What has changed? What has been the dramatic change from the time when the Conservatives were in Opposition, when what was being done was reprehensible and breached all the finest traditions of Parliament, to today when the Conservatives come before Parliament and propose exactly the same thing?
There are no projections whatsoever as to how this money will be spent. Indeed, we in this Party have asked repeatedly not only for projections with respect to how the moneys are to be spent in the next fiscal year, but for statements of the impact of the decisions which have already been announced by the Government. I suspect that this impact will be very severe on my constituents and on the constituents of all Members of the House, and so it will be with respect to jobs and cuts in services. The impact will be devastating.
The Government comes before us and says, "Forget about what we said in Opposition, forget about our principles and everything for which we stood when we were in opposition. We are in government now and those principes do not matter any more". That is the kind of action which brings the promises of politicians into disrepute. There have been a number of similar actions by the Government which I believe are most unworthy of a Party elected on a mandate of change, a mandate to provide jobs or a mandate which indicated that job creation would be the top priority.
November 30, 1984

What has happened to the top priority of job creation? It has been transformed into a very different priority, that is, this Government's slavish obsession with the deficit, with cutting the deficit.
During the federal election campaign, far from dwelling on the deficit, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) indicated that his top priority was job, jobs, jobs. Yet that priority appears to have vanished in the economic statements of this Government in recent weeks. According to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), it is now clear that we have a new priority, and that priority is cutting the deficit. This is somehow supposed to be the panacea. Cutting the deficit will be the great panacea which results in restoration of business confidence, which in turn results in more investment, which in turn theoretically will provide jobs. It just does not work that way. We do not have to look very far to see the evidence that that kind of economic theory, that discredited economic theory, is totally unworkable in practice.
That theory has been implemented in my own Province of British Columbia with a very dramatic and harsh impact. Thousands of people have been thrown out of work, both those in the Public Service and others. Services have been cut. In many cases essential services have been cut. There are line-ups at food banks in British Columbia; 2,000 to 3,000 people are lining up for food in that province. That is from a government that has the same basic economic thrust as the Conservative Government is presenting to Parliament and for which it is requesting support. The old trickle-down theory that somehow if we reduce the deficit in turn the additional moneys which are liberated will be spent by the corporate sector to create jobs, was discredited in the 1930s during the depression. In fact, it was the implementation of similar theories which led to the worst depression in modern economic history. A whole generation of Canadians were unable to find work. We know very well what happened to the government of R. B. Bennett for its ineptness in handling the crisis of unemployment in the 1930s.
It is interesting to note that in its obsession with the deficit, the Government is ignoring the fact that a number of jurisdictions have increased the deficit on a short-term basis with the objective of providing jobs for their people. That has been done in a successful manner. Instead of this obsession with the deficit, the Government should look far more closely at its fundamental priority, as stated during the election. Surely that priority must be the creation of jobs for some two million Canadians who are without work today, half of whom are young people. Rather than that priority, we hear the Canadian Federation of Independent Business suggesting that there are 170,000 jobs in Canada just waiting to be filled. I suggest that the Federation should get serious. If it really believes that there are 170,000 jobs out there, employers who claim that they cannot find people to fill those jobs should come forward and give the details of those jobs, because I suggest they would be flooded with applications from many desperate people who are trying to find work.
Borrowing Authority
Members of Parliament should visit Canada employment centres in their communities to see the long line-ups of people, many of whom are desperate, are losing hope and would take virtually anything in order to survive. We are not just talking about the economic hardship of being out of work, but the loss of dignity involved as well, the lack of self-respect and the feeling which are part and parcel of losing a job in today's society.
During Questions Period today I raised a question with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) about the fact that the Government, in its new-found obsession with the deficit, intends to reduce the payments made available to individuals who lose their jobs and have negotiated some form of severance pay package or early retirement scheme. In my constituency of Burnaby, almost 400 people will be thrown out of work at the end of January. Fortunately they were able to negotiate some form of early retirement benefits or severance benefits, which after all is just a form of deferred income. The Government is saying to those 400 men and women, many of whom are in their fifties and will find it very difficult to find alternate employment, that their monthly pay package as a result of its program will be cut dramatically.
I do not believe that is a just and fair program. I do not think we should be attempting to cut the deficit on the backs of working people or people who have been thrown out of their jobs and are attempting to survive and to feed their families. We did not hear anything about that during the last election campaign. Instead, we heard talk of jobs, jobs, jobs. However, that has been abandoned by the Government.
We know as well that women are being disproportionately affected by the crisis in unemployment. With the advent of new technologies, women are being increasingly relegated to the role of part-time workers. There are serious cut-backs in access to child care, which has a devastating impact upon the ability of women to participate as equal partners in the work place. Increasingly we are hearing the cry that somehow women are secondary wage earners. Surely in society today women must be accepted as full partners economically, socially and in every other way. The effect of this Government's economic policies is particularly harsh on working women as well as on single parents who are struggling to survive on incomes which are often below the poverty level.
If the Government were serious about its commitment to job creation and its commitment to reducing the deficit in a manner which is sensitive to human needs and concerns, why does it not take a look as well, at the possibility of increasing revenues? There is a great opportunity to do so by ensuring that the taxation system is fairer and more equitable. There are far too many loopholes which allow Canadians with incomes in excess of $70,000, $80,000 and $100,000 per year to avoid the payment of any income taxes whatsoever.
We all remember the promises of the Prime Minister, in response to the prodding of my own Leader, that he would introduce a handsome minimum tax. While we must accept the principle of a minimum tax, we have to look beyond that and fundamentally restructure the taxation system in this

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
country. We have to look at an elimination of some of the glaring loopholes that favour the wealthy as opposed to the poor. We have to look at making sure that the corporate sector pays its fair share of taxes. Its share of the over-all tax burden has dropped dramatically since 1950. We must look as well at the whole question of tax exemptions and the regressive nature of many of these tax exemptions. A child tax exemption is of far greater benefit to someone earning $100,000 a year than it is to a single parent who, as I said before, is struggling to survive.
This Government is asking for a blank cheque. I do not believe that its policies as enunciated to date are such that we should trust it with the extra $16 billion that it is asking for in the next fiscal year without any projection whatsoever as to what it will be spent on. We do not know, for example, whether it intends to cut back on equalization payments to the provinces in the areas of health care, legal aid and postsecondary education.
We have seen the devastating effect in the Province of British Columbia of cut-backs in post-secondary education. Far from reducing equalization payments to the provinces, we should be ensuring that the money which the federal Government designates to the provinces for health care is in fact spent on health care, and money which it designates for post-secondary education is spent on post-secondary education.
In the whole question of cutting the deficit, we have to look as well at the sacred cow of military expenditures. Somehow or other when we ask people to make sacrifices, equity is lacking. We do not ask that sacred cow to make sacrifices, but we do ask the poor, those without work, and the powerless in society to make the sacrifices. Any notion of equity and fairness surely requires that those most able to bear the burden of sacrifice are called upon to bear that burden first.
I see that my time for my speech on this Bill is just about up. I appeal to government members to recognize that what is being asked for in the proposal before the House today was deemed by them to be unacceptable, reprehensible and wrong when they were in Opposition. I appeal to those Members to explain to this House how what was wrong, reprehensible and unparliamentary in 1982 when done by a Liberal government can suddenly become acceptable and justifiable today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?


Mr. Boyer:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) as the House examines this borrowing Bill. I will only make a comment in joining this debate.
The Hon. Member raised in his speech the question of the reversal of principle and contends that there has been a change in the position of the Progressive Conservative Party from when it was in opposition to the position it has now taken in government and underscores this as somehow being inconsistent. I really find these remarks somewhat incredible in terms
of the inconsistency that the Hon. Member and another spokesman for his Party, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), were talking about. There is profound inconsistency in their position.
No one in the Government is happy to see this Bill come before the House. We would love to be in the position of not having to borrow further funds. The reality that we encountered, however, was a massive and growing federal deficit. Direct steps have already been taken to cut that deficit so that the amount that has to be borrowed for this year and for the coming fiscal year is less than it otherwise would have to be.
Spokesmen for the New Democratic Party have been extremely outspoken in their criticism of efforts by this Government to make cuts in wasteful public spending and to reduce the deficit. Try as we might and hear the criticisms as we might, there is still a gap. We cannot turn things around overnight. We cannot eliminate the deficit by cutting everything immediately. That Party would protest most if that were tried.
We are approaching this with a measure of realism. There is no inconsistency in what we said before and what we say today, because we have several long-term goals, including a deficit reduction. We are doing it in a manner that is fair and equitable. As we proceed along that line, it is still necessary to borrow funds to fill that gap. That is why this Bill is before the House. The Hon. Member should recognize that there is consistency and a fair-minded approach here. The Canadian people certainly recognize it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member who just spoke was not present in the House when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) railed against this practice. Perhaps he was watching the proceedings on March 7, 1984 when his colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), said the following with respect to precisely the same proposal which the Government now has before the House. He said:
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.
Either the Hon. Member has selective amnesia or he is making an incredible suggestion as regards consistency. It was precisely the practice of the previous government in coming before this Parliament and saying, "Let us borrow not just for this fiscal year, but let us borrow as well for the next fiscal year". When Members opposite were in Opposition, they said that that was wrong because the government was asking for a blank cheque. They said the government was asking them to trust it, and they did not trust it. Now they have the audacity to come before this House and say the same thing. That certainly is not consistency and certainly will not be accepted by the people of this country.


Mrs. Finestone:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). With regard to the
November 30, 1984

concern he has expressed concerning the blank cheque for which the Government is asking, does he think that it might consider using some of that money to put the Canada Labour Code into practice or does he think the Labour Code will cost so much that it has just ignored it?
I wonder if the articulate Member is aware of the comments in this morning's Globe and Mail where the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) is quoted as announcing yesterday the Canada Labour Code amendments approved unanimously by Parliament last June will not be brought fully into effect until June 1986. That is possibly at the earliest. I bring to his attention the fact that the Minister told the Labour Committee last night that the delay is caused by the drafting of very complex regulations associated with the legislation, and the objections by the business community are absolutely not the reason for this delay. I find that interesting and I would like to hear his comments in that regard.
It would be of great interest to the women of this country and people in general to know that the amendments outlaw sexual discrimination in the work place, extend and broaden maternity leave, and impose new health and safety regulations to which he alluded in his remarks.
It is obvious that those measures would be costly, but not as costly as the health of the people, particularly those working today in the new high technology fields where there is definite proof that there can be impairment of health of those who are pregnant and perhaps impairment of eyesight as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Sheila Finestone: I have not completed my observations, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member does not complete them shortly, the Hon. Member for Burnaby will not be able to answer her.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for asking her very important question. I must note that had the Liberal Party when it was in government moved much more quickly to implement these proposals, we would not be at the mercy of a Tory Government today.
Having said that, I think the Hon. Member has certainly made an important point. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Government is serious about the commitments that were made at the time this Bill was passed with respect to maternity leave, increased protection against sexual harassment and occupational health and safety. The Government is asking us to grant it some $16 billion in supplementary borrowing authority for fiscal year 1985-86 the day after it came before Parliament and said it intends to break a promise which it made to working people of the country, and particularly to working women, that they would be entitled to safe working conditions and that working women would be entitled to proper maternity leave and not to be harassed on the job. A
Borrowing Authority
government which breaks a promise to working Canadians in that way has no right to ask Parliament to trust it with the expenditure of $ 16 billion.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that this law was passed in June. I believe the goodwill and good intention of my Party was implicit in its having proposed the Act.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It should have been done long ago.


Sheila Finestone: Nonetheless, I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member the fact that although this Code applies only to the 600,000 workers who fall under federal jurisdiction, it serves as a model for other jurisdictions and will influence collective bargaining between unions and employers. This then becomes all the more important.
The changes approved in June and proclaimed into law by the former Liberal government have not as yet been applied but they include mandatory payment of union dues. That should interest the Hon. Member a great deal, and I am surprised he did not comment on it. I would also like to bring to his attention the fact that the delays that are being considered can really harm the people of the country. When the Minister of Labour surprised the Labour Committee by announcing these lengthy delays in the implementation, arguing that these detailed regulations were necessary, he left the door open to delays beyond June 1986 by saying that the new timetable involved only target dates.
I wonder if it is not very important in the Hon. Member's view to note that the change to add 24 weeks of unpaid maternity leave to the current 17 weeks of paid leave spelled out in the Code and to allow either spouse to take advantage of the extension will be put off until the following year. I find it anathema that this Government, which supposedly finds great comfort and some direction in the Abella report, which offers some degree of commitment to equality in employment and which recognizes the contribution of women to our society, does not recognize that women also contribute to the growth and development of the future of society. By denying these very simple-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 am sorry. The time allotted for comments and questions is now over.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-ll which has been presented before the House. To begin with, I must say that the borrowing of this amount of money is of some concern to me personally and goes against the principles in which I believe. I believe we should be spending only that money which is already collected. I would like to refer to the people of the riding of Scarborough Centre who have common sense and do know the importance of spending money after they have it in their pockets.
We have a deficit that has escalated to such an extent that it has put us on a dramatic rollercoaster course. This escalation is of great concern to me. The people of Canada have been burdened with numerous taxes including property taxes, sales

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
taxes and tremendous income taxes. Although the people recognize that taxes are necessary for the government and society today, they do have the sense that this money is not being used as wisely as it should be.
I recognize that there are services to be provided. On the other hand, the importance that is put on wisdom and efficiency in the spending of that money must not be underestimated. Common sense and efficiency in spending is what we are looking for.
Canadian people voted for a change in what had been happening to the administration of Canada for the past 20 years. Canadians wanted a dramatic change. In fact, this change has been so dramatic that it has even changed the weather in Ottawa. Instead of having already suffered through one month of winter, we have beautiful sunny weather which we are enjoying immensely.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Browes: Canadians voted for a change on September 4 and positive, progressive change is well under way. For the first time in many years, Canada has a Government that is realistically facing our nation's serious financial problems. We are telling Canadians in an honest and responsible manner that this country can no longer run up massive deficits year after year.
The facts are quite simple. By the end of 1984-85, the net public debt which is the accumulation of past budgetary deficits, is likely to reach nearly $190 billion, an incomprehensible amount. The national debt is growing faster than the economy. In relation to the size of the economy, net public debt will have increased from 16.6 per cent of GNP in 1974-75 to 45.2 per cent in 1984-85. In simple terms, our budgetary deficit is more than 7 per cent of Gross Domestic Product and has grown tenfold since 1967. In addition, one-half of current government borrowing is earmarked for interest payments alone.
In its September issue of Observer, the OECD assessed Canada's deficit as being uncomfortably high. It went on to say that the priority of Canada's Government should now be to reduce the federal deficit.
Our Party realizes that we must bring down the deficit in order to bring down interest rates, which would bring down the unemployment rate. We all know that as the deficit rises, so do interest rates. For each one percentage point increase in interest rates, the public debt charges rise nearly $1 billion. Thus we have a vicious cycle. This ever-increasing debt load is shattering confidence in our economy and suffocating growth and job creation. By successfully combatting the deficit and opening up investment opportunities, we will be continually fighting unemployment.
We have a Government that wishes to consult with the people. I would like to report to the House that in Scarborough that consultative process has already begun. The four Members of Parliament from the City of Scarborough who are sitting on the government side have been consulting with local politicians, the mayor, the controllers and the aldermen to look at ways and means of getting people back to work. The Mayor of Scarborough called me on September 5 and asked when we could get together to have that consultation. We have met on several occasions.
The people of Canada and the people of Scarborough want to be heard and want to be heard in the House. My hon. friend said that only the people who are up to their knees in carpet are being heard. That is not true. The people of Canada are being heard through their representatives on this side of the House.
People want to work. Young people and those people who are mature workers have lost their jobs because of interest rates, businesses going out of business, bankruptcies, lay-offs and investment which is flowing out of this country. This Government has a determination to develop inner confidence and a sense of purpose. With that sense of purpose and that confidence, we will make Canadian people winners by maintaining security with meaningful employment.
We must demonstrate to entrepreneurs and to investors that Canada is ready for business once again. Above all, immediate measures must be taken to stimulate economic growth and job creation. How can we do this? By reducing the deficit in a fair and honest manner. I would like to read a recent editorial from the International Herald Tribune which contrasts our approach with the approach taken by U.S. President Ronald Reagan. The aricle is dated Saturday-Sunday, November 17-18, 1984 and reads as follows:
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney has denounced the huge budget deficit in the most explicit terms. His finance minister, Michael Wilson, warned last week that Canada cannot expect just to grow out of it. "The simple fact is," he said, "that the mounting federal debt has become a powerful obstacle to growth and to private-sector job creation." That touches a couple of points upon which President Reagan and his secretary of the Treasury, Donald Regan, remain conspicuously ambivalent.
Another difference: Mr. Mulroney has gone to some lengths to assure Canadians that he is not going to try to knock holes in their comprehensive, extensive system of social benefits. There will not be anything like Mr. Reagan's raids on the food stamp money. Mr. Mulroney thinks that the Canadian government has become too big, but he keeps repeating that fairness will be the criterion for the cuts.
The article continues:
Mr. Reagan is trying to cut the American budget by imposing his administration's own values on everybody else. It does not seem to be working. Mr. Mulroney is going to try another method, a series of consultations throughout this country to work toward a common purpose.
Through the process of co-operation, planning, consensus and understanding, the Government is prepared to take on the serious economic challenges that face our country. By working together, Canadians can make this country work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).
November 30, 1984


Mr. Boudria:: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the remarks which were made by the Hon. Member with respect to the consultation which is allegedly taking place. I would like to ask her, before cancelling the 1986 census with whom did the Government consult? Did the Government consult with women's groups? Did it consult with big business, which has called for the reinstatement of the 1986 census? Did it consult with academics, who have also asked to have the census retained? Did it consult with the Province of Ontario? I believe there has been a severe tongue-lashing administered by the province to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for cancelling the census because the data base which the census provides is used by the province in calculating the size of its equalization grant. Perhaps the Hon. Member could tell us about the consultation that went on before the cancellation of the census took effect.
Of course, using her words, the intent of this Government is to consult with everyone so as not to offend anyone. The Hon. Member has stated that the Government was very sensitive and wanted to act in such a way that any moves it made would not be arbitrary but would be made in the spirit of consultation. Perhaps she could explain to the House how this consultation process took place. She will undoubtedly want to enumerate all the groups which were consulted with respect to this particular cut.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the census is an item which I particularly like to speak about because it reminds me of 1961, when I was one of the persons in the City of Scarborough who visited the homes as a census taker. 1 know the importance of that being done every ten years. It is something which we have done and will do every ten years. The census is a very important aspect of this Government. However, Canada had a government in place over the past 20 years which put us in the position-


Don Boudria: We never cancelled the census.


Pauline Browes: The Hon. Member may not have been here, but he is part of it. The point is that it has left the people of this country in the position where our children and grandchildren will be burdened with a tremendous deficit and the interest on that deficit. There has to be a beginning to bring this deficit under control.
I want to tell the Hon. Member that the Government is consulting. If he polled each person on this side of the House, he would realize, as we have in our ridings, what the feelings are and comments which we are hearing about the direction this Government is taking. It is a new direction. It is a new era. Confidence is being instilled in Canadians once again. They are confident that they will have a job and that they will be able to bring up their children. They have the confidence that they will be able to buy a house once again. It is an excellent direction and it is an excellent era that has begun in Canada today.
Borrowing Authority


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments will continue at two o'clock. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) had completed her remarks before the luncheon adjournment. We were five minutes into the question and comment period. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) for a question.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, just before the luncheon adjournment I had asked the Hon. Member what consultation process had taken place before the cancellation of the census. I am sure you vividly recall that discussion, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member replied that the consultations which had taken place were in respect of the deficit. I do not quite understand what the answer had to do with the question. Perhaps when the Hon. Member replies to my next question, she can also tell this House about the consultations concerning the census.
I would like to know from the Hon. Member with which agency the Government consulted before cancelling the $9.6 million which was provided through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in subsidies for public housing projects in conjunction with the provinces, municipalities and non-profit and co-operative agencies. I would like to know specifically, did the Government consult with the co-operative housing groups before cancelling the social housing program? Did it consult with the non-profit housing groups? And did it consult with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities? If that consultation took place, I wonder if the Hon. Member can indicate the view of those agencies which are going to get their funding cut off; how did they like it?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to respond to the Hon. Member's questions. The fact of the matter is that the people who were elected to form this Government have been consulting with the Canadian people for some time. The period of July and August of 1984 was a very intensive time of consultation with the Canadian people. What we were hearing was a very loud and strong message. The Canadian people wanted a change, Mr. Speaker. They wanted a change from what had been going on for the past 20 years. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member's own Party said about the deficit.
On August 13, 1969, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau said, "We would be on the road to financial disaster if nothing was done to bring spending under control". That was the beginning of his term in office, and we saw where the deficit went from there. On May 6, 1972, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, "The bare fact of the matter is that we

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
cannot do everything at once. We simply do not have the resources. There are limits to the scope of fiscal policy. There are limits to stimulus and readjustment". That fact was recognized some years ago, Mr. Speaker, and the Government of the day did nothing to try to contain the spending which had been going on for a good number of years.
With respect to the census, as I stated, we are maintaining our constitutional responsibilities in terms of the census every ten years. In 1955, the mid-decade census was taken. We are at this point in time, Mr. Speaker, maintaining those constitutional responsibilities of a census being taken every ten years. However, the Hon. Member must keep in mind that after consulting with the Canadian people in a very intensive way for some 60 days or 65 days during the election campaign, we received a very strong message that we had to make a start to resolve our financial problems. And that was one of the initiatives we took.
The Hon. Member spoke about the housing situation. I am very interested in addressing the problem of the women in this country being on the lower level financially, and we are addressing that problem. But we must tie this in with the deficit. We have had a very intense, comprehensive, consultative process in order to resolve these problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner).


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, you have always been a man of distinction in my mind, with or without your new uniform.
I am pleased to speak on this Bill today. The substance of it will provide for $7.3 billion of additional borrowing authority for fiscal 1984-85, of which $2 billion may-and I stress the word "may"-be carried over for fiscal 1985-86. The $2 billion reserve is designed to provide flexibility in the event of large, unpredictable changes in financial requirements. For example, foreign exchange operations to stabilize the dollar can alter the financial requirements of the Government. I see nothing wrong with this, Mr. Speaker.
As the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) said in her address to the House on this Bill, it could be money for a rainy day. The fiscal weather has been pretty lousy in Canada during the last decade. I remind the House that the Minister also stated that previously issued debt is coming due and must be refinanced. These are debts for which we are not responsible. I would like to take the House on a trip down memory lane for a few moments.
On October 22, 1968, the Hon. Edgar Benson, in his Budget address said:
We intend to continue severe restraint upon those direct expenditure programs under the Government's control, eliminating what is obsolete, and permitting only the degree of growth that is essential.
Severe restraint, Mr. Speaker, in a year with a $404 million surplus.
On June 23, 1975 in his Budget address to the House, the Right Hon. John Turner said:
The Government proposes to set an example of restraint in this regard by imposing strict control over its activities and programs.
Some example, Mr. Speaker.
On November 16, 1978, the Hon. Mr. Chretien in his Budget address to the House said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I would hope that Hon. Members would not mention names of individuals but rather use their proper title.


John Barry Turner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I quote the former Finance Minister on November 16, 1978. He said:
There can be no weakening in our determination to keep expenditures under tight control.
Tight control Mr. Speaker, some control. The deficit that year was $12 billion. In his October 20, 1980 Budget address to the House, the then Minister of Finance said:
In order to achieve the essential reduction in the deficit, great restraint over expenditures has therefore been required.
Great restraint over expenditures, Mr. Speaker, some restraint. It gets better. On November 12, 1981, the former Finance Minister, in his Budget address to this House, which we all remember very well, said:
This budget has three themes: restraint, equity, and economic renewal .. . For our part, I believe we must reduce our deficit and our borrowing requirements substantially.
Some restraint, some reduction, Mr. Speaker. The deficit that year was $15 billion. In 1981, we slowly slipped into the worst recession in our country's history.
On April 19, 1983, in the Budget address to the House of Commons by the then Minister of Finance, he said:
This is a fiscally responsible budget.
Some budget, Mr. Speaker, some responsibility. The deficit that year was $31.8. That is the end of our little walk down memory lane.
This summer during the election, Barbara Frum said on The Journal, "There seems to be a fundamental flaw in our economy". Mr. Speaker, she was dead right. Our nation's affairs have been seriously mismanaged and this has put us in the bind we are in today. We are living with the tremendous government waste of past administrations. Need I remind the House of Consolidated Computer at $125 million, or Maislin Industries at $34 million, or Canadair and many others?
I have received representations from business leaders, interest groups and individuals in my riding. I sense that a new air of optimism has blown across the country. Our chariot of fire has been lit by people from all regions, from all towns and cities in every Canadian province. This is what we as a Government can now build on. We cannot do it without some fiscal manoeuvrability. The federal deficit and the accumulated national debt has reached unmanageable proportions. Never in Canadian history has so much been owed by so many
November 30, 1984

to so few. We have inherited this and we will have to make some difficult decisions to manage it effectively. As the House knows, we have already made some decisions and we will have to make some more.
On May 7, 1984, Professor Lipsey, senior economic adviser of the C.D. Howe Institute, gave a speech at the Conference Board of Canada financial conference in Toronto. He said:
The best contribution that public policy can make to removing unemployment is, first, to get the deficit quickly under control so that a better balance of less expansionary fiscal policy and a more expansionary monetary policy can be adopted.
Professor Lipsey went on to say:
Once we realize that cutting public sector deficits allows easier monetary policy we will have taken a fundamentally important step towards creating a more receptive climate for investment and risk taking.
The House knows that our priority is to reduce the federal deficit, and we will. We will target our talent and dollars at winners or potential winners to help our lost generation of young people find jobs. To do this we will need the co-operation and support of the private sector. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with that.
The Premier of Ontario, when speaking of the deficit recently, said, "You cannot take more out of something than you put into it". We are now trying to right the wrongs of Liberal pasts.
Since 1980, the investment, tax and energy policies of the former Liberal government have caused a flight of job-creating capital from this country that is without precedent in our history. Seventeen billion dollars of direct investment capital has left Canada which could have been used to strengthen our capital base and create jobs. Liberal programs such as the national energy policy and the Foreign Investment Review Agency were catalysts which set off a chain reaction of destruction throughout our economy, helping to turn a global recession into a made-in-Canada catastrophe.
In 1980, the Liberals told Canadians they would buy back Canada, that foreign investors were no longer welcome. They did not really buy back Canada, Mr. Speaker; they borrowed it back, replacing foreign equity with foreign debt. That huge outflow of equity, much of it Canadian, has been a major reason why our dollar has fallen from 88 cents to 75 cents American since the 1980 election. That outflow of equity is also one reason for our high interest rates. If Canada had not offset that outflow of cheap equity with an inflow of expensive debt, our dollar would have sunk like a stone.
We now have a wonderful opportunity to show domestic and international investors that Canada is still an excellent place in which to invest. In short, encouraging investment in this country is a top priority for our Government.
However, I ask the House to be patient. I believe the borrowing authority Bill we are discussing today is essential. If we do not borrow these funds, the Government will be forced to break its undertaking to Canadians and to Canadian institutions. We have financial, legal and moral obligations. If we do
Borrowing Authority
not borrow these funds, then I ask Hon. Members opposite to tell the provinces, the welfare recipients, the old age security recipients that they will not get their cheques or to tell those on unemployment insurance that the well is dry.
There is no question but that we must borrow this extra money. The kinds of programs that we are embarking upon now will ensure that three, four or five years from now we will not have to do this again.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated that the Government has a financial, legal and moral obligation to pass this bill. Does he not believe that there is any obligation to the House to indicate the nature of the spending rather than simply asking us to sign a blank cheque without knowing full well the particulars of what we are approving?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker I do not have to remind Hon. Members of the condition the fiscal affairs of this country were in when we took office. I recall asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) about the condition of the books, and he said that I would not like to see them. We are coming to grips with these concerns which are the result of a Government that has been living beyond its means for a very long time. It had to stop.
We are doing everything in our power to make intelligent, honest and rational decisions that will benefit the people of this country from coast to coast. Therefore, we must ask for financial support from the House so that we can make the kind of decisions that will allow us to implement programs that will get us all back to work soon.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the financial statement of the Government would indicate that cuts are being made in a number of areas which affect the Hon. Member's constituents. In this Bill, the Government is asking us to approve $16 billion in expenditures for the fiscal year 1985-86. One area of concern for us is the effect this will have on public servants. The Hon. Member represents a constituency in which there is a large number of public servants. Would he indicate whether he agrees with the decision of the Government to postpone, to use its words, the implementation of those sections of the Canada Labour Code which would provide protection to employees of the Government under federal jurisdiction, including public servants and others, with respect to maternity leave, occupational health and safety and a number of other important areas? Does he support the decision of his Government in this respect?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his excellent question. I am not entirely familiar with the Canada Labour Code. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is correct in saying that many of these cuts will affect my riding, but I think that the cuts that are being made will affect all ridings across the country without exception.
I have had representations from public servants in my riding who are concerned that they will be directly affected by some of these cuts. I can assure the Hon. Member and the House

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
that the Government is doing everything it can to make sure that those who are directly affected by the cuts will be given first priority to relocate either in other Departments or in the private sector.


Mr. Clifford:: Mr. Speaker, I support my colleague's endorsement of Bill C-ll. I share his interest in receiving so many calls from the private sector and small business supporting the direction in which the Government is heading.
I am surprised at the responses we have heard from Members opposite with respect to this Bill and the consultative process. They appear to be shocked by our consultative approach.
I would suggest that the speeches that have been made by our Ministers have clearly indicated that people have responded positively to this process upon which we have embarked. For example, there are representatives from the municipality of London in my riding who are here to consult with the Government about the future of our municipality and, indeed, the future of the country.
As a new Member of Parliament, it is a new experience for me to be part of a Government that indeed wants to ask people what went wrong in the past and to ask for their input to help make a better future for all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) wish to reply to that comment?


John Barry Turner: I have no comment, Mr. Speaker.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct another question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). The Government is asking for permission to borrow $16 billion for the next fiscal year, beginning April 1. Can the Hon. Member cite a precedent or give any authority the Government can use for asking for borrowing authority prior to bringing down a budget?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I personally cannot cite a precedent.


Mr. Nickerson:: The Government did it last year.


John Barry Turner: However, I believe that members of the Official Opposition have been setting such precedents in the House for many years.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to my previous question. Perhaps the Hon. Member did not understand the nature of the question.
Of course, I assume that as a representative of Ottawa-Carleton he would have some interest and awareness of the Government's decision with respect to the proposed changes to the Canada Labour Code that will affect 300,000 public servants, a good number of whom live in his constituency. I find it incredible that the Hon. Member can rise in his place and say he does not know what those changes are. I assume
that he did not understand the question. Is the Hon. Member aware of the Government's decision, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight), to put on the backburner changes to the Canadian Labour Code affecting federal employees in the area of occupational health and safety, maternity leave and sexual harassment? If he is not aware of it, why on earth not? If he is aware of it, does he support that decision?


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to represent the people of Ottawa-Carleton. I always thought that a Friday afternoon in the House was a day of relaxation, but I am quickly learning that that is not the case.
I am not entirely conversant with the issues which my friend, the Member for Burnaby, has raised. However, I take note of his excellent suggestion and I will meet very soon with the Minister to seek more clarification on those concerns.


Mr. Crofton:: Mr. Speaker, my remarks pertain essentially to the comments made a few moments ago by the member from the Official Opposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member. Questions should be put to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). If the Member would like to address the Chair and address the question to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), I will accept it. Otherwise, I will have to recognize someone else.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be advisable for the Hon. Member to read this morning's Globe and Mail. He would be able to inform himself about the consequences, dire consequences, with respect to maternity leave, paternity leave and adoption. Canadians who are rebuilding the Hon. Member's future and the future of his constituents might be interested in knowing that the maternity provisions were forged in a very hard and difficult battle. They are vital to the well-being of the future of our country, although the business community-and I know the Hon. Member has a particular interest in the business community as I do, but not to the detriment of youth and children in our future-tried to block all this advanced legislation, these new social roles and the important equal opportunities for women.
I would like to suggest that since all the Parties in the great big pre-election atmosphere accepted these rules and new laws, the Hon. Member might see to it in his own caucus that they are put into application. How does the Hon. Member feel about that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner).


Mr. Benjamin:: Let the Hon. Member answer. There is unanimous consent.
November 30, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) to answer the last question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, there is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner).


Mr. Gerry Weiner (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-ll. I have been hearing since early this morning about the devastation that we have caused and the way we have wreaked havoc on the entire community. All we have asked for is a time for reflection to consider what has taken place. Since 1968, the good old days when we used to run surpluses at the end of each budgetary year, we have somehow been able to change the whole pattern of development. We are now running massive deficits approaching some $35 billion. We changed this pattern with the assistance of many Finance Ministers all of whom talked about restraint.
Deficits and jobs are of grave concern. I come from a riding that is 50 per cent ethnic in its nature. These are people who have come to Canada, many first generation newcomers from different lands. We have representatives of 39 ethnic communities. We have many visible minorities. They cannot quite seem to grasp what is going on. They came here filled with high hopes and aspirations, expecting a land of milk and honey. But now we have massive deficits and there are no jobs. We cannot keep spending as if there were no tomorrow. At some point we have to cause an interruption in that rapid growth that has been taking place, one that would run us right off the map.
A recent study in Ville St. Laurent, one of the two important cities that comprise my riding, showed that in some 100 ethnic families with an average of 5.2 members per family there was an unemployment rate of 72 per cent. This is appalling. They live in abominable conditions, conditions that are sub-human, and they have an income of $1,100 a month either through welfare or whatever other source. They want answers and they want answers quickly. Certainly they want job creation, the young people, the older people, and the rest.
I think it was a good beginning. We came to grips with the deficit. We are saying that before we allow any further growth in the deficit, let us control it, let us stop it. Let us take a look at what we are doing. Let us look at the high unemployment and inadequate investment. We must take a look at the erosion of confidence that has taken place and all of the personal hardship. How are we going to restore some confidence into this community? What are we going to do?
We have to begin with a proper program of restraint. I heard about the devastation we are causing. I can only assure the Hon. Member who has brought this matter to our attention that everything I have heard so far in the first few months is that everyone will be treated with fairness. We cut $1
Borrowing Authority
million from the budget of the National Film Board, which caused some hysteria. We asked the CBC to take a cut of $75 million, and the CBC instantly wanted to cut out some vital program.
I think those of us who ran hard this past year ran hard so that we can get here to create some accountability and responsibility in government. What we are really saying is: don't affect the services. Let us look at the way these services are being administered. Let us come to grips with the large bureaucracies, those 300 or 400 agencies that have never had any accountability and whose books have never been opened to public scrutiny.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Like the Prime Minister's Office.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: It is about time that those things were made a matter of public record. There are people in my community who have trouble finding work and paying taxes. In general, one out of six heads of households is out of work. They do not understand how we can continue to spend as if there were no tomorrow. Therefore, let us control our spending, put it on hold, while we consider ways of putting more people back to work. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the business community has already shown tremendous interest and confidence in what we have begun to do. This will be shown by a renewed investment in our community by the creation of jobs.
As some Hon. Members will recall, Parliament has already granted borrowing authority amounting to $24.6 billion for the present year, an amount based on the previous government's requirements of $25.5 billion. However, we inherited financial requirements of $29.9 billion. This sorry plight, the mess left us, requires us to have supplementary borrowing authority for the current fiscal year. In addition, the new expenditures and the tax initiatives which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced bring our projected requirements to $29.2 billion, $6 billion higher than estimated last summer.
What we are trying to do is to become a little more cost efficient. We want to make sure that there is an importance to what we are doing. We want to minimize the changes taking place in the community. There is a need to put our house in order. We have to limit the debt in order to do that. We have to reverse our direction and what effect it has had on our confidence and growth.
We have come through an era where government has played a very implicit role in the handling and management of business. It has been too involved. Many of us would like to see a little less government involvement. We would like to think that we can somehow get the government out of our bedrooms and put the initiative back into the private sector. Small businessmen are already burdened with far too much red tape and far too much bureaucracy. There are people who are innovative. Some of us are prepared to take risks. We have the competitive spirit. We feel the reins should be loosened somehow. This is the kind of view that is being taken in this reflective period.
What we promised through the summer campaign and "the time for change" on which we all ran, is that we would be in

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
constant communication with our communities. In other words, we would listen before we would act. We are doing what we promised, that is, getting involved in consultation, meeting with municipalities and the different constituents who elected us. I feel people are quite happy to participate in this type of change and they want to have input.
If we did nothing and caused no change then, of course, by the year 1990 we would be looking at scandalous deficits and at unemployment perhaps getting even worse. It is very, very difficult to have to continue to finance debt charges. My own feeling is that whatever we are asking here is very legitimate. It is necessary to continue the orderly progression which has already begun. I take pleasure in rising to support it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) spoke about the concerns of his constituents in terms of job creation and the fact that a very large number of them were out of work. I am sure a significant number of families in his constituency have children who are students in post-secondary educational institutions. How can the Hon. Member possibly justify the decision of his Government to eliminate the Summer Canada Program for student employment?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have just come into a period now where we have implemented the Canada Works program. We know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is looking at other aspects of what we would consider to be more long-term programming. Those of us who have worked in the municipal sector are especially fed up with the type of programming which previous governments have given us. They were piecemeal and offered only little bones for very short periods of time. There was no concern for whether there was a need for the program in the community. I am thinking of a particular drop-in centre which was allowed to be funded. They never came to the municipality to ask whether it was required. They allowed this particular project to be set up for a very short period of time. When the project wound down or when the funding wound down, they then came to the municipality expecting support. I think this is the time to reflect and to think seriously of job-creation programs which are not for six to twelve weeks. We need ways of putting people back to work for three to five years.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about Summer Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: The student program is of particular interest. I have two children who fit into that category. I am very hopeful that the Minister in this particular period will find a program which can be of a long-term nature and would suit the needs to which the Hon. Member referred.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) mentioned high unemployment in his riding. How does he justify the initiatives of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) which chopped $200 million from the unemployment insurance fund? The means by
which she will do that is the hiring of 700 investigators to disentitle claimants. How can the Hon. Member justify his concern for his constituents with the direction the Government has taken?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: By hiring 700 people, I think we are already taking 700 people off the unemployment rolls. I have seen nothing to indicate that there is not a strong need to tighten up the entire bureaucratic structure by which the employment operation is being managed. There have been far too many abuses, far too many examples of individuals-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -who have not been able to find jobs in particular sectors and have been unwilling to move into any other area of endeavour. I think it has to be part of a comprehensive program. I think the Hon. Member is taking something out of context. When a program is put into place, it has to be one where we can direct and retrain the individual. There is no point in having a person on the unemployment rolls and forcing him to go on welfare before being prepared to put him through a retraining process.
The knowledge we have acquired which is more than five to eight years old is antiquated. Some 10 years from now most of the workforce will have to be completely retrained. We have an excellent opportunity right now to put into effect programs for the unemployed which will put them back to work in a very honest way.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) concerning the student program next summer-and I listened attentively to what he said-the Hon. Member said that he was sorry to a certain degree that this was announced but that he was sure the Minister would find a summer program. I may agree with him that perhaps some part-time jobs may not be the best. For those who have none, they may be the best. However, summer jobs are part-time. Why should we worry hundreds of thousands of young people who are already preparing themselves for summer employment? Usually good, young Canadians start preparing themselves now. I do not mean to be politically partisan, but it worries me because many young people used to start preparing themselves now for the coming summer. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Weiner) indicated that he hoped the Minister would do something. Why cancel a program only to announce something which would be totally similar?
Since the Member and I share Ville Saint Laurent, I ask him on behalf of millions of people to stop referring to non-francophones and non-anglophones as ethnic. If my name was "Prud'hommeski", as I have been saying for 20 years, I would be fed up with hearing francophones and anglophones talking about ethnics. He referred to his district, which is similar to mine, as having close to 39 ethnic groups. I do not know where he fits in, by the way, but as far as I am concerned, I think there are only two kinds of Canadians-the Canadians who are Canadian citizens and the landed immi-
November 30, 1984

grants. The Hon. Member will discover in his own district how much the young Canadians of parents who are other than francophone and anglophone resent being referred to as ethnics. This is not a criticism. It is my 20 years of experience with them which makes me even now change my own vocabulary and not use the word "ethnic" in reference to others.
Mir. Weiner: I will begin by commenting upon my hon. friend's suggestion on the Summer Works Program. Those of us who came here on September 4 were almost astonished how we continued to put into effect the same type of programming to which the previous administration was a party by allowing Canada Works or Programme Canada au Travail to go through. We did not necessarily have time for it to be a product of our own development. One would expect this to be something that we had to accept and something we were happy to do, because we knew that the unemployment rate, which was in excess of 11 per cent, would have been much worse by January. At 11 per cent it was already intolerable. We took the bulk of the money, those of us in our own ridings who share my hon. friend's concerns, and put together citizen advisory boards, precisely for the reason that we did not want any political or other patronage factors to be involved. We wanted members of the community to be able to benefit most from them. We are actually allowing them to become the advisers on what can go through.


George Albert Proud: How different could the program be?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Because we only had two months, we accepted the program already put in place by a previous administration. However, to continue that type of piecemeal, part-time program would be illogical.


George Albert Proud: Summer employment is part-time.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I am sure the summer program will be addressed in proper order and a program will be devised which will be much more ongoing, will have permanence for the community and will conform to the needs and concerns of the community.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. 1 have been somewhat chastized for using the term 'ethnic' to qualify first or second generation members of visible or cultural groups who have come to Canada from other countries. They are very proud Canadians. I include myself among them. There was no harm. We are Canadians. We have integrated very well into society. We have come to accept, respect and love this country, but we all have ties to another country. The rich heritage, culture and tradition we brought with us are transmitted to our children for future generations. We are proud to be identified as members of an ethnic group.
[ Translation]
We are all good Quebecers, but I have no reason not to think that a certain number in our riding ... it is 50 per cent, we are ethnic groups. There is nothing unthinkable in that and I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am always prepared to be included in ethnic groups because we practically form a majority in our riding.
Borrowing Authority


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to speak on Bill C-l 1. I am very concerned when I see a Bill to borrow $16 billion which fails to give any detail as to how the funds will be used. 1 am further concerned when 1 hear that part of the funds may be carried over to the next fiscal year. This disturbs me. As some Members may know, I was in another legislative Chamber, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Those kinds of actions concerned me there, and now they concern me here. I see that a Member opposite agrees that there is something here to be concerned about.
In the last few days we have seen the Government introduce such measures. Not long before, we saw a budget disguised as an economic statement. It should more appropriately have been called a cut-back statement. All it did was to cut back jobs and programs that the previous government had announced.
This Government said it would be more accountable. I am sure Hon. Members recall this vividly. During the election campaign I heard speech after speech from my Conservative opponent, as I am sure others did, on how the previous government had not been as accountable as they would like. They stated that if they had the opportunity to be in power, they would be far more respectful, accountable, and all the other adjectives. They patted themselves on the back for all the good things they would do if given the opportunity to be in power.
They were given that opportunity on September 4. What do we see from this Government that is supposed to be accountable? It introduced tax measures almost immediately, without the approval of Parliament. Parliament had not yet been recalled when those measures were introduced. This is from a Government that purported to be accountable.
We waited a few more days. A budget was introduced, but it was called something else. That is not a sign of a government that wants to be accountable. They said they would be open. We all remember that. The only thing that we have seen open in the last few days is the briefcase of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). That is all that has been open, save and except the tape recorder of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) with cassettes seemingly falling out all over the place, ending up in radio stations here and there.
An interesting cartoon appeared today in the Ottawa newspaper Le Droit. It depicts the open briefcase, things falling out, and it is entitled "Open Government". It is most appropriate. The only problem is that nothing else is open.
We have not had this open government, the spirit of cooperation, this government that is going to co-operate with everyone as referred to by the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes). Who did they consult with before

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
cancelling the 1986 census? Did they consult with the Status of Women group? Surely not. Did they consult with the handicapped? For the first time the 1986 census was going to include a question on the handicapped.
Did they consult with the Home Builders Association? We hear that this Government is a friend of business. Surely one would have thought it would consult with the Home Builders Association. Not so. The Home Builders met with members of our caucus only a few days ago to tell us they had not been consulted. They were against cancellation of the census. This is from the government of consultation, a government that was to be open and accessible and accountable. Did they forget that? Did this sudden realization of having power make them forget their election promises? I would hate to think that has actually happened.
Who promised that they would enable women to participate fully and equitably in the economic life of this nation? It was none other than the Conservative Party. What did it do? The data base to establish affirmative action programs is the census, and it has cut that out. It cut the head off the program.
The Government says it is open and accountable. Accountable to whom? To itself? It seems it is accountable to no one else. All those whom we have consulted on this measure stated that they were not consulted. The Government is not accountable to this House or to the people. It does not consult with anyone. Is this a Government of consultation?
This Government said it would be thrifty. It said the previous government was wasteful. What did it do? It started off with 11 additional Cabinet Ministers. That is a bit much for a thrifty group. To go with the 11 Cabinet Ministers, you buy, lease or otherwise obtain a bunch of limousines, at least one each for those very important people. In order to have someone in the limousines to accompany the Ministers, you hire political commissars at $80,000 or $100,000 each. You hire 40 of them. Who pays for all this? It is you, I and the rest of the citizens of this country. This is done so the Government can hand over a lot of jobs because it has a lot of elected Members.
Perhaps I am forgetful, but I do not recall my Tory opponent ever stating during the election campaign, "Vote for me and we will buy a bunch of limousines. Vote for me and we will hire a bunch of commissars". I never heard that. Perhaps my Tory opponent forgot. Perhaps other Conservative candidates said, "Vote for me and you will be fired". Many of my constituents are in the process of losing their jobs because of the actions of this Government. I do not recall my Conservative opponent raising that matter.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), a neighbouring Member, may have campaigned on that theme, although I would be surprised. Had he done that, I do not believe he would be here. Surely he did not neglect to tell the truth, the absolute truth to his constituents. I would never accuse anyone of doing that. I can only assume that the Hon. Member was forgetful.


John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would inform my neighbour that I campaigned on a theme of change, which this country got severely on September 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that that is not a point of order.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for stating that was not a point of order. We are discussing the Government's borrowing and what it intends to do with those funds. I was explaining that I do not think this Government is using those funds properly. I was saying that government members surely had not campaigned on this theme during the last election campaign. I do not believe anyone campaigned on the platform of "vote for me and you will lose your job". That, however, is the cold reality of the outcome of having voted for that Government.
Thousands of my constituents are losing their jobs because the Government has decided to snip away at the programs that the previous government had had established for years. The Government decided to cut away at programs like the home insulation program, a program that was beneficial to the low-income people of my constituency. It was beneficial to senior citizens who were trying to upgrade their homes with no other money to do so. The Government cut that out.
The Government cut youth programs and the Summer Canada Program. Did government members campaign on this platform? Were young canvassers who worked for Conservative members made to say at the doors of constituents: "Vote for our Party and we will cut off the grants to everyone including me"? I wonder if any young Conservative canvassers campaigned on that platform.
Later when it comes time for comments, perhaps some Hon. Members could rise and tell us that they campaigned on the platforms of firing their constituents, of cutting off pay cheques, and of buying more limousines. If any Hon. Members had campaigned on those platforms, I would doubt very much that they would have been elected in the last election. Instead, we heard things like the following: "We will assist Canadians who are unable to provide for their own needs". That was a Conservative promise.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: I am glad to see that some Cabinet Ministers and some Hon. Members are applauding this Conservative promise that I have just read into the record. Now let us see what the Government did because it is very important to hear not only the rhetoric but the cold reality as well. The hard fact is the following: the Government cut $30 million from the employment pension income program. Where does this fit in with assisting Canadians who are unable to provide for their own needs? I would like to see where the promise coincides with the reality.
It seems to me that the document entitled Expenditure and Program Review written by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) must have been written by someone
November 30, 1984

who was out of the country during the election campaign for it does not contain anything that we heard during the election campaign. It certainly does not contain anything regarding the social programs of the Government.
Let us take a look at another election promise. I am sure all Conservative members of the House will recognize the following promise: "We will recognize the multicultural diversity of Canadian society". It would be nice if Hon. Members applauded this one as well. This is also one of their campaign promises. We all know, of course, the importance of that program and that Conservative candidates campaigned on this platform. They received votes presumably giving them a mandate to implement those programs that they had advocated. Now what has happened?
There has been $9.8 million cut from the Department of the Secretary of State for grants and contributions to general cultural activities. How does this coincide with that promise? It does not. It is a striking contradiction. Surely there is an explanation for this. I would hope that the Conservative member who speaks next will explain to all of us why it is that Conservative members promised one thing and delivered the opposite.
Mir. Nunziata: They hoodwinked us.


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member says that they hoodwinked us. That is exactly what happened. However, we will not be hoodwinked any further. There is a by-election taking place in the constituency that I represented at the provincial level. The Conservative candidate in that riding had better be ready to answer not only for the Premier of the province and his shortcomings in the past but for the shortcomings of his federal Conservative friends as well, for they have disappointed the people of the great riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell.

As you undoubtedly know, Mr. Speaker, the local Conservative candidates promised that the National Capital Commission would extend the Eastern Parkway eastward to eliminate bottlenecks in the Ottawa region and east of the city. What do we hear? Again recently we heard ... it is indicated in the same document I quoted earlier, "Expenditure and Review Program", that the Eastern Parkway project has just been cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) failed to mention that in his remarks, a parkway which runs along his riding, surely something very convenient for his constituents and mine who drive to the national capital. What do we hear instead? We hear the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) say that she is in favour of building a bridge across the Ottawa River. We do not have roads to get into the city, yet the Hon. Member wants a bridge which will not even link up with a road! It is rather remarkable that her colleague, the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau
Borrowing Authority
(Mrs. Bourgault) does not want that bridge, for she can appreciate that a bridge without an access road is useless.
Mr. Speaker, the government has charged ahead without consulting, it is a bourgeois government, a government which lives in a world of its own, which looks after itself first, ever unmindful of Canadians and their aspirations, without any concern for the constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, without any concern as well for all other Canadians.


An Hon. Member:: Just like the Liberals!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the government should spend the next few days thinking about doing something to spur the economy. I would suggest some small industries which might be opened up. For instance-

In the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, we could start up a new factory to build automatic file retrievers. There is a great deal of demand for that kind of equipment. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) could use it, as could other Cabinet Ministers. Automatic file retrievers would be very handy.
We could also start up a factory to produce tape erasers. That would be very, very handy for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). A tape eraser would be a very hot item. If given the proper grants from the Government, we could sell those. Finally, but not least important, we could start up a factory to make tape recorders that do not beep. They would also be very useful.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). When he commenced his presentation this afternoon, he complained about Conservative tax measures. I would like to review some of the tax measures that have been put into effect since the September 4 election and get the Hon. Member's ideas on them.
First there was the sales tax increase. This was put in place to finance the Special Recovery Project, something that had been brought in by the previous Liberal government. The money had already been spent. The previous government was trying to buy itself back into office and it left us to pick up the bill. The legislation had been brought into the House previously and, in a despicable manner, allowed for the spending of that money first while the tax was to come into effect retroactively after the election. That is precisely what happened.
The petroleum compensation fund, that great Liberal deal to tax people from the West in order to subsidize oil consumption in the East, was $1 billion in the hole. That needed to be fixed up. Again that was a result of Liberal and not Conservative initiatives.
Look at the unemployment insurance premium increases. They had to be put into effect because again, the previous Government refused to do it when it was required by law to do so. That was another Liberal initiative. The only Conservative tax initiative that has been put in place since the election is the three cents per litre fuel tax rebate for farmers, loggers and

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
miners. That is the Conservative tax policy-the reduction of taxes. Let it be upon the head of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell if he is against that fuel tax rebate for the farmers in his constituency.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the Hon. Member brought up the issue of the increase in the sales tax which was introduced. I would remind him that it was introduced without a Ways and Means motion from a government which said it was going to be accountable to this assembly. It is important for us to remember that. It is further important for us to remember that one Party in the last election campaigned on the basis of not increasing the sales tax. That was not the Liberal Party, it was the Conservative Party. What did it do immediately after the election? It broke the first promise that it had made. I am pleased that the Hon. Member brought that up, as I forgot to raise that matter myself.
With respect to his statement that no tax measures have been introduced since the election, I would remind him of the tax measures which were introduced by another name in the Expenditure and Program Review. Several examples are the $32.3 million which will be raised in the agricultural services area by fees; the extra $22 million in radio licences; the $39.7 million of new taxes in the area of consumer and corporate affairs; the $4.4 million in immigration and social insurance number documentation; the $10.5 million in increases in the weather services area; the $6.3 million in inspections, licences and service fees in the fisheries sector and in the oceans sector, and the $0.8 million for divorce registry. As if this Government is not trying to capitalize on the misfortune of others!
To continue with other indirect taxation, $13.5 million will be generated by increasing rates in the area of accommodation and marine services. That is an increase in levies which the taxpayers will give the Government. Proofs and certificates of new citizenship will provide $1.1 million to the Government. The taxpayers will also provide $4 million in security clearances. There are pages and pages of new taxation which has been introduced by the Government under another name. Again, I would thank the Hon. Member for bringing this subject to my attention.


Mr. Hamelin:: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed a question for the Hon. Member. I wonder why he does not feel utterly embarrassed with having to speak on a bill designed essentially to wipe out debts incurred by the Liberals.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if he does not feel embarrassed with the disastrous situation in which this country led by his party, and his rhetoric on the matter smacks of intellectual acrobatics, if not merely of bad faith. I would feel embarrassed if I were in his shoes, and this is my question: does he not feel ill at ease when debating the issue, when we as a Government are simply striving to pay the bills, to pay your debts?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all embarrassed with having to express the views of the constituents of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I take pride in doing it! My constituents deserve having someone to speak on their behalf in this Parliament. I have done so since I have been here, and I will do so in the years to come. The hon. member will have to get used to that!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to return for a moment to Bill C-ll and the amendment thereto. There have been several speakers in the Liberal Party since my colleague from Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) moved his amendment yesterday. I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he could tell the House what are the intentions of he and his colleagues in the Liberal caucus regarding that amendment. Do they intend to vote for it or against it? Whatever their intentions, could he explain to the House the reasons behind those intentions?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Hon. Member asked that question. Our Party is concerned with the fact that this Government has decided that part of the borrowing which it wants is for the next fiscal year. As a Party we intend to vote in such a manner as to ensure that the borrowing of this Government is only for the current year. Of course, we recognize that the Government must continue to operate; however, we must express our reluctance at giving the Government money when we realize some of the things it is doing with this money. It is important for each and every one of us to put those things on the record.
The Government has no right to money. The money is given through the House of Commons. The Government has no money of its own. Therefore, we have the duty to ensure that the funds provided are properly accounted for and used in the best possible manner.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member stated that he wants to ensure that the Government does the best thing with the money which is available and that the Opposition does not want to give the Government more money. Does he realize that of the total spending of the federal Government, all but approximately $1 billion or $1.5 billion of spending relates to programs which were put in place by the previous government, or programs which have continued over the past number of years? If he does realize that and if he wishes us to cut back, would he tell us where he is proposing we should cut back?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it was because the Minister arrived only recently in the House, but I did not state that the Government should not be getting money to pay the invoices. I did say, however, that we must ensure that the funds which the Government is getting are used in the best possible manner and that the Government should not borrow for the next fiscal year.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. I recognize the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).
November 30, 1984


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments regarding Bill C-ll which is before the House today. First I would like to provide some explanation to the questions which were asked this morning by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). He was complaining about the fact that we were asking for borrowing authority for the 1985-86 fiscal year, despite the precedent which was set in the House earlier this year by the Liberal Party when it tried to do exactly the same sort of thing. So there is a well-established precedent.
The Hon. Member gave some moral arguments against it, but 1 want to tell the House the real reason the NDP brought in this amendment. The real reason is that they want to recycle speakers. There are very few Members on that side of the House, and rightly so. The electorate of Canada has seen to that. The reason they introduced the amendment was so that they could recycle speakers over and over again.
I would like to speak about the Bill in a non-partisan way and look at it as objectively as possible. 1 have to admit that I am not particularly proud of the Bill we have before us today. The reason we are saddled with it is because of the previous administration. It resulted from the activities and mismanagement of the previous administration. It is hard to turn things around financially within a limited period of time.
I sometimes look upon the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, as being something of a sausage machine. Material is fed into it, the handle is turned, but it might be six months or a year before anything comes out the other end. In the meantime, what one is dealing with is material which had been introduced by a previous government. We have already heard an explanation of this phenomenon with respect to the tax measures which were dealt with early in the life of the new Government. The tax measures resulted from proposals which had been made and laws which had been passed when the previous government had been in office.
Under this Bill, the Government is asking for a considerable amount of borrowing authority. We would like it to be much less than it is. We would expect that as our policies are carried into effect, as confidence grows in the country, as investments are made, and as jobs are created-and they are being created now-the amount of money which will need to be borrowed will become progressively less.
I feel it is important, Sir, that Parliament be vigilant in these affairs. One of the most important tasks before us as parliamentarians is the guardianship of the public purse. I welcome a reasonably long debate on this issue. I do not believe that the Government of the day ought to try to rush through borrowing authority Bills, as the Liberals did in the past. We on this side are prepared to debate this issue for as long as necessary. We must deal with it in a timely manner, but we are prepared to devote the necessary time in order to listen to what other Members of Parliament have to say on the issue. It is important that they be heard.
Borrowing Authority
In a debate of this nature there is an opportunity for the Opposition to do its proper job, to fulfil the role expected of it by the Canadian public. Unfortunately, however, in listening to the Hon. Members of the Opposition speak on this matter, it does not seem to me that they are doing their job that well. I listened very carefully to the speeches which have been presented and all we have heard is criticism, on the one hand, for requesting too much borrowing authority and, on the other hand, criticism for looking after the public purse and cutting down on areas where expenditures are not really necessary.
We are criticized for dealing with the nation's finances in a prudent fashion. The Opposition cannot have it both ways; it cannot chide us for spending too much and condemn us for spending too little. There is a duplicity in ideas which is very apparent when you listen to Hon. Members opposite. There is a lack of perspicacity in their argument. I would hope that as time progresses and these important financial subjects come up again, the quality of debate from the other side of the House will improve.
There has been some criticism with which I would have to agree in that it might have been advantageous for certain documents to be tabled at the same time as this Bill was brought before the House. But if one listened carefully to the presentation of the Hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), one would find that most of the figures which are needed in order to make a rational judgment of the merits of this Bill are included therein. However, it might have been better if these could have been consolidated on paper.
What Hon. Members of Parliament would undoubtedly like to know when they are discussing a matter such as this is the number of presently outstanding borrowing authorities and where they stand. They would like to see a computation of the financial requirements of the Government and to have available to them a synopsis of the existing debt of the Government of Canada. I am sure those Hon. Members would like to have some idea of the Government's borrowing plan for the months ahead. Therefore, my request of the Minister of State for Finance, when these types of occasions arise in the future, would be that this information-which is undoubtedly readily available in published form somewhere-be brought forward at the time of debate and presented to Members of Parliament so they will better be able to exercise their judgment when it comes to voting on the issue.
I would like now to examine the Bill and consider dispassionately what it requests in the way of borrowing authority and whether these requests are reasonable under the circumstances. In Part I of the Bill the Government is requesting the additional borrowing authority of some $7.3 billion to the end of this fiscal year. The best estimate - and it can only be an estimate - of the financial requirements to the end of March, 1985 is some $29.9 billion, within an existing borrowing authority of $24.6 billion. That would give the total of $31.9 billion. Therefore, the Government is requesting total borrowing authority of $31.9 billion. It has demonstrated financial requirements of some $29.9 billion. This gives the Government some $2 billion of leeway. I believe it is called "reserve" in the

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
official terminology. When I sat on the other side of the House, I used to call it the "slush fund". However, under the circumstances, Sir, I do not feel we can say that that request is in any way unreasonable. I feel it is necessary to have some amount of reserve and $2 billion is certainly not unreasonable.
Nor, Sir, is it unreasonable that the request be made that that borrowing authority carry over unexpired at the end of the fiscal year; that it not lapse at that time. I would object, and have objected in the past, if the Government of the day asked for excessive amounts of reserve or excessive amounts which could be taken over the financial year end and used in the new year. But $2 billion can in no way be considered an unreasonable amount. It is very obvious that if we are going to plan ahead the amounts of money we will need to borrow in April or May, we must have that leeway.
Part II of the Bill requests an amount of $16 billion borrowing authority for the following fiscal year. If one looks at the projections, as far as they can be put together, this should hold the Government over until some time in the fall of next year; that is, if the projections are reasonably accurate. Let us hope, Sir, that we will not require that amount to tide us over until October or November of next year. Let us hope that the Government will not fully have to utilize that borrowing authority up until that time.
The idea in the Bill is not to preclude Parliament looking at necessary borrowing authorities again for the 1985-1986 fiscal year, but to allow the Government to go ahead and conduct its borrowing in an orderly way in the market-place until the end of summer. Then when Parliament comes back in September, the aditional borrowing authority for the balance of that fiscal year-which will undoubtedly be required-can be dealt with at that time and the matter will again be brought before Parliament. Hon. Members opposite and on this side will then have a chance to zero in on the way the Government is conducting its affairs. They will be able to say whether, in their opinion, the requested amount is unreasonable.
I have no hesitation in supporting Bill C-11 which has been brought forward today. I would hope that when we are discussing this matter again this time next year, the requested amounts will not be as large as those which are before us today. I have every expectation that because of the policies being pursued by the new Government and the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), capably assisted by the new Minister of State for Finance, this will indeed be the case and the request at that time will be for a much lesser amount than that requested today.
If we get back to discussion on the main motion I will have the opportunity again to speak on this matter. There are two other areas which I would like to address. One is borrowing requirements with regard to capital amounts versus current account amounts. I would like to discuss when it makes sense to borrow money and when it does not make sense. I would like to look at the Government record with regard to borrowing for current account purposes.
The second matter which I would like to address in the future is that of foreign borrowing. In the speech of the Minister of State for Finance it was noted that some $1 billion had been borrowed in foreign currencies. There may be some danger in that type of borrowing activity. The amount at the present time is not really that great, but we do not want to follow the same route as some foreign countries have. They have borrowed very heavily in denominations of currencies not their own. That is just a matter of advance notice, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-l 1 this afternoon.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in the last Parliament the Hon. Member, faced with a similar Bill introduced by the Liberals, took an entirely different tack. That Bill called for authority to borrow spilling over into the next fiscal year. The Hon. Member and his Party castigated the government for that spillover into the next fiscal year. How can the Hon. Member get up and make a speech like that? How does he reconcile that? Is it not rather like sucking and blowing at the same time? Now that he is on the government side his tune has changed. How does he reconcile his speech with the reality of his performance in the last Parliament?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, the greatest difference between the situation then and the situation now is that then there was a government in which I had no confidence, nor did the vast majority of other Canadians. That government could not be trusted. Today the situation is entirely reversed. We have a Government which has the confidence of the great majority of Canadians. It holds 211 seats in the House of Commons. Who could not trust the Minister of State for Finance or the Minister of Finance?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of which side of the House you sit on but a question of principle. I would like to quote the comments of the present Minister of Finance who at that time was the finance critic. At the time when they were debating the similar Bill he said:
There is a well established principle that Parliament only provides sufficient borrowing authority to a government to allow it to finance its operations within the current fiscal year. It is quite clear from the figures in the bill and from the statement by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) in response to my question yesterday that the government has every intention of this borrowing authority spilling over into 1983-84.
It is not a question of power, Mr. Speaker, it is a question of principle. I should remind the Hon. Member that in this House might is not right. Perhaps they should think of might for right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) wish to comment?


Dave Nickerson: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What can he say?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question and comment period is now terminated. Order, please. Would the
November 30, 1984

Hon. Member please be seated. I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) that I had not seen him rise to be recognized. I had recognized the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) as a speaker for the Opposition. I must go to two Conservative members. Therefore, I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins).


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak today in support of Bill C-ll, the borrowing authority Bill.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have clarification of your statement that you must recognize two Hon. Members on the government side. I thought that according to procedure, especially Beauchesne's Citation 141 of the Fourth Edition, the Speaker normally tries to alternate between the pros and cons in a debate. I am surprised by your statement that you would make it a practice to recognize two Members on one side of the House and only one on the other. Could the Speaker clarify this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) brings up the point of recognizing Members from either side. I have been watching the debate very carefully today and over the last couple of days. I have noticed that there are not always Members rising from the Parties of the Opposition. Therefore, it is pretty hard for the Chair to try to recognize Members from that one Party or the other Party. Therefore, I must use discretion and am doing so. That is why I am recognizing the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins).


Jacques Guilbault: I agree with the situation the Chair may find itself in when there are few Members in the House, especially when Members are not rising on either your left or right hand. However, I thought that at one time Your Honour was saying you would have to recognize two government members. I think you have clarified this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member will know that I have always been for the underdog. I will naturally be recognizing people from both sides of the House. I think if he will be patient with the Chair he will find things will even off. The Hon. Member for Capilano.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-ll, the borrowing authority Bill. Before I start my comments I would like to say that as a new Member I find that speaking in this great House is perhaps a little different than expected, particularly on a Friday afternoon. It is interesting to see that the benches of the Opposition are as bare as the fiscal cupboard which we inherited from them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: How about yours?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member must remember that she should not comment on the number of Members in the Chamber.
Borrowing Authority


Svend Johannes Robinson: Especially when you have none here, Mary.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Where are all the Tories?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) spoke this morning on this Bill. I agree with many of the points she made. As the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) indicated, we do not really like the idea of borrowing. That is not the way we would like to see the Government operate ideally. No one likes to borrow but we recognize that it is necessary at times. In fact, at this particular time we realize that we are atoning for the fiscal irresponsibility of the previous government which ran up this deficit. It allowed it to increase as it allowed spending to increase with unbridled passion.
We are familiar with the figures. The deficit of SI90 billion has been accumulated at $34.5 billion a year. Just as in our private lives or business lives, we would not go to the bank to borrow money unless we understood how we would repay it. We realize that in the long term that is the kind of government we need in this country. We need a government that is fiscally accountable and fiscally responsible. We have not had the opportunity to see such a government for many years.
Indeed, if we were to follow the practices of the previous government, the accumulated debt by 1990 would reach such an extent that each family in this country would owe $54,000. Consider what that would mean to every man, woman and child in this country.
Last weekend, I went to my constituency to discuss our plans for economic renewal and our agenda for the future. Many of my constituents told me that they know some changes will hurt but they supported the Government one hundred per cent. They said that in fact they would like to see us go even further. Some people came to me and asked if there was not a way that we might even be able to develop a concept whereby that debt could be repaid now so that, as individuals or families, we could repay that debt which is owed to this country as a result of the previous fiscal irresponsibility.
I believe that Canadians-certainly the people in my riding-are behind the changes we are making. We know that it will not be easy and that we will have to begin saying no to many things in the next four years. That is the responsibility of our Government and that is the direction in which we must go.
I believe Hon. Members would agree that within government spending there is overlap and duplication. I spent many years working for a provincial government and I know from my own personal experience that there is waste aplenty. I know from my years in the private sector dealing with government that there are many examples of waste and overlap with provincial jurisdictions.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said on July 25 of this year that there are programs that are duplications and programs that are wasteful. He said that there are programs that are no longer useful, programs which

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
no longer serve a purpose and that there is administration that is wasteful. He said that he would cut them down. Fortunately, he has not had that opportunty. We inherited that responsibility and we recognize it.
This afternoon the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) spoke to this Bill. He might be surprised to learn that I share with him his concern for social justice. I am sure there will be many occasions when we will have similar point of view on matters coming before the House.
However, I do not agree with him on his approach to economic renewal. I suppose that is part of the fundamental difference between Members on different sides of the House. I believe that in order to be fiscally responsible we must have to stay "stop". We must say no to further increases in government spending and take control of the situation. In my opinion, that is not only the moral and ethical route to take, it is also the correct economic policy.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let them eat cake.


Mary Collins: I would like to ensure that every man, woman and child in this country at least had the opportunity to eat cake, but my approach would be quite different, if I may respond to the Hon. Member.
Obviously, we are saying in our economic agenda for renewal that job creation is the number one priority. But we differ from our colleagues about the appropriate way to create jobs in this country.
Personally, I am a great advocate of small business. I believe Hon. Members would agree that small business is a major contributor to the benefits that we enjoy. Companies with less than $2 million of sales-which is one definition of small business-comprise 96 per cent of the total number of businesses in this country. They employ between 4.5 million and 5.4 million Canadians. They are the largest employer of Canadians. We know that women are one of the largest generators of new small businesses in this country. When we encourage the small business sector we are also assisting women in greater numbers.
The measures which we are proposing and implementing now are measures which will support small business. It is not government that creates jobs. That is the wrong approach. It is Canadians who create jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mary Collins: I know from my own experience and from talking to my constituents that Canadians will not do that unless they feel there is an opportunity to enjoy the benefits if they take such a risk. They are tired of the constraints that were put on small business by the previous regime. They want a system which will provide more opportunity to make investments, take risks and employ people in this country and thereby add to a healthy economy that we all hope to enjoy.
These are the little people of this country. These are the people whom this Government wants to support. They are the people who run the restaurants, the dry cleaning shops and
have new ideas for the development of new applications of software.
Whenever I visit my riding, men and women come to me with ideas for small businesses they would like to begin. As I said in my maiden speech a few weeks ago, they are not asking for handouts. They only want to know if the Government will create the kind of climate in which they can be free to operate and employ people. That is the approach that this Government is taking in the fiscal scheme of our economic agenda.
I believe that our concept of responsibility is also consistent with the approach of our Government. We want to encourage individual responsibility and corporate responsibility in this country. In order to do that we must enable people to be free to accept that responsibility.
For example, let us consider family life. How can we expect our children to accept responsibility if they are given a new car or brand-new clothes when they turn 16? I believe they must have a sense of realism just as others in this country want to
have a sense of realism.
During the past number of years people have come to believe that the Government, through its industrial grants and so on, would provide things for them. I would like to see some of that changed. This can be accomplished when our major emphasis is on providing a sound economic climate in which people are free to make investments and create economic wealth.
I believe that the measures that have been put forward in our economic agenda and in Bill C-ll are based on a society which encourages strength, freedom, responsibility and challenge. We are giving a challenge to all Canadians in these next four years. We are saying that we are ready to accept our responsibility to be more fiscally prudent. We are asking Canadians to take this opportunity and we are counting on them to create the jobs and the economic wealth in this country.
While we recognize the need to borrow these funds at this time, I look forward to the time within the next four years when Canadians will have taken the initiatives, made the investments and created the jobs. In the future we will be in a position to say that our borrowing requirements will be dramatically diminished and that our economy is healthy once again.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, if small business is to have the kind of confidence that the Hon. Member indicated small business looks for in the way government operates, does she think it is wise for the Government to ask for borrowing authority for the next fiscal year when it has not presented its budget or spending plans for the next fiscal year? Does she think that is a responsible way for an individual or business to conduct their affairs?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, obviously we know in general terms what the budget will be for next year. We do not have all the details but these will be presented to the House in due course. But we have a pretty good understanding of what some
November 30, 1984

of the fiscal requirements will be. It is prudent to have in place now the mechanisms by which we are ensured that we can have the money which, unfortunately, we will need to provide those services. I believe under the present circumstances, circumstances which we inherited and which I hope over the next four years will change, that we must take this action at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins).

In prefacing my question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member, a fellow British Columbian, on her election.
My question concerns the policies of the Government of British Columbia and their relationship to the policies of this Government. We have had much of the same rhetoric, if I may use that word, from the Social Credit Government of British Columbia at the time it brought forward its economic master plan which resulted in terrible hardship for British Columbians, as the Hon. Member is well aware, in terms of loss of jobs and cutbacks of essential services. There is a great deal of increased hardship and suffering. There are line-ups at food banks in British Columbia like we have never seen before. That was a policy which put the deficit first and said that we had to restore business confidence, we had to cut the deficit, and then we will look after the unemployed. They were the same priorities that appear to be the priorities of the federal Conservative Government.
Does the Hon. Member support those policies of the Province of British Columbia? If not, can she indicate any distinction between those policies and the policies which her Government is now pursuing?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by my near neighbour and colleague from British Columbia. As the Hon. Member knows, I am not privy to any of the policy-making discussions in British Columbia. I do not know the basis on which that government made its decisions.
I do not agree with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on the reasons we are experiencing such economic difficulties in British Columbia. To my mind they are not coming about as a result of the government's policies, although the media might have people believe that. The difficulties we are experiencing in British Columbia are because of some fundamental difficulties in the resource industries which have traditionally been the basis of our economy, the forest industry particularly and the mining industry. As a result of lower international prices for our products, our inability in some cases to be competitive, we have not seen the kind of growth
Borrowing Authority
we should have. In fact we have seen the opposite. We have seen major cutbacks in those industries.
Perhaps my colleague recalls the report made by the B.C. Central Credit Union recently which indicates that the future for those industries still does not look too optimistic. We really cannot count on those industries to create the new jobs in British Columbia. Therefore, we must be looking at the development of alternatives, new kinds of industrial approaches, and new kinds of services.
The approaches that we are taking as a federal Government in cutting back and being fiscally responsible will send those signals to the private sector in British Columbia. This will assist private businessmen. They come to me every week when I am out there. They are the ones who will start to create those jobs and alternative industries in British Columbia which I hope and pray will bring back economic health to our province.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am not asking the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) to comment on internal policy decisions by the provincial government. The Government of British Columbia has well known public positions with respect to its role in the economy and with respect to economic policy. I am asking the Hon. Member a straightforward, simple question. Is there any difference in theory or practice between the policy and philosophy of the Government of British Columbia and the policy and philosophy of the federal Conservative Government?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can elaborate. I am not familiar with the philosophy and policy of the Government of British Columbia as I am not privy to the discussions that go on in that sense. I will say to the Hon. Member that there is a vast difference in the approach, certainly by our Government, and I think that reflects back on our commitment to consultation. We have said that in the next four to five months before announcing any major changes in our policies with respect to our budget for next year we will be consulting all of the sectors of the economy which have an interest in, and will be affected by, such changes, the outline of which was given by the agenda of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for reform.
I have undertaken that in my constituency. I am consulting with the people involved in big business, small business, labour unions and women's groups to get their input and understanding of what direction we should be going as a government. That is the kind of approach we are taking as the federal Government which I think is vital to the success of our endeavours.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins). First I agree it is true there is often waste and there is always a time to perfect what we already have in place. I believe her observation in that regard is sound. Saying no and saying stop under any and all circumstances merely to reduce the impact of the deficit is, I think, a very worrisome approach.

November 30, 1984
Borrowing Authority
I suggest that not all women are in a position to start businesses or to find risk capital. I suggest the majority of women are working women. Does the Hon. Member not believe that the social costs of ignoring the Abella Report and establishing a policy of equality and employment is much more important in order to get people working than it is to reduce our deficit? We will then have increases in revenue through taxes.


Mary Collins: I would like to thank my hon. colleague, Mr. Speaker. She shares my great concern for the economic equality of women. I do not find the two principles inconsistent. I am as committed to ensuring there is economic equality for women in this great country as I am to ensuring that we have a fiscally sound government. I think we can work in both directions at the same time. I am presently reviewing the Abella Report. There are many excellent ideas that have been put forward. I am not sure which of those should be implemented first. I think there will be a period of study and discussion with women's groups across the country as we proceed. I know we share the basic and same premise of working toward the advancement of women and the equality of women in all sectors of our economy.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Member for Capilano is in the process of studying the implications and the application, I hope, of the Abella Report, would she not perhaps see to it that a better application of existing law might be put into effect, particularly with respect to the study that was done and with respect to the pilot projects undertaken by Treasury Board? These indicated that with mandatory affirmative action one can see better results in government.


Mary Collins: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I will be glad to discuss these issues with my colleagues in the Ministries and to assure myself of what is the most appropriate way of going forward. As I have mentioned before, I am not a great advocate of legislated or mandatory affirmative action. I would like to see us working toward a co-operative approach with agencies, but if that does not work and there is a true indication that nothing will happen, obviously we will have to look at alternatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now terminated. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). However, it is now four o'clock, and it being four o'clock the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Member's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired. May I add that November 30 is a memorable day. As the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert used to say, Parliament lives.\nIt being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned.", 'Monday, December 3, 1984']
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been consultation and I believe it will be by unanimous consent that we now see five o'clock.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my hon. colleague. There have been absolutely no consultations involving this Private Member who has a Private Member's Bill on the Order Paper. I would ask the Chair to call seriatim the items on the Order Paper. I am prepared to continue the adjourned debate on my Bill C-201.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 1 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 2 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 3 stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 4 stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 5 stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall order No. 7 stand by unanimous consent? No. 8, stand by unanimous consent; No. 9, stand by unanimous consent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the Speaker mind reading off the number of the Bills? In any event, I will not give unanimous consent to stand Bill C-201.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must read off the orders as they are listed under Private Members' Business- Public Bills. When I come to the Hon. Member's Bill I will recognize him. Shall order No. 9 stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 10, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.
November 30, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 11, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 12, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 13, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 14, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 15, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 16, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 17, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 18, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 19, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 20, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 21, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 22, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 23, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 24, stand by unanimous consent.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) were present, I think we would be prepared to go ahead with his Bill dealing with the National Capital Commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) is not here. Therefore we will just carry on. No. 25, stand by unanimous consent; No. 26, stand by unanimous consent; No. 27, stand by unanimous consent.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) were present and wanted to go ahead with his Bill, I am sure that the House would be delighted to deal with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) is not in the House. Therefore we will carry on.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would request the unanimous consent of the House, in order to facilitate matters, that we proceed at this time to Bill C-201.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 28, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 29, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 30, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 31, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 32, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 33, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.

November 30, 1984
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 34, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 35, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 36, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 37, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 38, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 39, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 40, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 41, stand by unanimous consent; No. 42, stand by unanimous consent; No. 43, stand by unanimous consent; No. 44, stand by unanimous consent; No. 45, stand by unanimous consent; No. 46, stand by unanimous consent; No. 47, stand by unanimous consent; No. 48, stand by unanimous consent; No. 49, stand by unanimous consent; No. 50, stand by unanimous consent.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is private Members' hour and it is just a travesty to call off these items. It is my information that there is no other Private Member's Bill ahead of mine which is prepared to proceed. I certainly accede to the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that, regardless of House Leaders and Parliamentary Secretaries, the time will not run out before I am able to have the floor and the question will be deferred under the provisional rules until Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I agree with the Hon. Member but there is not unanimous consent. I will ask for unanimous consent again. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), for his own gain on his own Bill, has decided to force us into a position on which there had been some agreement among House Leaders, I propose
that we continue on in the orderly disposition of the business until we reach his Bill, Bill C-201. He is the one who has caused this, not I.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 51, stand by unanimous consent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Dispense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 52, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 53, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 54, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 55, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 56, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 57, stand by unanimous consent.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I think this is really an abuse of the time and the procedures of the House. The Government has said that it would consult. It is a great one to say that. It has not consulted with its Members. We are prepared to go to Bill C-201 instead of being so silly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 have no choice but to carry on. No. 57, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 58, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 59, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 60, stand by unanimous consent?


Dave Nickerson: Stand.
November 30, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. 61, by unanimous consent; No. 62, by unanimous consent; No. 63, by unanimous consent; No. 64, by unanimous consent; No. 65, by unanimous consent.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If it is in order, I move that we now proceed to Bill C-201.


John R. Rodriguez: I second it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It will be seconded by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member please give the Chair the motion in writing?


Paul Wyatt Dick: That will be a debatable motion, of course.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A government which is committed to parliamentary reform and to recognizing and enhancing the rights of Private Members is making a travesty of those rights this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. There is a motion in front of the Chair. It is moved by Mr. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Rodriguez, that the House proceed to debate Bill C-201. All those in favour, please say "aye".


Some Hon. Members:: "Aye".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those against, please say "nye"-nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
Motion (Mr. Benjamin) agreed to.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will be fairly brief.


Paul Wyatt Dick: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If the Hon. Member speaks, he closes off debate.


Paul Wyatt Dick: We have a speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We can tell that this is Friday. Just one moment, please.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Nowlan that Bill C-201, an Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia", be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Designation of Nova Scotia
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) will be recognized.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great honour this afternoon to take part in the debate on this very important Bill C-201 which was introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). To deal with such an important matter as the official designation of "Nova Scotia", I should first like to congratulate the Hon. Member on introducing this very important motion. Mr. Speaker, I know that you have had a very long and hard week, but I should like to describe to you how important this motion is.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It does not surprise me, but I am a little bewildered. When I had the floor, I asked that you read the Orders of the Day seriatim and you then could recognize another Member to speak on the Bill on which I asked to have the debate continued. It is my adjourned debate. I fully understand that if I speak, not to tie up the House but to speak for another three, for four or five minutes, I will close the debate and, therefore, the motion will be put. Under the provisional rules, the vote will take this motion is referred to the Justice Committee. You, Mr. Speaker, recognized me when I stood. You did not recognize the Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). Therefore I am very upset.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I appreciate what the Hon. Member is saying but the Table had not read the motion. I regret that. If there are other Members who wish to speak on this Bill, I must recognize them. If I have caused the Hon. Member any problem, I regret that. Other Members should have an opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. Therefore, I have recognized the Hon. Member for Timiskaming. I was reading off the other Bills and noticed the Hon. Member. How can I not notice the Hon. Member? I hope the Hon. Member will allow other Members to participate in this very important debate.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia is my homeland. It is the area where I was born. My roots are there. I now live in the great riding of Timiskaming. When we talk about Nova Scotia, we talk about an area of the country that has a heritage and roots that I would like to describe to Hon. Members.
Northern Ontario is very much like Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia there is coal mining, agriculture and forestry. There is also the fishing industry. It is an important area.
In 1947 I came into this world in Cape Breton, Inverness County, Port Hood. At that time my father had started his livelihood as a coal miner in the great Province of Nova Scotia. It is heartening to see a Member who has such great thoughts of his great province, who wants to make sure that his Bill is brought before Parliament to ensure that Nova Scotia is designated officially.
798

November 30, 1984
Designation of Nova Scotia
It is hard to start out on such an emotional debate, to be able to be here and to go back to my roots. So many people from Cape Breton and other parts of Nova Scotia over the years have had to leave their homeland to go to other parts of the country such as Toronto, Timiskaming and other parts of Canada. They never forget where they came from, they never forget their homeland. That is why it is so important for me today to speak to such an important motion.
This country is vast. Each one of us has a duty to work and to help. It is a pleasure to be here to help my colleague on such an important issue.
The great, great land of Nova Scotia has heritage and history. A great parliamentarian came from Nova Scotia, I. D. MacDougall, a great relative of mine. Needless to say, the area of politics and the MacDougall clan have been there for many years.


Mr. Cook:: Tell us about MacDougall, MacDougall.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: He was a great parliamentarian, an individual who fought for the beliefs of Cape Bretoners, the people of Nova Scotia and eastern Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Was he a fisherman?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: He was not a fisherman. He worked the land. He tried to bring his beliefs to the problems of the great area of eastern Canada.
Many individuals have had to leave the eastern part of Canada because of economic times to move to such places as northern Ontario. I know of the major problems in the coal mining industry over the years. Many people who worked in the coal mines had no choice but to move to northern Ontario, whether to the great riding of Nickel Belt, represented by my colleague opposite, Timmins-Chapleau, represented by my colleague to my left, or the riding of Timiskaming where gold, silver and nickel mining play such an important part. I know of the hard work and dedication of those miners over the years. They come from a great part of eastern Canada where the hard work of coal mining was so important and so vital to the area.
There are other areas of concern such as the tourist industry. The Cabot Trail plays an important part in the economy of eastern Canada. There is the great island of Cape Breton which we all like to visit once a year. If we are fortunate, we experience the great weather of eastern Canada.
It is a pleasure for me to speak today to Bill C-201. It shows the concern which my colleague has for his great province. It also give me an opportunity to speak on what I feel is an important part of Canada. I still have the blue blood of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.
A couple of weeks ago I received a letter from a young constituent in Cape Breton, Port Hood. She is a Grade 11 student. She is very interested in the goings on of the House of Commons, the day to day activities, the committee work and the constituency work of a Member. I had the opportunity to draft a nice letter explaining how Members have to work in
order to get elected, the eight-week campaign leading up to September 4, the opportunity to come into the House where for the first time in history we have 211 Members in the government Party. I indicated that there are 40 liberal members and 30 members of the New Democratic Party. I explained to her the duties we have to perform to bring around the economy of this country. I explained the detailed job we have to do because of the disastrous job done by the Liberal government.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very glad that I have the assistance of my hon. friend, a transplant from Nova Scotia. However, I would like him to focus on my Bill, which is one paragraph. Is he in favour of the Latin name "Nova Scotia" or not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of debate.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleague that I get emotionally caught up in this. It is not too often I have the opportunity to go back through history to the time when I started my life and developed my future the way I have. I would certainly be willing to support the Bill and emphasize my strong feelings in regard to it.
I would like to end by saying to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important for our young people to be able to communicate with each Member of Parliament. I say to each Member here today, on this last afternoon of the week, that if they have the opportunity to speak to a constituent from anywhere in Canada who is interested in the history and the day-to-day activities of the House of Commons and its committees or is interested in how Members have the opportunity of being elected, they should take the time to speak with them. We must remember that the young people of today are the Members of Parliament of tomorrow.


John V. Nunziata: Liberal members.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I heard someone say "Liberal members". I am afraid to say that it will be many years before we see too many more of those on that side of the House.
In closing, I would like to say that it has given me great pleasure to be able to be present today, my duty day, to take part in debate on such a very important Private Member's Bill as the one presented by my colleague. I fully support Bill C-201 and hope it will pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), on a point of order or debate?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) be now heard.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The motion is not debatable.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I do not believe that motion can be put until the completion of the speech of one speaker and prior to the recognition of a second speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That was me. I was recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must recognize that the motion is in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour say "aye".


Some Hon. Members:: "Aye."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those against say "nye".


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
In view of the fact that only two Members have risen, I find the motion defeated. Motion (Mr. Benjamin) defeated.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your "ayes" rhyme with your "nyes".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No one asked for a division. Five Members did not rise.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. We thought you said the "ayes" had it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I said the nays had it. It is therefore-


Some Hon. Members:: Re-do it!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have already done it.
I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to me you must say to the House: "In my opinion, the nays have it".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I already said the yeas and the nays. I do not think we should be playing with semantics on a Friday afternoon. I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for Charlevoix.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The whole purpose of my Bill is semantics and the proper use of semantics, the proper use of language-
Designation of Nova Scotia


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that that is not a point of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I have made a decision.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It would appear that there has been some difficulty with the transmission of sound in the Chamber. This is perhaps a question of privilege. The sound which I heard when the Speaker announced the motion was either that the "nyes" had it or that the "ayes" had it. I am not sure which it was but it was unclear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not say that. You might have misunderstood me but that is too bad. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I concur with the thoughts of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I too heard "nyes" and I was not clear as to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. I have already ruled. I would like to call upon the next speaker, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix.


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, some Hon. Members may not be overjoyed at hearing a discussion on semantics, a subject so dear to the heart of the Hon. Pat Nowlan, and which has a number of dimensions that are relevant to this country's official languages. To me, the word "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has been a very real part of my vocabulary since my very early years, and when we were at school, "Nouvelle-Ecosse" was a reality we knew. Of course, the Hon. Member, Pat Nowland, has this very interesting plan to use the latin word "Nova Scotia" and he is-


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is rising on a point of order.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I simply would like to remind the Hon. Member very gently, after all it is my birthday today-I hope you do not mind my saying so-but in any case, when referring to another member of this House, one does not use the Hon. Member's name but one says: the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.

November 30, 1984
Designation of Nova Scotia


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The point is well taken. I would like to wish the Hon. Member a very happy birthday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles-André Hamelin: Thank you. I am sure that in time, I will have your experience, and as they say, a man's worth does not necessarily depend on his years, and I expect to have plenty of opportunities for learning the rules of the House, and learning by heart-


George Albert Proud: They also say that silence is golden.


Charles-André Hamelin: Well I hope to speak often in the House and be elected as many times as I can, a bit like you yourself, sir-
To get back to Bill C-201, Mr. Speaker, which is aimed at substituting for the word "Nouvelle-Ecosse", whenever it appears in statutes, regulations, reports, contracts, leases, permits, licences or other documents, the word "Nova Scotia". I think the repercussions are far greater than my hon. colleague would have it seem. I think it would be a very significant change for Quebecers and for all Canadian Francophones. Some terms are easily interchangeable, but, as was pointed out several times in the House in the course of the debate on the Hon. Member's bill, the term "Nouvelle-Ecosse" has become part of our vocabulary and our whole way of life, and frankly,
I think it would sound very odd to say that we were going to spend a holiday in "Nova Scotia", a term which for us has become associated with English, a language we respect and for which I have a great deal of admiration as a Canadian. I think that is basically where the problem lies.
There are indeed a number of terms that in the course of time have become practically bilingual. Others, however, have become associated with one language rather than another. As far as French Canada in general and Quebec in particular are concerned, I can assure the Hon. Member that the term "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is as firmly rooted in our vocabulary as Nova Scotia probably is in yours, because as far as I know, Anglophones do not refer to "New Scotland". In fact, the Latin term, and Latin is in fact an off shoot of Sanskrit from which Greek is derived and so we finally get to Latin which has provided the basis for our two languages ... I would remind the Hon. Member that in the English language, for which I have a great affection, about seventy or eighty per cent of the words are French, although pronounced differently. And so we have here a Latin name which as a result of history has to all intents and purposes become an English word.
1 repeat to my colleague that as far as we are concerned, "Nouvelle-Ecosse", in French is the official name. This is one of the things we learn in school. It is in our history books, and
there is nowhere any reference in our community or in our language, to "Nova Scotia". But there is reference everywhere to the beautiful province of "Nouvelle-Ecosse".
I would ask my colleague to consider that, in effect, this is more than a simple semantic issue in Canada. If, in the past, in some of the English-speaking provinces certain geographical names have been in French, in most cases this has come about through a consensus, whether it is in the United States or in any English-Speaking province of Canada that such French names have survived. This has been done out of habit. It is part of the heritage of those communities in areas with such specific names.
Therefore, in our view, which surely is shared by all my French-speaking colleagues from Quebec, and probably from elsewhere in Canada, the name "Nova Scotia" could definitely never be substituted to the French name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" in our language.
Let me stress that I appreciate the reasons why my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants introduced Bill C-201. I appreciate that it is important to him, in his language, that the name "Nova Scotia" be enshrined. However, it is my feeling that actually, in practice, it would be impossible for us to use in French the name "Nova Scotia", at least within the short term.
This Bill aimed at preserving the Latin name "Nova Scotia" is a little amazing to me. 1 would have no objections, my dear colleague, to using for instance another name in your language, were this to be the will of your constituents, of the people, in other words, or their tradition in your area. But as far as French-speaking people are concerned-on that Bill that points to the linguistic duality of our Canadian context and this is important-I must tell you that although I appreciate your reasons, and notwithstanding the use of other designations, either in French or in English, that may have been discussed in the past in this House, I feel that there are no grounds for suggesting that the name "Nova Scotia" might very easily be used in French. This would fly in the face of the historic evolution of our language and the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is to us a commonly used name that we find in our dictionaries, in our tradition and in our ways of speaking.
However, I can somewhat understand the rationale for your presenting such a Bill. I believe that your intentions are serious, that this might be a way for your community and your province to assert their identity. I am quite certain of this, but in view of the basic Canadian duality and the absolute need to respect this French and English duality in Canada, I would invite you to reconsider your proposal and to be very noble about it. I also invite you to apply the principles which inspire our new administration, this new Government elected last September 4, responsible for promoting a spirit of cooperation and reconciliation. I believe that this major reconciliation will occur among French and English-speaking Canadians-
November 30, 1984



All together. We will work together. We want to work together.
[ Translation]
And I believe that the participation of my hon. colleague is important. I quite understand his firm desire to assert the cultural identity of his province. I understand this quite well, I accept it and I find it meaningful, encouraging, and-


An Hon. Member:: You are being very nice!


Charles-André Hamelin: I thank you for these words. In addition, Mr. Speaker, and of course I must always address you, but I am learning quickly, I see a Member who was not here a while earlier. In any case, I shall learn quickly, Mr. Speaker. But there, he has left. That is too bad; I could have shown him how quickly I am learning. Nevertheless, I can wish him a happy birthday. Today was his birthday. He has probably gone to celebrate.
To come back to my colleague, who wishes to assert this important cultural identity, we have an opportunity with 58 Members from Quebec and other French-speaking Members from other provinces to achieve this impossible dream- [English]
The impossible dream.

-which is Canada. This is an impossible dream, an ideal to be attained and we have the good luck to be members of a truly national party where we shall all respect one another, and I am certain that you yourself will make the necessary effort to ensure that this linguistic duality will become something positive and important for our community. I believe that you shall make the necessary efforts, and we shall do the same in spite of our own will to assert ourselves.
I want to point out that my position is also positive. I want the term "Nouvelle-Ecosse" to be kept in my language. This is now part of my culture. You are from "Nova Scotia", from "Nouvelle-Ecosse", but for me, you are part of Canada and of my culture. Indeed, it seems to me that there are people in your region-
Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, my comments are addressed to you. However, my colleague for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) is showing so much understanding on this issue that I cannot avoid thinking occasionally that he must appreciate my comments on his Bill. As I was saying, there are also francophones in Nova Scotia, and during the all too few trips that I have made to this province I have noticed that French-speaking people in the area also use the term "Nouvelle-Ecosse". They do not say "Nova Scotia", except when they switch languages and speak English. They also do the same in English, or at least a few of them do because there are still many people who speak like that.
Designation of Nova Scotia
Mr. Speaker, it has been a great pleasure for me to speak to this motion, for I appreciate indeed the relevance of the nearly cultural remarks made on this subject by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. Instead of voicing my opposition, I would again extend to him an open and cordial invitation so that we might all work together. I repeat, for once we have a unique opportunity.
History will record that outstanding reconciliation endeavour, perhaps through the expression "Nova Scotia", but the French words "Nouvelle-Ecosse" will add a new dimension, and I should say to my colleague that his remarkable understanding of this issue will enable all of us-


George Albert Proud: I do have that impression.


Charles-André Hamelin: -will enable all of us-my Hon. colleague from Saint-Denis will have to admit that I am improving, Mr. Speaker-to live together through a unique experience in the next twenty years, all of us together in a better Canada, in Nouvelle-Ecosse as in all the other provinces of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Richelieu.


Mr. Louis Piamondon (Richelieu):: I would like to stress that taking the floor after my colleague who spoke with such eloquence is somewhat of a challenge for me, because he has summed up exactly how Quebecers feel about this bill. Since time immemorial, we in Quebec have used ... I can still recall grade school when we used the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse", because in the beginning, in the 17th century, many francophones lived there and still do now, and they are as attached to that name as they are to the region, their religion and their mother tongue, and many memories were passed from father to son. They were educated in French. They still are, and they still claim rights which will eventually be given to them. Those people of Nova Scotia, those residents of Nova Scotia who speak French see a very close link between their existence and the French name "Nouvelle-Ecosse." Naturally, the Hon. Member who moved this motion wants to keep the Latin name. Unfortunately, if we were to use the latin name - for francophones, it happens to be the same as the English name - we might very well raise serious doubts about our lengthy struggles for bilingualism and the mutual respect of two peoples that are beginning to live in harmony, I think, as the previous speaker so aptly emphasized.
I have often visited that beautiful province as a tourist, on holidays, and even some anglophones I met would use the French name when referring to Nova Scotia, claiming that the French name was the one they had heard first. This, of course, serves to remind our students, at least in Quebec, that the majority of the people living in that province at one time spoke French . . . many Canadians who speak only French, in Quebec and some parts of Ontario for instance, always say "Nouvelle-

November 30, 1984
Designation of Nova Scotia
Ecosse" and do not even know the expression "Nova Scotia". The use of this new name for them would therefore be felt as a sort of reconsideration of bilingualism, as my hon. friend said earlier; not only a reconsideration, but a step backward. They would understand that something is being taken away from them, a name which belongs to their heritage, which is part of their culture, which their families use in their daily lives, although the argument on the basis of the Latin expression could be justified. Many Canadians who do not use English at work and in their daily life would therefore be surprised to be deprived of the French name, and I am not sure they would understand that the idea is to return to the Latin name.
Your fine province might even suffer economically as a consequence of the elimination of the beautiful French name "Nouvelle-Ecosse", because many tourists visit your area every summer to enjoy your magnificent beaches, just as I did myself on three of four occasions.
Many Quebecers travel to that province to visit members of the armed forces who are stationed there in large numbers. They might find the change of name disturbing. Tourism might be adversely affected, not to mention the economy.
I ask you to reconsider your objection as did my colleague earlier. Some people like the French name of your fine province. They are more familiar with that name in my own province. They have been used to it for years. They would not understand a return to the Latin name since the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" does not take away anything but gives to your area the additional characteristic of a bilingual name which makes people from both cultures feel at home. Not only would that bill be prejudicial to francophones in your own province, it could create an unfortunate impression with the French-speaking population abroad. In addition, it could have a negative effect on the people of Quebec who travel to your province each summer.
I think that there are sufficient grounds to review the bill and to withdraw it. It would be considered a significant move by French-speaking Canadians, and it would be harmful to that fine policy of bilingualism in effect for several years. When I am in Ottawa, thanks to simultaneous translation, I can hear distinguished speakers quote Shakespeare as well as former prime ministers such as Macdonald. I am pleased that you allow me to speak sometimes and quote Moliere and Racine, the great French authors as well as some comments by Hon. Members from Quebec. This sacred advantage should not be weakened. Such action is not perceived by me as being directed against us but it could be in some quarters. I feel that it is too touchy an issue dealing with bilingualism when a new party has just come into power with a majority in the ten provinces. A majority for the same party in the ten provinces is an unprecedented record!
There is a national consensus whereby this party represents a change, a new direction in the way this country is governed. Should this bill pass, it might jeopardize this whole policy,
which could be construed as a division, perhaps, within Parliament. I think we have worked together for too long, I would even say that we have fought together for too long in order to enjoy two cultures, so that our children may be educated in both official languages and appreciate Shakespeare as much as Moliere, as I said earlier, which has not been the case for us.
I dare not speak in English in this House yet for fear of offending a few ears, but thanks to the English classes I take regularly, you can be sure that within a year, I will be pleased to address this House in your language, the same way almost all the English-speaking members take French classes in order to communicate better. There is a will, a reality, a desire to be friendly and to live together, and we should ensure that such a small incident, for instance, like trying to change the French name of such a beautiful province as Nova Scotia may be wrongly interpreted by the public or by some people in the province, even in Quebec. Indeed, changing that French name would probably be considered a regressive step as far as bilingualism is concerned or the respect for both our communities which get along together in this House as well as throughout Canada, willing to carry on in this way for many years to come.
Therefore I ask you, my dear colleague, to reconsider this proposal to change, to remove the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse", and to continue to live in harmony with those beautiful designations we have for this province.
The experience we have been living for a few years with bilingualism, with the reform of the Constitution which was achieved, demonstrates a desire throughout Canada to see, as my colleague said, both cultures thrive as equal in the greatest respect. Again such a little incident could be misinterpreted.
Even if I understand very well the mover's motives, I would like him to reconsider this proposal.
I will not take any more of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, to enable other Hon. Members to express their views.
I know that many speakers want to do so on this Friday afternoon, and I will give them a chance, but I wanted to indicate that I disagree with that proposal to remove the designation of "Nouvelle-Ecosse", precisely to avoid affecting the beautiful link which unites both cultures represented by the majority in this House.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak for the first time in Private Members' hour in the Thirty-third Parliament. I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), for giving me this opportunity.
Last year about this same time I was fortunate enough to be in the House when the Hon. Member brought forward a similar Bill. I was impressed then by his eloquence and the
November 30, 1984

deep feeling with which he spoke of his province and how he felt it was so important to bring this particular Bill forward. I was impressed by his logic. I was impressed then and I am now. I was not in the House this year but 1 did have the opportunity to listen to his speech on the television in my office. I listened carefully because he argues well and with passion.
It may well be that many Members of the House are not familiar with what the Bill is all about. Perhaps, with the Speaker's permission, I could read the contents of the Bill. First, it is in the first session of the Thirty-third Parliament. It is a very small Bill, only two paragraphs, but it is an important Bill. The Bill is entitled Bill C-201, an Act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia". It reads:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	This Act may be cited as The Official Designation of Nova Scotia Act.
Clause 2 is the meat of the Bill. This is what is intended by the Act. It reads:
2.	In every place where the words "Nova Scotia" appear in any Act, regulation, statutory instrument, report, contract, lease, licence or other document the proper designation of such name in both official languages is and shall be "Nova Scotia".
This Bill may be short but it is very far-reaching and has great significance. I feel that I have an appreciation of the problems involved. I do not come from Nova Scotia like the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). I come from a place called the Okanagan Valley. We have heard from central Canada, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces on this issue, so I think it is time we heard from western Canada on this Bill.
The Okanagan Valley is in central British Columbia. The Hon. Member comes from the Annapolis Valley. These places have two things in common: they both grow very good apples. The Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is nodding. At one time he had the courtesy to say that, although we both grow apples, perhaps we make better apple cider. I hope all Members have an opportunity to test that observation some day. Therefore, I feel I have some right to speak on this Bill this afternoon because we have that much in common.
Designation of Nova Scotia
Perhaps we have more than that in common. My children's maternal grandparents both came from Nova Scotia. Their maternal grandfather came from Antigonish. That is the home of the very famous university, St. Francis Xavier. I am proud to say that two of my children have gone to that university. I have some more interesting facts. My children's maternal grandfather began a newspaper called the Casket. It still exists and is the local newspaper in Antigonish.
The Member for Timiskaming spoke about Cape Breton earlier. My children's maternal grandmother came from an unlikely place called Myra's Gut. I see the Member is nodding. He recognizes that as a very fine small community. Therefore, with some justification and authority I can speak on this Bill because I too have a great love and affection for Nova Scotia, as I am sure all the Members of the House have. It has played a very important part in our history.
However, while I agree with the content of the Bill, it does not go far enough. The Hon. Member who spoke earlier mentioned the cost. This Bill proposes to change the name in every Act, regulation, statutory instrument, report, contract, licence, lease or other document. The cost of that would be prohibitive. We are now in a period of restraint. We are all being asked to cut back and put up with a little less than we would normally have. That is why we are doing the Member a service by postponing this Bill until another time when we are better able to bear the underlying cost which is inherent in the Bill.
I do not want to go into the constitutional problems, but I am sure that my friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants is aware of the difficulties in that regard. Mr. Speaker, I note the time and I would call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired. May I add that November 30 is a memorable day. As the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert used to say, Parliament lives.
It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, December 3, 1984