1984-03-20

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, once again we have a borrowing Bill before us. As usual, C-21 takes the normal form of two pages, one of which is blank. Once again, it is a record-breaking borrowing Bill.
Bill C-21 requests authority to borrow $29.5 billion. It is the largest borrowing Bill that we have ever seen and it is not the first one introduced into this Parliament by any means. In fact, during the first session Parliament approved Bill C-30, Bill
C-59, Bill C- 111 and Bill C-151, all major borrowing Bills. In addition to those, there were the supplementary borrowing Bills C-125, C-128 and C-143.
The exact size of this Bill does not merely reflect a matter of detail but a matter of perspective. I attempted to bring the huge size of this Bill into some perspective. In doing so, I first referred to the 1983 edition of the taxation statistics which contain the analysis of 1981 individual tax returns. It is the latest one that is available.
If one looks at Summary Table 2 of that book, one will see that the number of individual tax returns filed totalled 15 million and the total federal taxes yielded from all of those individuals was less than $25 billion. Therefore, this Bill seeks to borrow an amount that exceeds the total amount of federal personal taxes paid by Canadians in 1981 by several billion dollars. That is a staggering admission for the Government to make and it is a staggering figure for anyone to absorb.
Another perspective can be found in the Public Accounts of 1983. At page 2-10 of this book, the non-budgetary appropriations for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983 are shown as $28.5 billion. Once again, this borrowing Bill seeks to borrow more than $29 billion which is over $1 billion more than the total amount appropriated for non-budgetary purposes in the preceding fiscal year.
One other comparison concerns the statements of assets and liabilities which is also found in Volume III of the Public Accounts at page 2-9. One can see at that page the liability for unmatured debt, and in the case of Canada Savings Bonds outstanding at the end of the 1982 fiscal year the liability of the Government of Canada was just under $25 billion. This Bill seeks to borrow an amount exceeding the total of all of Canada Savings Bonds that were outstanding at the end of March, 1982.
It is an amount that is almost equal to the total amount of all Treasury bills which were outstanding at the end of March, 1983. That amount at the end of the 1983 fiscal year was $29 billion, almost the same as the amount the Government is seeking to borrow now.
The reason I am making these comparisons is that we must put borrowing authority into perspective. It should be known that the borrowing sought now exceeds these already enormous amounts.
There is another aspect of borrowing authority which I would like to address for a moment. Why is it necessary to have a borrowing Bill every year and sometimes more than once a year? The Government knows there will be a deficit every year when it brings out a budget. At least we know that is true with the present Government. Each year it projects the

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
amount of the deficit which we know will have to be covered by borrowing. I realize that there is a technical aspect to this that I cannot explore in the time allotted to me today, but I suggest that the House would be much better served if the borrowing authority were included in the approval of the Budget which presents to the House expenditure estimates and the projected amount of the deficits every year. Of course, the House votes on that and approves the estimates and the amount of the projected deficit.
I am not certain if it would require a change in the Financial Administration Act but changes should be made. It would certainly be beneficial to the House and the country. If this were done it would have avoided the introduction of seven borrowing Bills in the first session of this Parliament. The House is aware of how those Bills often tend to drag on. All of these borrowing Bills, approvals and deficits have added up to a huge amount of money being borrowed and therefore owed.
The total debt outstanding at the end of March, 1983 was estimated at $160 billion. That is comprised of $115 billion in unmatured debt as shown in the public accounts and an estimated $45 billion which is owed by Crown corporations and therefore is a contingent liability, if not a direct one, of the Government of Canada. At an average rate of interest which can be gleaned from the public accounts, the $160 billion requires levies of over $17 billion-it was $17.6 billion in 1983-just to pay the interest on the outstanding debt.
To put that amount into perspective, I return to the summary table of the tax book and find that that amount of federal taxes is reached when we take the total federal income taxes paid by the vast majority of the 15 million individual taxpayers. It is not until we collect the income taxes of every Canadian earning $40,000 or less that we collect an amount of $17.6 billion. If we told the 95 per cent of Canadian taxpayers who earn less then $40,000 that their total contributions to the federal coffers would go to cover the interest on the national debt, I think they would come here and have some harsh words with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) or perhaps his Parliamentary Secretary. That is a shocking statistic as well.
Fortunately for the Government opposite, Canadians at this moment are saving money at an alarming rate. It is alarming for a number of reasons, one of which is that it is three times the savings rate at the moment in the United States of America. Also it is alarming because it demonstrates the frame of mind of Canadian taxpayers at the present time. Even with the present high rate of savings, the borrowing Bill will absorb 93 per cent of all projected savings of Canadians in the coming year.
Why is that an alarming statistic from Canada's point of view? The reason is that Canadians are afraid to spend their savings because they know very well that they may need that money if they join their brothers on the unemployment lines, in which case they will be in danger of being unable to feed, house or clothe their families. We know the trouble Canadians have had holding on to their houses in recent years. Fortunately for this borrowing Bill, there is a crisis of confidence today which is forcing Canadians to save at the highest rate possible. However, more importantly, we must have as soon as possible an opportunity through an election for Canadians to state that they want a different force or thrust from their government, a thrust which will restore confidence in Canada and encourage Canadians to spend their money and rejuvenate the ailing economy, and many of those unemployed Canadians will become contributors to society instead of being a drain on it.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to share a few thoughts today with the House regarding the supplementary borrowing authority the Government is seeking through Bill C-21.
Tradition demands that the Government obtain parliamentary authority in order to borrow new money. This Bill certainly involves that. It involves plenty of new money, in fact $29.5 billion. I think that is enough to boggle the mind, and this year we did not even have a Budget leak which needed plugging.
Can we believe it, the Government is actually coming to Parliament to ask for $29.5 billion. I think we should ask ourselves why it needs this money. Is it because the Department of National Revenue is not working hard enough to collect money from ordinary taxpayers? No, I do not think that is the reason. I believe they are gouging taxpayers more and more, especially those whose incomes are barely enough to see them through. These are the people who cannot take advantage of tax deductions such as the impending $15,000 deduction for RRSPs which benefits those people with incomes of $86,000 or over per year.
Meanwhile, as a Member of Parliament I am faced in my constituency with dozens of cases of small-business people and low-income earners who have literally been hounded for their last dimes. Obviously the revenue end is doing its best. In fact it has been carried to the point of absurdity.
Why, then, is there a need for more money? The answer is government extravagance. With regard to the deficit, we are making the same progress as a man falling down an elevator shaft. There seems to be no shame; the deficit just continues to increase. I know what we will be hearing in the next few days from the gang across the way. We will hear that there are heavy demands on the public purse due to unexpected requirements such as pre-election gimmicks and Budget tricks. We may also hear from government back-benchers justifying the borrowing authority and the embarrassing and frightening deficit on the grounds that it is inevitable spending, that somehow they have done their best and that we over here should accept it. Their best is just not good enough.
Figures abound to confirm the fact that government spending has risen much faster than the Consumer Price Index or the Gross National Product. I think the term "gross national deficit" should be implemented as part of our language. The deficit is gross. It is inexcusable, as are the attempts by the Government to justify the recent increases in interest rates to prop up our sagging dollar. This is happening because inves-
March 20, 1984

tors lack confidence in the Government and in the country. We have a government over there which needs to be defeated.
The Auditor General works for the benefit of Canadians by keeping tabs on the spendthrifts in the Government. Yet now there is talk of reducing this mandate by effectively reducing his powers to control spending and irrational acts of financial suicide. What a shame. If there is criticism, stifle it rather than listen and make appropriate changes: that is the attitude of the Government. That is why it is doomed, doomed, doomed; it is going down to defeat.
Last year it was indicated, supposedly in defence of government spending practices, that Cabinet committees were taking responsibility for expenditure management following the guidelines set out by the Lambert Commission. But then again, the moon is made of green cheese. It is difficult to see any indication of the implementation of any such guidelines. Indeed, I think guidelines is almost a dirty word in the Liberal caucus. After all, if there were guidelines the key players in the Gillespie affair would have had to resign, apologize and repent. That is why they prefer to operate without guidelines.
Speaking of guidelines, the six and five program is supposed to be credited with stopping inflation. I am pleased inflation has been reduced, but the deficit is in the clouds, to the extent that the Government will have to borrow $29.5 billion to cover expenses. Spending is up by 10 per cent, which is double the present five and four program. The Government needs in one year almost as much as all Canadians have saved in their bank accounts, which are losing value each day as the dollar sinks to ever-increasing depths. This Government in its grasping leaves no money for new homes or new jobs. The tremendous borrowing will make banks that much richer and citizens that much poorer. Indeed, the excessive borrowing demands point out the absolute confusion and lack of realism in the Ministry of Finance.
What a legacy to leave to the new, temporary Liberal Prime Minister! Not only will he have to choose new drapes for 24 Sussex Drive but he will have to try to rectify the financial mess left behind by his predecessor. He will have to deal with a wounded, battered and sick economy and a country literally brought to its knees by interest rates that will probably approach 16 per cent as we come to early fall and an election.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: He will make it worse.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: That is right, he will make it worse. What to do, then, with this borrowing Bill? Why not ask for half as much money, which is all the Government really needs? I am sure Opposition critics would be less critical of a borrowing authority Bill which reflects stability and restraint. Perhaps then the programs which are not absolutely essential will be dropped, especially some of the advertising extravaganzas.
Someone has to bite the bullet. I ask my Liberal colleagues to forget the handouts, to forget the advertising, to forget the slush funds and to remember the needs of the people and the country. Eliminate the costly and frivolous programs which are
Borrowing Authority Act
bringing this country down. Eliminate the costly duplication of services. Another suggestion, a small one, but it is significant: how about turning off lights when they are not needed? When I come into the House of Commons at night and work into the wee hours of the morning, the place is lit up like a theatre stage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Members of Parliament may have their faults, but we all know how to turn off light switches. The list goes on and on. I got some laughs just now when I mentioned the lights. If all or many of the lights were turned off in all of the buildings during the night, we could probably save thousands of dollars.
Think of the incredible bailout of Canadair. Think of Mais-lin. Think of the Crown corporations with their hands out. The waste is incredible. So why do we not take the bull by the horns and stop spending? Then the deficit will drop and totally unreasonable requests for money such as we have here today would become a thing of the past. Bill C-21 gives further proof to the notion that the Government no longer believes in accountability or moderation. Here we have an administration that really needs only $15 billion, yet it comes to Parliament and asks for $29.5 billion. The Bill is yet another reminder that the Liberal philosophy as espoused by this Government is to spend, spend, spend, with no end in sight.
Listen to their spokesman, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), who on February 22, 1983 made a statement which was referred to recently by my colleague the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). The Member for Ottawa Centre said:
A deficit is no more and no less than an increase in future tax liabilities... I believe that the best way to stimulate the economy and maintain the income support programs that are necessary in our economy is to use the deficit.
That is wonderful, Mr. Speaker, but who pays for the deficit? Our children and grandchildren. Future Canadians will be burdened with this deficit long after the Member for Ottawa Centre has ceased to utter such nonsense.
Whatever happened to keeping budgets in the black, even at the expense of cutting some of the extras? By the end of this fiscal year the gross debt will be $190 billion. In 1984-85, the cost of servicing the debt will be $20.4 billion or $800 per capita. Surely something must be done to curb this. The Liberal Party is into a leadership race. The Liberals will probably elect a new conductor. But with the same old orchestra, they will play the same old, worn-out tunes. I recommend that an early replacement of this Government is the first step in the right direction.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Fort Erie (Mr. Fretz) when he spoke about turning off the lights. Perhaps I might suggest that even with the lights on Members opposite seem to be running around in the dark because they come to us constantly for more and more money.


Mr. Roy:: Put the lights on.

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: This time the Government is asking for an astonishing amount. I hear Members over there laughing. It is hitting home that they need bright lights.
This Government is asking us to allow it to borrow $29.5 billion. The Liberal Government is even asking us to allow it to borrow $4 billion more than it projects it needs. The Hon. Member who has just spoken said that perhaps the Government requires only half of what it is asking, but the Liberals are trying to convince us to give them an extra amount extending beyond March 31, 1985.
This is the largest borrowing Bill we have ever had in this House, Mr. Speaker. If the Government put forward its program and said it requires for the benefit of Canadians this much more money than it is taking in, and if the program were outlined and we agreed with that program, with some minor doubts, then perhaps we might say all right, we are prepared to grant that kind of money. In all of the eight borrowing Bills that we have had in this Parliament, most of the amounts requested have been reduced because Members fought this kind of undefined request against asking for huge amounts of money, and against this trusting Government to spend that money appropriately, without a plan being put before Members of Parliament. Any other procedure is not acceptable. Should we accept this Government's word and trust it to spend that money properly? Many of my colleagues have announced areas of concern where taxpayer's money has not been spent wisely. No wonder we are reluctant to approve a borrowing Bill which, by and large, is asking for money that we do not know how the Government will spend. That is a concern.
Then we have the concern that is enunciated over and over again. This Government had the audacity in the Budget just presented to project deficits of over $25 billion for the next four years running. The Liberal Government is not embarrassed to spend almost $30 billion more than it has collected this year. What about the Budgets we have had in the past which have been accumulating debt at an alarming rate? The Liberals are projecting deficits in the future of astounding amounts. As already mentioned, future generations will be burdened with this debt. They are the ones who will have to pay back this money.
This rate of annual borrowing will certainly double the deficit by 1990. The deficit we have now is alarming. That situation is not acceptable. Members of Parliament on all sides of this House are elected to spend properly and wisely the money which taxpayers are required by law to send to this institution. We have an obligation to see that those deficits do not increase at such an excessive rate, that money is spent in a wise and proper manner with scrutiny, and that the powers of Parliament are increased so that as we look at the estimates in committee we have the capacity to question those who are spending this money. We should see to it, in areas where we believe the Government is asking for more money than is required, that we are able to reduce those estimates. Under the present authority in this House of Commons we have the ridiculous situation of completely annihilating a whole spending program in order to make the point that a small part of the
estimates are not being spent properly. That is not acceptable to me as a Member of Parliament and it should not be acceptable to any Member in this House.
The federal Government will owe more than the total accumulated, direct and guaranteed debt of all ten provinces put together after this new borrowing.
There is an astounding amount of borrowing in the country. As of December 31, 1982 the provinces owed $115 billion. The federal Government directly owed $112 billion without considering what Crown corporations have borrowed, and that is anywhere from $45 billion to $70 billion. If this borrowing authority Bill is passed, we will find that our combined direct debt will climb to well over $130 billion.
Today the federal Government is asking to borrow more than twice what all of the provinces are asking to borrow. This year, the provinces will borrow approximately $12.7 billion. The federal Government has indicated that it requires $29.5 billion. The $4 billion that the Government is requesting which is over and above its projected borrowing needs amounts to 31 per cent of the total projected borrowing of all of the provinces in the country. Add to that the accumulated liabilities Crown corporations which amount to $71 billion. Canadian taxpayers are directly responsible for those liabilities and have been asked to give and give to Canadair and de Havilland in order to keep them operating.
I am astonished by the Crown corporations. If a private corporation were losing money at a rate comparable to Crown corporations, it would surely ask the board of directors, the chairman of the board and the chief executive officers to come before a committee to be run over the coals and asked why they are making those kinds of investments and projecting those kinds of payments. That does not happen in the case of Crown corporations. Canadair is losing money, the Government has the audacity to ask for another billion and a half dollars, yet it appoints the same board of directors again. A committee is unable to question those directors in any way. That is unacceptable. No wonder Canadians are questioning the kind of borrowing that Crown corporations are undertaking without proper scrutiny by the House.
What happens with this kind of federal borrowing pressure on the economy? Certainly it causes concern to the ordinary citizen. The ordinary citizen and the ordinary small businessman is competing with the large borrowing arm of the federal Government. Federal borrowing pressure is having a negative effect on the economy. Interest rates are again increasing. I read in the newspapers yesterday that the interest rate in the United States is rising as well. Large government borrowing in Canada is putting extreme pressure on the dollar which is decreasing in value.
We have two choices to make if we do not control federal borrowing. We either allow the dollar to decrease in value, which is inflationary and we begin to print money, or we allow interest rates to rise. The private sector of the economy simply cannot sustain another increase in interest rates lasting for a
March 20, 1984

long period of time. If that is allowed to happen, small businesses, farms and many people will be thrust immediately into bankruptcy. There has not been sufficient time to recover from the last devastating increase in interest rates.
We have a federal Government which is not able to control its spending and which is asking us to go to market for another $29 billion. An astounding statistic mentioned by my friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), is that the Government is asking to borrow 93 per cent of the money that Canadians are prepared to save this year. That does not leave very much money for others to borrow. I am very concerned about this situation, Mr. Speaker. 1 believe that we as Members of Parliament must thoroughly investigate the needs of the Government before we grant it that kind of money, and that is what we intend to do.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate to make it quite clear that my colleagues and I are intending to vote against Bill C-21 which calls for the borrowing of $29.55 billion. Once I have had a few minutes to outline the reasons why we will do so, I believe that even the odd member on the government side will be puzzled that they as individuals would even consider supporting this kind of a borrowing Bill.
Previous speakers have pointed out that one of the most disturbing things about this Bill is the Government's desire to borrow an extra $4 billion as a contingency fund. I think that in an election year that is a particularly stinky request to be made by a government about to go to the polls. In recent years, this entire Government has demonstrated an incapacity to deal effectively with the problems of Canada. I wish to speak briefly about the failures of some of the projects in which the Government has become involved.
I see that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) is present. I do not think he likes to be reminded too often of failures like Consolidated Computer into which he and his colleagues put $100 million over a period of 24 months. It went on to the chopping block and the Canadian taxpayers got a couple of hundred thousand bucks back. We must look at the cost per job in that situation and in terms of Canadair. We should also look at the loss to the Canadian taxpayers caused by the office building across the street here which is rented by the federal Government but is empty. The Government is paying $1 million a month to rent empty space. One can only wonder what kind of incompetence is loose within the Government and certainly within the Cabinet.
The Government is coming before us, as pointed out by previous speakers, to ask for borrowing authority which will absorb over 90 per cent of Canadian savings during this coming year. By this time next year, that authority will cost $800 for every man, woman and child in Canada simply to service the interest on the debt. It is phenomenal that the debt is escalating at such a rate that, when including the borrowing of Crown corporations, it amounts to at least $160 billion. As others have pointed out, it amounts to a cost to us of $17.6 billion for 1983 simply in order to service the interest on that enormous debt.
Borrowing Authority Act
I would like to spend a few moments speaking about my own constituency and explaining the problems the Government has created for itself and for all of Canada not only through its borrowing but particularly through its expenditures. My constituency is very large and encompasses over one-third of British Columbia. Over the past two and a half years, it has received more direct federal capital expenditure than any other constituency in the country. One would think that there would be massive job creation and that everyone would be doing just great. One would think that small businesses would be doing fine. However, let me give you two examples, Mr. Speaker, which I think exemplify the kind of shortsightedness with which the Government operates and which exemplify why my constituents, even when receiving the largest direct federal capital expenditure in the country, still suffer from unemployment. In some areas of my constituency the unemployment rate is reaching 90 per cent, and across the constituency it is still running at around 30 per cent.
An example of a major project over which the Government is always crowing is Ridley Island. It seems that the Government is always sending Cabinet Ministers to Prince Rupert in order to cut ribbons and I welcome those Cabinet Ministers. I think that that is just fine. However, I think all of us in the House are somewhat disturbed when we see the Government participating in the purchase of the coal stacker reclaimer from Japan. It is principally Americans who are doing the overseeing of the marine work for the docking facilities. A Swedish company is doing most of the onshore cement work for the grain elevators.
Whereas the people of Prince Rupert had been promised that a large number of permanent, long-term jobs would be created through the Ridley Island development, it now appears that there will be fewer than 150 permanent jobs created by a project that all members of the Cabinet have crowed about all over the country. The benefits simply have not been delivered to the people of my constituency.
Another such example is that one of the largest expenditures on a CN rail line in the whole of Canada for the past 18 months and the coming 12 months is the line from Prince Rupert to Redpass at Smithers. The switching equipment alone is worth over $125 million. Again, because of a Government with almost no ability to look ahead and to plan, all of that switching equipment is being constructed in the United States. If the Government is trying to tell Canadians who are out of work that, having one of the largest railway systems in the world, we cannot construct, provide and instal switching equipment for railways in Canada, something is terribly wrong with the system.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent on Ridley Island and to upgrade the CN rail line but there is still 30 per cent unemployment in the communities where the development is occurring. This ridiculous situation demonstrates the Government's lack of foresight and ability to plan.

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
The level of incompetence on the Cabinet benches is so high that it would be irresponsible for members of the Opposition to endorse this kind of borrowing. The Government simply has not demonstrated good accounting practices. The Auditor General of Canada continues to take the Government to task but it has not come forward with proper accounting procedures.
All this has dire consequences for the forest industry in my riding. It provides an enormous volume of wood for direct export to Pacific rim countries. The Watson Island pulp mill and Eurocan are among the largest suppliers of world price pulp in Canada.
Northern British Columbia is now in the early years of what is called the "fall-down effect". The federal and provincial Governments have allowed the forest companies to do what Professor Walters of the University of British Columbia Forestry School describes as the gang raping of the forest resource. According to provincial government cabinet documents, there will be a more severe and earlier fall-down effect than was previously expected. That means that in less than five years we will have to reduce by one-third the amount of wood being cut on forest lands. The federal Government has been negotiating with the Province of British Columbia for a five-year reforestation plan directed at northern British Columbia, the interior and the Kootenays, all of which have been badly managed, overcut and underinvested.
Federal Government advisers in the Canadian Forest Service say that it should be putting at least $130 million per year into reforesting back-log lands. British Columbia was promised at least 40 per cent of that money and that would mean between $50 million and $60 million per year from the federal Government if the Province of British Columbia would advance the same amount of money. But the Premier and his Minister of Finance have put forward false figures and have lied to the people of British Columbia about the size of the deficit. They say that over three years it is $2.48 billion, but the Department of Economics at the University of British Columbia has confirmed that the real deficit for the province is less than $100 million. The Premier and the Socred Party who are associated with the Tories nationally have simply cooked the books. That is the nicest way of putting it. In northern British Columbia that means that when the provincial government says it has to practise restraint, it fires provincial forest employees and gets rid of public servants. At the same time the provincial ombudsman is pointing out that as high as 10 per cent of the wood cut in British Columbia does not draw stumpage charges because it is not being properly scaled by the government. We are losing on that as well.
Let me finish by saying that in terms of the reforestation agreement, the Government's officials say that it should put in between $50 million and $60 million of federal money. The province will not put up any money so the federal Government says it will not play either. That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. Last year the federal Government took almost $700 million so it must put forward that $50 million which will
create 2,000 jobs at $25,000 per year in northern British Columbia.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 would give the Government authority to borrow $29.6 billion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have indicated that they believe Canadian agriculture is not in serious difficulty at the present time. I would dispute that. Regardless of whether agriculture is doing well or not, I should like to present to the House some calculations which relate the $29.6 billion debt to agriculture.
The average income of a Canadian farmer is $9,000. It would take a farmer 3,288,888 years to repay $29.6 billion. I think it is beyond the physical capacity of most farmers to achieve that goal. Even if it were spread over all farmers in Canada, it would mean 10.5 years. That is to say that all 320,000 Canadian farmers would have to work full-time, using all of their earned net income against the debt, to pay off this single borrowing Bill. They would have no funds left over for clothes, additional food or recreation and they would have to work full-time for the Government for 10.5 years.
The Government is not just any borrower but a special borrower. It has the right to tax people, to tax things that move and things that do not move. It has the right to tax things that keep us warm, things that feed us, things that clothe us. In some cases taxes are imposed on things that would raise questions with you and me, Mr. Speaker.
There have been many questions raised in the House recently about the activities of Revenue Canada. A good example of the extremes to which the Government or its tax collectors might go is the recent effort by Revenue Canada to tax a dead man's clothes by trying to exhume the body and take his jacket off. That situation actually occurred, Mr. Speaker. It is an example of the difficulty and the pressure the Government is under because of past borrowing and of the extremes to which it will go to collect taxes.
What happens to the money that is collected? After using it and putting a very significant administrative cost on it, the Government puts it back into the country using means which it hopes will persuade people to re-elect it. The Government has been very successful in a number of ways. In fairness, I know that the Government at least intends to provide social measures for the benefit of all Canadians. It has been very successful in providing one particular social program which is not discussed very much, and that is spreading the debt.
On the basis of this single borrowing Bill, in 1984 the Government can claim to have achieved a goal never achieved by any other government. It has spread the national debt so that every Canadian, man, woman and child, owes $6,026. That is a very significant social accomplishment. We should not forget that the debt is also carried by senior citizens, the unemployed and the handicapped. Indeed, anyone who might feel that they might have been neglected by society until now will know that they are treated equally and that they share in carrying over $6,000 in debt. Next year they will carry $7,210
March 20, 1984

and on the basis of past performance you can expect the debt to increase year by year.
The Canadian public is getting some pretty sophisticated explanations about why this borrowing is necessary, where the money goes and what the problems are. When the Minister projected the amount of borrowing or deficit financing that would be required this year, he did so on the basis of an interest rate calculated by the Department of Finance. It should be pointed out that with interest rates climbing as they have in the past two weeks, an additional one-half of 1 per cent interest means that our debt increases by $750 million. It is clear that we do not need the $29.6 billion in total that has been applied for by the Government. However, if interest rates keep climbing, as they may very well, those additional dollars the Government is asking for now could quickly be used up.
The Liberal Party has criticized members of the Conservative Party over the months and years particularly for not having any solid solutions or plans. I have one, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to offer to the House for its consideration. It is a very specific proposal to try to deal with this national debt. I would propose, Mr. Speaker, that we have a user fee, not one which most people talk about, but a political user fee. What that would mean, Mr. Speaker, is that any government could borrow as much money as it wanted. At the end of the year it would have to account for the money. It could do that on the basis of, for instance, zero balancing on its accounting, if it likes. At the end of its term of office-although at the end of each year would be better-the government which has borrowed this money so it can buy votes would then have to make an accounting. The political party that formed the Government-the Liberal Party of Canada in this case- would then be responsible for the interest rate which was charged on the national debt at the time.
That is a very interesting proposition, Mr. Speaker, because it would mean that the Liberal Party, if it chose, could spend another $10 billion. However, if it did not take in enough revenue to cover what it spent, that Party would have to pay the interest rate on the money. That Party could use the money as often and as much as it wanted as long as it would take the responsibility at least for paying the interest on that money as time went on.
That is an idea which may not gain immediate popularity with the Liberal Party, in particular, because if that proposition is used as a basis of the responsibility of the Liberal Party of Canada to the Canadian people, I am afraid it would be a very long time before it would be able to meet its obligation and fulfil that responsibility.
I would like to suggest that on the basis of its record, both past and present, the Liberal Party has established a record of performance which, if continued, will in fact bury this country. However, seeing what we are being presented with now in terms of leadership candidates for the Liberal Party, I believe the Liberal Party in fact will be well represented by John Turner ad infinitum.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly this morning in the debate on Bill C-21, an Act to provide the Government with borrowing authority. This Bill, as it is written, allows the Government to borrow $29.55 billion for the fiscal year 1984-1985. Out of this amount, $25.6 billion is for actual expenditures in 1984, plus another $4 billion for emergency spending such as to shore up the Canadian dollar in foreign exchange markets. As we all know, the Canadian dollar at the present time vis-a-vis the United States dollar is slipping. That borrowing authority is also to be used to cover up government mistakes in planning its expenditures.
In total, we are talking about $30 billion. When I first came to this House some 13 years ago, that amount was a lot of money. It still is a lot of money when you consider from where we have to borrow it. I do not believe the Canadian public is fully aware of the reasons why the Government is asking for so much money in borrowing authority. I would just like to give a very brief rundown on some of the major reasons we are debating $30 billion in borrowing authority this morning.
First on the list, of course, has to be the Canadair debacle. Canadair had the largest single loss in one year of a Canadian company. It was in excess of $1 billion. Another debacle, in this Party's opinion, is the Petroleum Incentive Program, the PIP grants which were given to the large oil companies. In one year that has cost the Government in revenue approximately $1.6 billion. The Liberal slush fund, the great porkbarrel of the 1980s, cost $350 million. There are the deferred corporate taxes. The latest figures we have are $22 billion in deferred corporate taxes for 1980. That is going back almost four years.
In addition to that, there was the lowering of taxes for high-income earners, such as doctors, lawyers, accountants and other professional people, which was in the 1984 Budget. If you put that all together, we have lost additional revenue of some $25 billion. That would almost close the gap in our borrowing. We would then be talking possibly in terms of borrowing only $5 billion, using simple arithmetic figures. It is, of course, not quite that simple, but nonetheless it does serve to illustrate the reasons this Government deserves to be defeated at the next election.
This Government has been in power too long. It has become insensitive. Government expenditures are made for the wrong reasons, as far as this Party is concerned, and at the same time it is borrowing to pay for its past mistakes. But what has the Government done with such essential services and worth-while investments as post-secondary education? It has cut back on post-secondary education. It is also cutting back on the rate of financial assistance to the provinces for medicare. We could have one of the best medicare systems in the world. In fact, we did have a very fine medicare system until the late 1970s when the federal Government and the provinces went to block funding and the provinces were no longer accountable dollar for dollar to the federal Government as to how that funding would be spent. Now medicare itself is in jeopardy.
The Government is constantly talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in job creation. Yet the unemployment
2230

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
figures are sliding up as each month goes by. The Government does not effectively have a handle on the job-creation program principally because it is not investing enough money in job training and retraining for permanent and meaningful jobs. It is simply sticking its finger in the dike, hoping to hold back the flood waters, hoping to hold down the total figure of unemployment until it can get the next election out of the way.
We are not training our young people, in particular, for high technology jobs. Obviously, there will not be enough high technology jobs for everyone who is unemployed, but certainly the Government is not making the same effort which is being made, for example, in countries like Japan, West Germany, France and even the United Kingdom. The Government says let the private sector do it. The private sector, which is the engine of recovery, is now holding back on investments and on job creation because it is very frightened of what lurks around the next corner as far as the economy is concerned.
One area which my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), mentioned a few moments ago is renewable resources such as reforestation. It is a tragedy that in this country, where we depend so heavily on forestry as a major industry, the Government is doing virtually nothing itself, or to force the provinces, for that matter, to reforest our country. We are destroying our forests and apparently the Government cares very little about husbanding those resources for the future. We could be investing hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions of dollars, for a future return instead of simply throwing money away and seeing it disappear.
A lot of us, Mr. Speaker, and I am including myself, have to be reminded from time to time of why things have got out of whack in the western world, particularly in North America. Massive deficit spending has become the order of the day. My Conservative friends say that is not Conservatism; Conservatives would have balanced budgets eventually. It is the Liberal-Social Democratic philosophy in North America which has led to these massive deficits; it believes in irresponsible spending, spending our way out of recessions and depressions and so on. But it is interesting to note that the only provincial government in this country which consistently balanced its budget in the 1970s was turfed out by the people. That was the NDP Government in Saskatchewan. When the Tories came in, for the first time in seven years, I believe it was, Saskatchewan went into deficit financing. For the last two years they have been running a deficit of about $250 million, which is a lot of money for a small province like that.
However, what got us started first of all was the Vietnam War. The United States had no business getting involved in that country in the first place, for a variety of reasons which I will not go into now with hindsight. But at the time my Party at least stood up against that intervention when many other Parties in this House refused to. That war cost a lot of money. Wars are never successful financially regardless of what the short term might bring. They are devastating to economies, whether you win or lose. In fact, World War II proved that if
you lost you were a heck of a lot better off than if you won. The cost of that war was inestimable, but instead of putting on post-war controls, Lyndon Johnson said we could have guns and butter. But we could not, and what followed was the great inflation. That was followed by the great recession.
Another great Conservative then came into office in the White House saying he would bring down the deficit and balance the books as a true Conservative should. Then President Reagan turned around and ran the deficit up to $180 billion in the U.S. That great Conservative, that man who wants to practise fiscal responsibility, the man who our Conservative Party worships, is the one who drove the U.S. treasury almost into bankruptcy. We are paying for it in this country as well as the ordinary American in the U.S. Let us not forget that when you practise monetarism and you have only a limited pool of financial resources, then interest rates are going to start flying high again. That is what is beginning to happen in the U.S. and that is what is happening now in Canada.


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, since this debate was initiated by the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) on March 7, some ten working days have passed. Ten working days-another $1 billion in borrowed money added to our national debt. That is the rate at which we are spending more than we earn in this country. Yet the Minister is asking us to approve in Bill C-21 not just the outragious and unprecedented sum of $25.5 billion, but an additional $4 billion. At $100 million a day that is another 40 days in the wilderness.
I have followed this debate closely, both in the House and in Hansard. Hon. Members opposite have put a brave face on it as they have sought to defend yet another page added to the volumes of mismanagement and incompetence which are the written record of this Government-written in ink as red as the ties of the candidates for leadership of their once proud Party. But their defence is in vain. There can be no defence of this Government's policies. Yet speaker after speaker has trotted out the same incredible statements of how well they have responded to the recession they created. They have trotted out a catalogue of good deeds and progress towards economic recovery. The Minister declared in his speech:
The Budget of last month gives Canadians every good reason to expect that economic recovery will be followed by solid expansion.
The only expansion I can see, Mr. Speaker, is our national debt, an expansion of over $114 billion in the next five years. That is the sum of the Government's projected financial requirements, $114 billion. Yet we are told economic recovery is assured. Private enterprise will lead the way in creating new jobs. Private enterprise will introduce new world-competitive products that will win us exports and fuel an expansion of the domestic market.
"A principal point in our strategy to facilitate a sustained expansion is policies to promote business investment": so said the Minister just 12 days ago. I wonder if he realizes that as long as the Government keeps drawing huge sums from the investment pool there will be no promotion of business invest-
March 20, 1984

ment. Already, as several of my colleagues on this side of the House have stated, the Government's borrowing is monopolizing personal individual savings. It amounts to 93 per cent of the available $32 billion from that source. Perhaps that is why the Minister suddenly seems so interested in pension reform. Not for the purpose of providing Canadians with adequate financial security in their later years, Mr. Speaker, no. I think the reason the Minister calls the pension reform proposals "imaginative and far reaching", the reason they inspire him so, is that they will increase the savings rate, providing a larger pool from which to finance private investment. The Government has already exhausted the personal savings source.
Has the Government not already squandered enough of our future resources with the $151 billion in debt it has already accumulated? Does it really need to covet our pensions as well?
Of course, according to the Government everything is really under control. We are on the way to recovery. Oh, interest on the debt may be slated to increase from $18 billion in the current year to over $24 billion by 1988, an increase of 36 per cent in four years, but the Government is taking care of it. What about the falling Canadian dollar and the slow but steady climb of interest rates, unemployment rates and the inflation rate? Yes, the Government is taking care of them. But I ask just how is the Government going to take care of this debt and these ever climbing interest charges? Well, according to the fiscal plan of the Budget, our growing economy will take care of it all. Direct personal taxes alone will more than cover the increase. They will rise 53 per cent by 1988, from $37 billion to $57 billion. Of course, how the taxpayers are to find this extra $20 billion is anyone's guess.
The same Budget documents state that disposable income will grow only 2.7 per cent annually between now and 1988. Even compounded that does not come close to 53 per cent. If the tax man takes it, what will that do to consumer spending and the manufacturing sector? Inflation could account for it but we have been promised only modest inflation up until 1988. To reach 53 per cent we would have to have 12 per cent, 13 per cent or even 14 per cent inflation again. Perhaps the 3.6 per cent of unemployed who have been promised work by 1988, given the estimated reduction of the current unemployment rate to 7.7 per cent by 1988, will be able to make up the difference.
I only hope the voters of Canada remember that projection of $20 billion in extra taxes in 1988 when all the possible leaders of the Liberal Party are promising a land of milk and honey if only we will vote for them. But we on this side of the House know Liberal promises. My colleagues have read the list of promises made over the last 16 years by one Liberal Minister of Finance after another. That is why and how we are where we are today.
Were their records different and the extravagances of Mr. Turner, Mr. Macdonald, the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), the present Deputy
Borrowing Authority Act
Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) not so painfully obvious to all of us, I, for one, might be able to give my support to the idea of a $4 billion contingency fund. Were the management of the Canadian economy over the past 16 years a shining example of thoughtful, sound and responsible leadership, one might agree that the Government be given such leeway as this $4 billion. However, that is not the case. To give an additional $4 billion to the Government, or even the $25.5 billion, the fiscal requirement specified in the Budget, when at most they face only one-half to two-thirds of the budget year in office, is almost an act of folly in itself.
I am no economist, Mr. Speaker. I have no pretensions to be one. Since entering the House I have learnt enough to know that the Ministers charged with the financial management of our country are no economists either. Unfortunately for all of us, they do have pretensions.
The Government will continue the same old formula; pork-barrel and waste, extravagance and mismanagement. That is why they need the $4 billion contingency fund, to sweeten the election pot and to continue to bail out the likes of Canadair, de Havilland and Canada Post. It may be an acceptable policy to the Members opposite year after year to live beyond their means in the expectation that somehow, something, someone will bail them out.
In the world of the 1980s, Mr. Speaker, regardless of our alliance and close relationship with our neighbour to the south, we are on our own. It is up to us to heed the hard lesson learned of extravagance. It is up to us to put our own house in order. No one else will do it for us. Tacking on an unnecessary $4 billion to the borrowing authority, which is already too high, is not the way to go about it. As soon as the Government realizes this and begins to govern accordingly, we may begin to talk about the roads to recovery and not before.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) should appreciate that this Bill is not going to go through. We are going to debate this Bill until hell freezes over because it is wrong. I have stood up every time a borrowing Bill is tabled and I will stand again and again until ordinary Canadians begin to see the fraudulent nature of the Government.
The amount of $29.55 billion is obscene and it is not going to go through. That is more than all of the income taxes paid by all of the citizens of the country in 1981. It is a row of one dollar bills which goes around the world several times. It is like taking 29,000 millionaires and stripping them to their shorts. That is over 2,000 a month. We barely have 5,000 millionaires in the country and yet we would need to strip 29,000 of them.
That is another way of saying that the money is coming out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians. It is the seniors of the country who are paying the debt through inflation. Our youth are paying the debt. There are now 10 people for every job as compared to when I graduated from university, when there were 10 jobs for every graduate. The youth, the businessmen and the farmers are paying. This Bill is simply not going to go

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
through. The Government had better invoke closure and force Canadians to swallow a bitter pill again.
I will give the best example I can think of to explain to Canadians that it is they individually who are paying this debt. In this country individuals do have profit. I know that is an evil word for the NDP. However, Canadians had a profit of about $32 billion. That is their savings, Mr. Speaker. As tough as things are, by being very careful and thrifty, ordinary Canadians were able to put a few dollars in the bank. That savings totals $32 billion. The Government is borrowing almost the entire savings of Canadians. The effect is to force provincial governments, municipal governments and small businessmen who need to borrow a few bucks into the offshore markets. More and more money has to flow out to service that debt. The Canadian dollar then has to drop. The inflation rate then goes up. That drives up interest rates. That automatically means that the inflation tax spreads.
You know as well as I, Mr. Speaker, that inflation as a tax does not affect people equally. It certainly is not progressive, causing people with wealth to pay more. Indeed, quite the opposite. Inflation attacks people on fixed incomes. Those are our seniors. Inflation affects people who want to get into business but cannot afford to because the value of land has gone up. Inflation helps certain people. It helps those of us who own our own homes. It helps those of us who own apartments and land. Inflation does not affect us, Mr. Speaker. It benefits us to an enormous extent at the cost of seniors and their peaceful old age. It affects the youth and their chance of a future in the country. That is why this Bill has to be defeated, Mr. Speaker.
If one were to compare Members of Parliament, one would find that members of the Progressive Conservative Party tend to be business people. They own land and farms. There are more active farmers in this Party than on the Government side, even though it has half again as many members. In a sense, inflation can benefit people with property. Yet it is members of the Progressive Conservative Party who are speaking against this Bill because it is not fair. It is not in the Canadian and Conservative context of fairness. It is quite an irony, but nonetheless there it is.
It was not always so, Mr. Speaker. Canadians must understand this. In 1968 the national debt was just a drop in the bucket even though we had come through a major depression and World War II. By 1968 the yearly budget was balanced. There was no $30 billion deficit. At the same time we had Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan, post-secondary education and health insurance. The country was building. There were 10 jobs for every person coming into the labour force. Now, a mere 16 years later, we have a national debt which requires over 35 per cent of the tax revenues to pay the interest on it. This does not reduce the debt, Mr. Speaker; it merely pays interest on it.
We have a post-secondary education system which is in a state of collapse. Our seniors have no sense of security in their old age. Inflation of 10, 12 or 14 per cent reduces a pension of $1,000 a month, which may be satisfactory today, to $500 a
month within five years. In 1968 there was inflation of 3 to 4 per cent. The seniors can handle that because at that rate it takes 20 years for their money to be halved and by that time most of us are gone. That type of inflation can be handled, but inflation of 10, 12 or 14 per cent destroys them. It destroys the future of our young people.
We have a whole class of young people, Mr. Speaker, who are coming through the system being fretful. They do not have a sense of future or a sense that the country is building as it was when we graduated. The effect on their psychological sense of well-being is devastating.
This country was youthful, dynamic and building into a great nation. This country should be a power in the world rather than a second-rate banana republic, which is what the Government is turning it into. Canada should be climbing the mountain. Instead we are wallowing around in the depths of despair. That is what a Liberal Government has done to us. It honestly believes that it can remake the nation in its radical left-wing, socialist view. It believes it can remake mankind in one giant quantum legislative leap. We can see this in all of its programs. We can see this in forced metric which could have been done in one generation if it had been put on a voluntary basis. If it had started in the schools within one generation everyone would have been on metric and it would be no problem. Instead, in spite of the fact that millions of acres in western Canada were surveyed on the basis of one mile east and west and two miles north and south, it is now suddenly 1.6 kilometres. That mileage in western Canada was part of the cultural heritage of western Canada, just as much as the French language is part of the cultural heritage of Quebec.
Our Party stood up to protect the cultural heritage of Quebec. We voted for official bilingualism in this country and would implement that program in a way that is much more fair. But did the ordinary members from Quebec stand up to protect the cultural heritage of western Canada? Not a bit. They sold out western Canada. That is why the 27 seats they held in 1968 are gone and they will never get them back.


Mr. Tousignant:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the Hon. Member to explain what he just said about people from Quebec selling out-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. There are no questions allowed at this point of debate.


Henri Tousignant: He is misleading the House.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party voted to impose on all of western Canada a forced march to metric in spite of the fact that millions of acres of land were surveyed on the basis of miles rather than kilometres.


Mr. Evans:: It is the same everywhere in the country.


Blaine Allen Thacker: No, it is not. Kilometres might seem quite appropriate for Ontario and Quebec and other-
March 20, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that he must relate his remarks to the subject which is before the House. I fail to see how metric and what he is discussing now has any bearing on the borrowing authority.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it relates to an attitude, because this deficit is just as obscene as what the Liberals did with the metric system.
In summary, any senior citizen in this country who votes for the Liberal Party is voting for personal bankruptcy and a future that will see them living in single rooms and grovelling in poverty. That is what would happen to a senior. Any youth who would vote for the Liberal Party is voting to put his or her head in a noose and deny himself or herself a future. Any business person who votes Liberal is voting for state enterprise and the death of small business. Any farmer who votes for the Liberal Party is voting for the 1971 promise to update the V-day to 1974. It is a promise that was broken because truly the Liberal Party is VD.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question that was attempted to be asked by the gentleman across the way, I would say that one of the first things the Liberals did to affect the west was to implement the National Energy Program.
It is interesting that the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) is supporting one of the candidates who I believe would probably relegate the NEP to the trash heap, or at least has indicated as much.
This Bill is one for three governments; the present Government, the interim government when the Liberals elect a new leader, and the Conservative Government after the next election. I strongly object to the Government's borrowing money at this time since this deficit will be our responsibility when we are elected the Government. I want to deny them that opportunity.
This Bill can be broken down into three parts. First, it is a borrowing Bill for the period from now until June 17. After June 17, the Government could ask for further borrowing authority when it has a new Leader. They might want to call it a new government but 1 see it as the same government, the same gang with a new leader. They should bring in a second borrowing Bill as soon as Parliament reconvenes after the leadership convention.
The final borrowing requirement should be left until the next election since there must be one between now and the end of the year. I hope we will not have to go through another winter election, for the sake of all the candidates who will be running.
I believe the Government currently has $4 billion to $5 billion. It is seeking to put more into its treasury. I do not believe we should give the Government that right because it is absolutely wrong for it to be given so much on a broad basis. We have not been given an opportunity to review the estimates. The estimates are a disgrace. I had the opportunity to
Borrowing Authority Act
review the estimates for Japan for this current year. The comparison is quite unbelievable. The priorities in Japan are for productivity, jobs and training. The Government has missed these areas in its priorities.
An example of this can be seen in the Government's Budget. In the area of science and technology it will spend approximately eight-tenths of 1 per cent of our gross expenditures, while in the same year Japan will spend 1.2 per cent of its gross expenditures. That explains why Japan spends close to 2.5 per cent of GNP for research and development and we spend less than 1.5 per cent. The Government has not addressed this problem for 15 years.
As our leader has stated many times, 100,000 new jobs will be created for every $1 billion of expenditure. While that may sound expensive, it guarantees future growth in this country and future jobs for Canadians. That is why we cannot endorse this Bill purely on a blanket basis. A new program must be built in that will make Canada move ahead. There are 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed and, according to the Canadian Medical Association, it is costing us $50 billion a year.
Another effect of the deficit contained in this Bill is that it will consume 92 per cent of all private savings. That does not leave 8 per cent for the private sector because there is no confidence to invest in anything in this country. The private sector has been given tax incentives, some of which are good, but some go too far. The Government is removing funds from the economic framework of Canada that could have been reinvested into the job-making market.
This is the eighth time that I have spoken on a borrowing Bill. It is hard to be original when one speaks for the eighth time on the same subject. Nothing has changed since 1980. The Government is bankrupt. I agree with my Leader when he says that the Liberals are not looking for a new leader, they are looking for a trustee in bankruptcy. We believe this is a serious problem for Canadians because we cannot afford a deficit such as this.
Another example of the Government's spending plans is Canadair. When it asked for $310 million within this borrowing requirement, it did not face the truth. It requires additional funding in case the engines of the 600 are returned by the present customers. It has not faced the necessity of developing a 602 because it cannot sell the 601 until it admits that another plane is required.
Its plans in this regard are short term, as is everything else it has done. Not only does it not make long-term plans, it does not give us all the facts when it places the estimates before us. How do we know that these funds will be sufficient? The Government should be damned for bringing this Bill to the House and I will speak against it. May I call it one o'clock?


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

March 20, 1984


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for calendar year 1983. May I remind Hon. Members that, pursuant to Standing Order 46(4), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Special Joint Committee on Official Languages.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.0.21


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, my statement concerns the toll on highways in Ville de Laval. The situation is unique in Canada. Users are paying a tax which in 1975 I already said was unfair.
It imposes on the people of Ville de Laval who have to use the highway daily a cost for which there is no justification. At rush hour, the lineups at the toll booths create traffic jams, which mean that people are using more gas.
Mr. Speaker, in 1975 I had no intention of getting involved in a matter that falls under provincial jurisdiction, that of the Government of Quebec. Moreover, when Highway 13 was built at Chomedey, the Government set up two toll booths in the western part of Ville de Laval. With the help of the anti-toll committee, CAP 13, I objected, as Member for Laval, not only for the reasons I mentioned earlier, but also because the Government of Canada had contributed long-term financing amounting to SI00 million at a preferential rate, plus a $30 million grant, for the construction of Highway 13.
Today, I am proud to join 120,000 people of Ville de Laval who have signed a petition, as well as a group of federal Members from the Laval-Laurentians area, a group of mayors from the Laurentians, and the Quebec Liberal Party, in demanding that the tolls which have already cost people in this area several thousands of dollars be removed from Ville de Laval.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, recently I arrived at my constituency residence at 2 a.m. from yet another meeting. For a few moments I watched television. That night my mind kept being drawn back to the fact that on one broadcast was an advertisement for farm weed spray under the brand name "Hoe Grass". It struck me as unusual and wrong that such an advertisement would be broadcast through an expensive medium when farmers were very unlikely to be watching. I reasoned that the only advantage of such an ad was to the chemical company which could claim an operational expense.
This past weekend three farmers on separate occasions complained about full-page colour advertisements of farm chemical products in their newspapers. The farmers knew that ultimately they paid for these expensive ads. Two of the farmers advised me that they may try farming without application of fertilizers or weed sprays in an attempt to reduce operating expenses. I therefore appeal to private sector industries to trim their costs to give farmers a better economic advantage.
Farm input costs increased 115 per cent between 1976 and 1982. Agriculture Canada has estimated that production costs will increase another 110 per cent between 1981 and 1986. The farm fertilizer bill of $661 million in 1978 grew to $1,040 million by 1982, an increase of 57 per cent.
With farm bankruptcies up 19 per cent since 1982, it is important that the House urge all sectors of the agricultural economy to decrease farm input costs. A more modest approach to advertising would be one step-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have with me three applications for credit cards, all of which were chosen at random, which violate the spirit of the letter of the law regarding privacy. The first one is from Canadian Tire and it reads:
I authorize Canadian Tire Acceptance Limited to obtain credit information concerning myself and to exchange such information with any credit reporting agency or any person or corporation with whom I have or plan to have financial relations.
The second one is from Esso, and it reads:
-and I authorize the receipt and exchange of credit information.
The third one is from Visa, by way of Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and it reads:
March 20, 1984

-and may disclose (automatically or upon request) credit information about the applicant to credit bureaus and persons with whom the applicant has or proposes to have financial dealings or if the bank believes disclosure is required by law.
I am presenting this now to inform the public that it is giving information which will not necessarily remain with the company, and to request of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) that she look into the matter to see whether the law is not being violated.
1 object to it because there is no dimension or boundary to which this information can be used. It does not matter if I choose not to deal with the company in the future. The company still maintains that information. It does not matter-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Elon. Member but his time has expired.



DISARMAMENT


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on March 5 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to involve women in the Government's arms control and disarmament efforts. I suggested that a woman be appointed to the task force of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I asked that a woman be appointed to the long vacant office of Ambassador for Disarmament.
It is not only in Canada that women are excluded from critical efforts for arms control and disarmament. Even though women around the world make up the largest, strongest component of groups and movements calling for a nuclear weapons freeze, an end to militarism, and drastic arms reductions, women are almost completely excluded from international negotiations. This was strikingly apparent at Stockholm.
The Canadian Voice of Women has an excellent proposal for bringing the experience of millions of women to the negotiating table. Voice of Women is proposing an international women's conference entitled "The Urgency for True Security: Women's Alternatives for Negotiating Peace", to be held in Canada. The Voice of Women has made funding applications for this conference to the Department of External Affairs and to the women's division of the Secretary of State's Department. I urge the Government to give these applications the highest priority.
Just this past weekend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) was promising millions of dollars to involve Canada in the American space-based navigational satellite system which doubles as a guidance system for nuclear missiles. Such moneys would be far better spent on arms control and disarmament measures, with women fully involved. Government financial help for the Voice of Women conference would be an excellent alternative investment-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday Mr. Ralph Devine and his company, Intra-canada Telecommunications Ltd., were convicted under the Combines Investigation Act of misleading solicitation through the mails. The mailings, on forms which looked like invoices for yellow pages telephone book ads, were actually solicitations for advertising in an independent business directory. Despite repeated public warnings by the Better Business Bureau of the misleading nature of the solicitations, 5,343 businesses sent half a million dollars to Mr. Devine over a six-month period.
One of those solicitations was supplied to me by Mr. Jack Garner of Garner's Sporting Goods, a leading business in the city of Barrie. It was mailed from Buffalo, New York, and the Better Business Bureau informs me that a large number of the mailings originated there.
I urge all businesses to be aware of these types of advertising and soliciting schemes before sending in their money. I urge the Government to post warnings in post offices and to investigate further the matter of Canadian outfits using the American postal service with its much cheaper rates for mass mailings into Canada. As long as our postal rates are nearly twice those in the United States, the Government must ensure that this procedure does not become widespread.



METRIC CONVERSION


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, our National Capital Commission roads are now considered posted in miles per hour since our National Capital Act refers to speed in miles per hours only.
The Ontario Provincial Review Report entitled "The Effect on Elementary Pupils of the Teaching of Metric Measurement" concluded that the student will find the world outside is, and for some years will be, concerned with imperial units. The pound of butter will be with us for some time. Adults will not automatically express their height in centimetres, or their mass in kilograms. Public education will take time. Favourite recipes will not always be replaced willingly. Typewriters will continue to space letters by the inch, and walls with four-foot panels will last for years. The imperial system will not be phased out in a single, magical, metric M-Day.
In fact, 60 per cent of the teachers stated that they mention imperial units in their classroom, while only 45 per cent of the principals claimed that only metric units are used in the classrooms.
This study further justifies the need for a continuation of dual labelling in measurement sensitive areas such as agricul-

March 20, 1984
ture, for the application of fertilizers and the use of chemical spray guidelines.
Rail transportation, owing to our membership in the Association of American Railroads, will continue to use tons and feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



ABORTION


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, one of the major concerns of Canadian women is the inequity which exists in abortion legislation. Canada's outmoded and unworkable 1969 abortion law does not permit freedom of conscience. This weekend the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, which represents over 3 million Canadian women, reaffirmed its position that Section 251 of the Criminal Code must be repealed. The National Action Committee also endorsed the establishment of free-standing clinics throughout Canada to provide medically insured abortion in safe and supportive surroundings.
The issue, Mr. Speaker, is choice, not pro or anti abortion. The only way for Parliament to respect differing beliefs on this sensitive moral question is to provide for freedom of conscience. On International Women's Day the New Democrats asked the Government to repeal the abortion legislation. The Acting Minister of Justice refused to answer this question.
The majority of women in Canada are not satisfied with the policy of this Government which refuses women the right to make their own decision concerning this private medical matter. Over the past 20 years many countries, regardless of political system or religious ideology, have legalized abortion.
New Democrats call on the Government to increase funding for planned parenthood and youth clinics to provide birth control education and counselling, and reduce the need for abortion. On behalf of the women of Canada we again call on the Government to repeal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



RIGHT TO LIFE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, recent scientific advances have raised a host of legal questions in the field of modern birth technologies, including artificial insemination, womb leasing, test tube babies, cloning and other experimental human breeding techniques. At present there are serious deficiencies in the field of criminal, civil liability and family
law as regards the unborn. Among the unresolved medical-legal issues are the disposal of spare concepti in in vitro fertilization, the problems surrounding the gift of concepti in embryo transfers, the freezing of fertilized eggs, and the conflict between the rights of the mother and the unborn.
I strongly urge the federal and provincial Governments to enlist the services of their respective law reform commissions to initiate an in-depth and on-going study in order to determine the legal status of the unborn child and to ensure that all ethical requirements are being considered in dealing with the increasingly complex moral and sociological aspects of the birth technologies that are facing the public.



HORTICULTURE


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, today, exceptionally, March 20, is the first day of spring. This year, again exceptionally, I am offering no daffodils from my riding of Esquimalt-Saanich to Members of the House. Well, you may ask why. Why have I refrained this year, exceptionally, from making my annual presentation of daffodils to the House on this first day of Spring? My reason is simple. The Government has failed to listen.
In the past the presentation of daffodils has been coupled with a plea that the Government provide for Canada's homegrown agricultural and horticultural products, as they come to market maturity, greater tariff protection against off-shore competition. It is my belief that the Government has been dazzled by daffodils, and in consequence has failed to read the message those daffodils were seeking to convey. This year the Government will get the message without the daffodils.
What is needed is regional and seasonal tariff protection for our fruits and vegetables as they come to marketable maturity because, at that time, fruits and vegetables from warmer climes to the South are often in excess production and can be exported to Canada at cut-rate bargain prices. Dumping? Maybe. That is worth investigating.
What is also needed is relief for our farmers from onerous federal tax levies on fuels and farm machinery.
Only with this sort of help can our food and flower producers survive.
March 20, 1984



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance who had his chain jerked by the Governor of the Bank of Canada last Friday. On March 6 the Minister encouraged a depreciating Canadian dollar by saying that a declining dollar makes Canadian goods cheaper on world markets and that means jobs for Canadians in the forest industry and so on, that he would not spend his nights up worrying that the dollar was not worth 81 cents U.S. Last Friday the Governor of the Bank of Canada said a sharp depreciation of the dollar would bring more troubles than benefits. He would simply not agree to a deliberate depreciation and, if ordered to do so, he would probably be down south playing golf.
Does the Minister agree with these statements made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada? Presumably he does, because he was allowed to act on them. Is the Government committed to support the present level of the Canadian dollar? Is the Government opposed to any policy of deliberate depreciation of the Canadian dollar?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, as usual, is distorting the facts. What I have indicated is that when there is a lowering in the value of the Canadian dollar, obviously that helps exports. I also indicated that it has an impact on inflation. This is why the Governor of the Bank, as well as myself, have indicated that our policy was to moderate large movements in either direction, either a large decline in the value of the dollar or large increases in interest rates.
The Hon. Member knows that I meet regularly with the Governor of the Bank. We are reviewing the situation on a systematic basis. I have no quarrel at all with what the Governor of the Bank has said. As a matter of fact it corresponds exactly with what I said in the House a few days before the press conference by the Governor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister is applauding a public rebuke that was delivered to the Minister by the Governor of the Bank. It was a public rebuke.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: For the first time in Canadian history the Governor of the Bank had to publicly rebuke the Minister, as was done.
Oral Questions POLICY RESPONSIBILITY


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The Governor of the Bank said on Friday that the central bank had little choice but to let interest rates go up, that if it had taken any other action to keep interest rates down, I quote:
The exchange rate would have fallen off the clock.
Who is telling the truth about the situation? Is it the Minister who says there is no preferred value for the dollar and that its value floats freely? Or is it the Governor of the Bank who says that if he had not taken action to put interest rates up, the Canadian dollar would have fallen off the clock? Who is telling the truth and who is deciding a policy in this direction?


An Hon. Member:: The Governor. You are not.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the Hon. Member would say what he said without even smiling. I am sure that the Governor of the Bank at least would likely be smiling at his statement.
In effect the Governor of the Bank has said exactly what I have said repeatedly in the House and elsewhere, which is that our policy is to moderate movements and that we are not favouring sharp declines in the value of the Canadian dollar or sharp increases in interest rates. That is the policy that has been consistently followed by the Government over the years, particularly since my appointment as Minister of Finance.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am not smiling, nor are Canadians who are suffering from higher interest rates and more unemployment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Instead of the Governor getting the golf clubs, the Minister had better take his and depart.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO GOVERNOR OF BANK
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, has said that he does not want higher interest rates nor does he want to see the dollar depreciate, but the latter problem would be worse. Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy is that a depreciated dollar would be a worse problem for Canada than higher interest rates? Is the Government's policy that of the Governor, yes or no?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, rather than quickly quoting from short press excerpts I think that the Hon. Member would be greatly advantaged by reading the transcript of the press conference given by the Bank of Canada Governor, Gerald K. Bouey, following the release of the 1983 annual report on March 16, 1984. On 15 pages the Governor has answered questions on issues such as the ones

March 20, 1984
Oral Questions
raised by the Hon. Member. The answers to these questions correspond with the government policy in this regard and there is nothing that the Governor said with which I disagree. It does indeed represent the position of the Government as I stated it in the House a few days before the Governor.


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance as well. On a number of previous occasions I pointed out in the House that the economic performance in Canada has been significantly weaker than that in the United States since this Government came into power. The current policy of increasing interest rates in Canada will widen the gap between the countries even further, particularly in the areas of unemployment and job creation. What is the Minister doing to offset the effect of high interest rates, particularly on the million and a half people who are unemployed today?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I may point out to the Hon. Member that up to now, only one bank has increased its prime rate from 11 to 11.5 per cent, and that the other banks have not yet done so. The Toronto-Dominion Bank has raised its mortgage rates, but I do not think it has raised its prime rate.
I may also remind him that U.S. banks have raised their prime rate to 11.5 per cent in the last few days, and if my colleague has a formula for keeping interest rates in Canada substantially lower than those in the United States, perhaps he would care to tell the House how he would proceed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Minister to ask a question of me. I am asking him a question on behalf of the million and a half people who are unemployed and on behalf of the small businessmen who will be adversely affected by high interest rates.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTED DECLINE IN VALUE OF DOLLAR
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday Governor Bouey indicated that he would resign if the Canadian dollar were allowed to slide in a significant way because of the inflationary effect that that would have on our economy here in Canada. Are we to take it that government policy no longer will be to allow the dollar to find its own level? Will the Minister, on the strength of his convictions, stand up and offer his resignation if the Government's policies do not stem the slide in the Canadian dollar which today hit an 18-month low of 78.06 and was only stopped by massive intervention on the part of the Government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, once again I am happy to note that the Tories have no answers to some of the questions which they themselves are asking.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: They refuse to address those questions. I will answer the Hon. Member by referring him to page 10 of the transcript of the Governor's remarks. He said: "In these conditions we moderate the increase in interest rates but not so as to cause the exchange rate to really go into a free fall." Again, another question was asked of the Governor and he said our policy "is to moderate and we have moderated both ways". The policy of the Governor of the Bank is the policy that is being followed by the Government.


INCREASE IN MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, once again, and I am sure not deliberately, the Minister has misinformed the House. I would point out to him that not only one bank has raised its rates but four banks in Canada have now done so.
When I asked the Minister about the Governor of the Bank of Canada's decision to increase the rate last week, the Minister said that he was confident that the increase in rates we are seeing at the present time was not going to be substantial. I say to the Minister that that increase in rates, which has been followed up by increases in mortgage rates, will mean that, over the term of a $50,000 mortgage, the mortgage will cost a home owner $10,000 more. That amount may not mean very much to the Minister, but it means an awful lot to an ordinary family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Minister when is he going to realize that the disastrous, high interest rate policy of this Government and the preceding Conservative Government is causing harm to the Canadian economy. If he realizes that it is causing harm, why does he not tell Governor Bouey to go take a walk?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my friend may have information which I do not have. At 1.45 this afternoon my information was that of the five major Canadian banks only one had increased its prime rate to 11.5 per cent. The other four banks have held the rate to 11 per cent. If my colleague has other information, I would be happy to receive it.
Regarding the specific question asked by the Hon. Member, I would like to tell him again that, indeed, no one likes to see interest rates rising. However, one must look at the alternative, and I invite my friend to reflect upon what the alternative would be. If the prime interest rate in the United States is at 11.5 per cent, how can we keep lower rates in Canada over an extended period of time? As far as I know, no one has found a sensible and responsible way of doing this as yet. Perhaps
March 20, 1984

members of the NDP have the solution. We would be very happy to hear what the solution is. However, I am afraid that again my friend is living in a fairyland as members of the NDP like to do. I invite him to face the real world. If interest rates are going up in the United States, it is very difficult to keep Canadian rates at a lower level for any extended period of time. I am sure that the Hon. Member knows that.


ELECTION CAMPAIGN PROMISE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since high interest rates do not help consumers, small businessmen, or farmers, and since high interest rates are particularly disastrous for the 1.5 million unemployed, will the Government be consistent in implementing its own promises made in 1980 when it said it would take action against high interest rates? Will the Government be consistent in the commitment it made as an election promise to take action on behalf of the ordinary Canadian? Particularly, will the Government take action so that the slight recovery that is under way will not be stopped in its tracks by a disastrous high interest rate policy, and bring down interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken action in that regard. I remind my friend of the situation which existed for a while in which Canadian interest rates were 4 per cent to 5 per cent higher than those in the United States. Thanks to our fight against inflation, and thanks to the support the Canadian people have given to reducing inflation in the country and to increasing productivity and exports, we now find ourselves in a situation in which our interest rates are equivalent to those in the United States. We have brought interest rates down more than the United States, relatively, during the last few years, thanks to the collective efforts of Canadians.
The fact is, and I have to repeat it, that if interest rates are going up in the United States I do not think there is any sensible and responsible way of preventing similar increases in Canada over time. We are trying to moderate those increases as much as we can. We are doing everything we can in that regard. Again, I invite my friend to face the real world.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister that the real world in Canada right now is the 1.5 million unemployed.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REDUCE INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a slight drop in the Canadian dollar would be advantageous to men and women in British Columbia who want jobs, to farmers on the Prairies who would be able to get their grain products to export more easily, and to industrial workers in Ontario and Quebec who would have lower priced manufactured goods. I am in the real world; it is the Minister and Governor Bouey who are not.
Oral Questions
Just for once will the Government deliver on its promise to do something about the real needs of ordinary people? Will it bring down interest rates and tell Governor Bouey to take that course of action? If he will not, will it send him his retirement cheque and wish him well?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about a slight drop in the exchange rate. That has taken place. I know that this will help our exports, the forest industry, and all the people the Hon. Member has mentioned. This has taken place. The Hon. Member also knows that it has not brought down interest rates. As a matter of fact we are facing a situation where interest rates have edged up recently.
The solution is not that by somehow devaluing the Canadian dollar we would necessarily get lower interest rates. As a matter of fact experience has shown that we could have a decline in the dollar, and higher inflation and higher interest rates as well. The solution my friend proposes is not a very realistic one.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that this is the time of year when builders plan their building starts for the Spring and Summer. Mortgage interest rates have a severe impact on those plans. The Government is allowing mortgage interest rates to rise once again. The prime rate at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the Toronto-Dominion Bank has gone up, as it has at the Mercantile Bank and the Bank of British Columbia. That will reduce housing starts. Each lost housing start means a loss of two jobs.
What plans does the Government have to hold down mortgage interest rates? This would enable Canadians to buy homes, and thus create jobs.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have to remind my hon. friend that housing starts picked up substantially in the first few months of this year. As a matter of fact we foresee a very good year for housing starts.
As for steps being taken to help potential and current home owners, I would remind my friend that in the Budget I announced a Mortgage Interest Rate Protection Plan. I intend to introduce legislation in this regard within the next few weeks. The legislation will protect home owners against excessive increases in interest rates. I hope the opposition Parties will support this legislation which will be helpful to all home owners with mortgages.


COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the United States housing starts increased by 15 per cent for

March 20, 1984
Oral Questions
January, 1984, over January, 1983. In Canada housing starts decreased by 8,000 from 1983 to 1984. That means fewer jobs and a higher deficit. How does the Minister account for the fact that housing starts are decreasing in Canada and increasing in the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the Hon. Member's statistics and where he got them. The latest figures I have show that housing starts in January and February, according to the most cumulative statistics this year, picked up quite substantially from where they were in the latter part of 1983.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. As the Minister knows, most new jobs are created in the small business sector, yet we have witnessed the demise of small businesses as a result of high interest rates and ineffective government policies. Those businesses that survive are barely hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Any further increase in interest rates will kill what remains of this very important community.
Can the Minister tell the small business person what steps he is taking to protect this vital sector from further interest rate increases, or is he telling them to accept the Government's ineffectiveness, to accept higher interest rates, and go bankrupt? Is that what he is telling the small business community?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we have supported the small business sector quite actively in the Budgets of April, 1983, and February, 1984. For us the small business sector is the most important element in terms of job creation. We have shown our determination to support it with the measures in the Budgets of last April and last February.
I would remind my friend that in terms of investment tax credits and support for research and development, we have privileged our support to small business in that regard by giving them additional incentives compared to the rest of the industrial sector.
As far as the last Budget is concerned, we proposed a great simplification of small business taxation which will do away with two-thirds of the income tax legislation affecting small business. It will add another $150 million to that sector in tax savings.
The Government has indicated that it is a strong supporter of small business, and it has taken a lot of measures to confirm that support.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of small businessmen. He knows very well that what he says is meaningless when interest rates are being
allowed to rise in the small business community. He knows that very well.


THE ECONOMY
Otto John Jelinek: My supplementary question to the Minister approaches the problem from a different angle. When Canada was experiencing the depths of the recession the Minister repeatedly pointed to the poor performance south of the border as a cause of the bad performance in this country. Now that the United States has pulled well past the recovery stage and has experienced almost four quarters of post recovery growth, can the Minister justify the widening gap between the Canadian and the U.S. economic performance in such key indicators as unemployment, real output, real income growth, consumer spending, new business investment, productivity and unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is quite a supplementary in one go. The Hon. Minister of Finance.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as far as small businesses are concerned, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the measures I announced in my last Budget, and the one before that, had the unanimous support of the small business sector. In fact, at a meeting I had recently with small business representatives, they said they hoped the measures contained in the last Budget with respect to small businesses would be implemented as soon as possible. Again, I hope that the Opposition Parties will realize where the interests of small businesses lie and support the measures proposed by this Government when the legislation is introduced in the House very shortly.
As far as the Hon. Member's statements are concerned, I agree that in some cases, the American economy has been more vigorous in its recovery. Perhaps I may remind him, since he mentioned productivity, that the last figures I saw indicated that in Canada last year, the increase in productivity was greater than it was in the United States. This means we were able to do better than the U.S. in various sectors and at various times. I may also remind him that in the first three quarters of 1983, the Canadian economy experienced much faster growth than did the United States. These are all factors my hon. friend should remember. The same applies to job creation. If he would care to look at the number of jobs we have created here in Canada, compared to the United States, he will see that Canada's record is quite remarkable.
March 20, 1984


EMPLOYMENT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Affordable daycare is essential if women are to have equal access to training and jobs, yet the Minister has refused to include daycare services for job-creation programs. Will he reconsider this decision and now give priority to funding daycare jobs as an essential component in government job creation? Will he also extend training grants to include child care costs?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do indeed believe strongly that it is important to provide daycare facilities. Indeed, when I was Minister of the Environment we established in Environment Canada, I believe, the first daycare centre in a government installation which existed within the Government of Canada. I do believe strongly in doing this. It is a subject which I hope we may be able to deal with effectively in the context and in the use of Section 38 funds, in co-operation with the voluntary sector, as we outlined we wanted to do in the Speech from the Throne. We are carrying on discussions with the voluntary sector on how we might make that approach to funding a feasible and desirable one to follow.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That is not what you were asked.


John (Moody) Roberts: I hope that within that context we will be able to meet the kinds of concerns expressed by the Hon. Member.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The Minister did not answer the question, Mr. Speaker, so I will ask my supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


RECOMMENDATION MADE BY NATIONAL ACTION COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, daycare is available only to the rich who can pay, and to the poor who qualify under the Canada Assistance Plan. Will the Minister now take federal initiatives, as recommended by the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, to help fund daycare on a nonrestrictive and universal basis so that it is not restricted just to people on welfare? Will the Minister also introduce a new method of shared funding with direct federal grants for licensed spaces, as has been recommended?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will always do everything to support daycare, as will this Government. That black and white simple image of the poor and the rich is a bit simplistic. The Hon. Member knows that we have literally stretched the guidelines to the maximum and we are providing $70 million this year to
Oral Questions
the Provinces for daycare, which is, of course, for those in need and most likely to be in need.
However, the Hon. Member is forgetting all the tax avenues which we have offered to Canadian families-mothers in most of the cases-also to take advantage of the various services for their children. It remains that daycare is basically provincial, and if the Provinces do not want to move on this, we will exercise the maximum leadership we can. For example, my colleague, the minister responsible for the status of women, as part of her next agenda for the federal-provincial conference of her own counterparts, will try to speed up the development of provincial daycare services.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM MEXICO
Mr. Speaker:: May I call the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from Mexico led by Senator Celso Humberto Delgado Ramirez.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Can the Minister tell the House if he has, in fact, issued instructions to his officials that they are not to give information to Members of Parliament other than what they can obtain under the Access to Information Act? Has he given that directive to his officials because, if he has, that flies in the face of every parliamentary convention and tradition which give us the responsibility to hold the Government accountable?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: No,
Mr. Speaker, I did not give such instructions, and I believe the Hon. Member's question is based on an erroneous interpretation by his colleague of a reply I gave here in the House. The House will recall that last week, the Hon. Member's colleague asked me a question about a guideline I gave my officials with respect to-


An Hon. Member:: He is not interested in the answer either!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, do you see why they always repeat the same question, and why those questions misrepresent the facts? They do not even have the common decency to listen to the answer, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: He does not understand!

March 20, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: So if the Hon. Member is interested in the answer, as far as the first part is concerned, the answer is no. Secondly, I can say that his question is based on a distortion of facts taken by his colleague from an answer I gave last week. I would therefore invite him to read Hansard, where he will see a very clear answer to the question put by his colleague.


NEWSPAPER REPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will quote from a newspaper dispatch by Mr. Ian Hunter, a well respected journalist, in which he says:
A taxation official confirmed that it is policy now to require MPs, like other citizens, to apply under the Access to Information Act-
That is the story. The Minister, I hope, is denying the accuracy of that story, because otherwise he is denying us, as Members of Parliament, to hold him responsible for his administrative incompetency.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I already answered the question of the Hon. Member. I said, no, and I told him to read the Hansard-


Mr. Mulroney:: Answer the question!


Pierre Bussières: -Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition is always the first one to talk about civility in the House, and he does not even have enough authority over his Members to ask them to at least have the decency to listen to the answers.
Let the Leader of the Official Opposition show a little more leadership and impose some discipline on the Members of his Party!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He is well aware that a group of Ministers of the Environment from Europe are meeting at the present time, hosted by his seat-mate. I am wondering if the Minister could announce-and this would be a good day for it-when the Government is going to bring in stricter automobile emission controls for Canadian cars, and on what model that will be.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a question, I believe last week in the House, on the same topic and indicated at the time that before any decision will be taken we must quite carefully review the series of studies which were commissioned through the Department of the Environment, with the co-operation of three or four
other Departments. Four of those studies are available to us now, and the Minister of the Environment and I have invited the industry which will be affected, as well as environmental organizations, to comment upon these studies and to consult with us so we can get their full view before making a decision. That invitation has already gone forward.


TIMETABLE FOR INTRODUCTION OF STRICTER CONTROLS
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, rumour has it that a government decision has been made and the controls will be on the 1990 models. That is at least six years down the road. Since approximately 86 per cent of all the automobiles manufactured in Canada are shipped to the United States with the proper emission controls on them, why can the Minister not up that and have the controls on at least the 1987 models? You do not need a long cabinet harangue to know that it is very necessary to do that if we expect the Americans to help us reduce acid rain. Why not put controls on the 1987 models, and at once?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is far too experienced and knowledgeable a Member of this House to base either his questions or judgments upon rumour. I believe what he should try to do is deal with facts, and the fact we are dealing with is that we have commissioned some studies which are designed to determine what the actual impact will be in relation to the cost. Before we take action on those studies, I feel it would be both prudent and necessary to ensure we have the full range of opinions from all the interested groups. That particular process, which I think is the responsible way to proceed, is under way.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice as the Minister responsible for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Minister responsible for giving legal advice to other government Departments. It concerns a sexual harassment case, the Robichaud case, which was the first sexual harassment case to go to a review tribunal of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and which was won by the woman complainant. Would the Minister explain why this is being appealed and why his Department gave the advice to appeal this decision? How can the Minister encourage women to come forward in sexual harassment cases when his Department will, as soon as the woman wins the case, appeal it and try to get the decision overturned?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refresh my mind on that case before giving a full answer to the Hon. Member. However, I would certainly like to indicate to her that we do not proceed entirely on the basis
March 20, 1984

of results. We have also to be concerned about the reasoning in cases. We certainly were not proceeding with a view to denying the successful party her victory. Our concerns have to be much broader than that, and include the whole texture of the law.


FUNDING OF APPEAL
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. His Department is, of course, funding the appeal, and has issued guidelines on sexual harassment. Can the Minister justify the use of taxpayers' money, on the one hand to fund the Canadian Human Rights Commission through the Department of Justice and, on the other hand, try to undermine the whole procedure by appealing the case as soon as the woman won it?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the new policy on sexual harassment announced by myself and the Minister responsible for the status of women last December came after this particular case arose. Perhaps had this procedure been in place earlier it might have been a simpler way to resolve the matter. Having said that, the complainant availed herself of her rights under the law to go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A review tribunal upheld her complaint, but the matter was appealed on the advice of the Department of Justice. The funding of the appeal was a decision by the Department of National Defence. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the right of appeal on either side of the case, it seems to me, is fundamental to our system of justice. It is not a reflection on the fact that the complainant is a woman that this fundamental right of appeal has been used. I am sure the hon. lady would not argue that if the matter had gone otherwise the complainant should not have used her right of appeal.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for energy I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Economic Development, who is quoted in the media as saying that the national energy policy, like any other program in a pragmatic Party, should be put on the table and examined. In view of the fact that he is chairman of his Party's economic development committee, and in view of the fact that this policy is viewed as a vindictive, malicious, and destructive program which hurt western Canada severely, could he tell us what changes he now proposes and why he has not proposed them before?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, obviously I take issue with the
Oral Questions
rather curious rhetoric of the Hon. Member. This Party is known for its capacity to re-examine its programs to meet changing conditions and new challenges. The National Energy Program, for example, was updated by my colleague in 1982. I expect that, as circumstances change, it, like all other government programs, will be reviewed, reconsidered, and improved. That has always been the way with this Party, and I am sure it will continue to be that way in the future.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister, and may I say that the curious rhetoric is his.
In view of the fact that since he has told us he is now considering these changes, and he has avoided answering the question of why he has now proposed reconsideration of a program which has caused such destruction in western Canada and hurt the Canadian consumer as a whole, what is his hidden agenda?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the quotation again. I thought the quotation, which probably was accurate, is to the effect that the National Energy Program, like other Government programs, should be subject to review. There is no suggestion even in the quotation that there are changes in mind. The fact is that, if there are changes required, they should be made. As I said, that has always been the case, so I do not quite understand the question as it arises out of the quotation.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. There is a lot of disquiet among registered charitable and non-profit organizations arising from the interpretation his Department is placing on the activities of these organizations. I am restricting my question to churches. I have a letter from a branch of his Department concerning what is legitimate activity for a registered charity, specifically a church. The Department argues that it is acceptable for a religious organization to take a public stand on a moral issue but that a campaign designed to implement legislative changes would not be acceptable. The divorce legislation is an example of that. Why the interpretation from the Department?


Pierre Bussières: think that the Hon. Member has had many opportunities to consider that matter. He knows full well that the Income Tax Act provisions concerning the definition of "charity" and

March 20, 1984
Oral Questions
"religious activities" have been confirmed and restricted to a certain extent by the decision of Canadian courts. The interpretation bulletins prepared for organizations which want to avail themselves of legislative provisions regarding charitable organizations are based on the act itself, of course, and on court decisions which restrict the meaning to be given to the word "charity". That is the basis of our interpretation bulletins.


CHURCHES' OPPOSITION TO DIVORCE LEGISLATION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister regard churches which are bringing forward strong pressure in opposition to divorce legislation as legitimate in trying to implement or change legislation, or does he read that as a violation of the terms under which they were registered as charities?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 would rather not make an overall judgment since I am not aware of this case. I would urge the Hon. Member-


An Hon. Member:: He is not listening, he is not interested!


Pierre Bussières: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Members opposite never seem to be interested in the answers. The Hon. Member ought to re-examine the interpretation bulletin, as I said, so as to understand better and make his own judgment. I will be pleased to consider any specific case he wants to bring to my attention. If he does not agree with the interpretation bulletin, he should admit it openly and say that, in his opinion, the Government should disregard the Income Tax Act and the interpretations of the courts, and apply the law blindly according to circumstances and as it sees fit.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns a case widely reported on the weekend, where the Public Service Commission Appeal Board ruled that Ginette Roncali was unjustly dismissed from her job in non-traditional employment as an air traffic controller. Why did the Minister's Department withhold from the Appeal Board the findings of its own internal inquiry which indicated this woman had been made a scapegoat for the errors of others in the Department?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr Speaker, I think the case itself is a matter of some concern. On the specific issue of the Appeal Board, there is a clause in the Air
Traffic Controllers' collective agreement which specifically prohibits that kind of evidence being passed on to appeal hearings. Unfortunately, at the same time the supervisor was ill and so could not present the evidence personally. In this case Mrs. Roncali has been reinstated and assigned to the Waterloo area to go through a retraining period so she can resume duties.


DEMOTION OF EMPLOYEE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me about cases such as this is that a woman has to go through the whole process of an appeal board before she can be reinstated to a job which is considered to be in a non traditional employment area. Though Mrs. Roncali has now been reinstated, why was she demoted at the outset from her job as air traffic controller, to that of a clerk?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case the matter was not one of male versus female. There was a question of the performance of duties, and that is why the action was taken. Mrs. Roncali then followed the proper procedure, which was to go to an appeal board which found in her favour. This demonstrates there are procedures there to ensure there are not injustices committed. If there are further aspects of the case which would reflect any form of discrimination, I would be quite prepared to undertake to look into them to make sure they did not happen again.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) on Friday, March 16, 1984 meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are just about to lose a lottery, a $33 million 1979 agreement between the federal Government and the provinces. The Minister has been trying to indicate-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member could possibly bring this to the attention of the House by a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21. In terms of the Standing Orders of the House, he is hardly raising a point of order.
March 20, 1984


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Leader!


Erik Nielsen: It is a little late for that! Mr. Speaker, I indicated to you this morning that I intended to raise a brief point of order at three o'clock having to do with the proceedings last night, this being the first opportunity to do so.
By way of a preliminary I would like to refer to today's Order Paper and Notices for Tuesday, March 20, 1984. As you know, Sir, at six o'clock last night we were in a mode where tomorrow never came. Yet overnight we had the Notice Paper printed as though we were in fact going to see tomorrow, which is today. In the meantime, we have the hour of meeting printed on the Order Paper as being 11 a.m. Today did not occur, in a parliamentary sense, until considerably after 11 a.m. I did not take note of the precise time the Chair moved into prayers, but it was around 11.30. I think that should be corrected.
Shortly after six o'clock last night, Mr. Speaker, you rose in your place to say that you were suspending the sitting until 9 a.m. this morning. The suspending of a sitting overnight in the midst of a division is almost without precedent, Mr. Speaker. The suspension of a sitting under such circumstances without the full agreement of Government and Opposition House officials is entirely unprecedented and is a practice about which I have very serious reservations.
The last and only time in my recollection that the Speaker decided to suspend a sitting overnight in the course of a division occurred on May 9, 1983. At that time Hansard records that the question before the House was a motion for leave to introduce Bill C-155. The question was put and the Speaker is recorded at page 25288 of Hansard as declaring that the Yeas had it. More than five Members having then risen, Madam Speaker called in the Members for a recorded division. Hansard next records that at 10.40 p.m. the Speaker rose and said the following:


Madam Speaker:: I have been advised that the Members are prepared to vote tomorrow morning. I now suspend the sitting until nine o'clock tomorrow morning, at which time the bells will start ringing again. They will be interrupted tonight.


Mr. Prud'homme:: At what time?


Madam Speaker:: At nine o'clock the bells will begin to ring.
At 10.40 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that Madam Speaker Sauve only took the action of suspending the sitting once she had been advised that Members would only be prepared to vote the next morning. In my submission, it is only upon the advice of the representatives of the Government and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that the Speaker may justifiably suspend the sitting of the House.
I base my contention on the fact that nowhere in the various procedural texts which relate to our proceedings can reference
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
be found to any authority possessed by the Speaker which would permit the occupant of the chair to suspend a sitting at whim. Indeed, taken at face value, there would seem to be no provision in either the Standing Orders or Beauchesne's which would permit the Speaker unilaterally to suspend the sitting under any circumstances. However, the Standing Orders do state that in unprovided cases the rules should be interpreted in light of relevant practices at Westminster.
With that in mind, one can look at the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May and discover that in certain instances the Speaker does have the authority to suspend the sitting. What are those cases, Mr. Speaker? The answer to that question can be found at page 317 of the Twentieth Edition of Erskine May under the heading of "Adjournment in case of grave disorder". That entry reads as follows:
Adjournment in case of grave disorder. In the event of grave disorder arising in the House, the Speaker may adjourn the House without question put if he thinks it necessary to do so or he may suspend the sitting for a time to be named by him.
I am not suggesting, Sir, that a grave disorder is a Member passing between a Member on his feet speaking in debate and the Chair, although that occurs frequently. Nor am I suggesting that it is a grave disorder, though it be a disorder, for Members to rise and leave this Chamber while the Mace is on the shoulder of the Sergeant-at-Arms and while the Speaker is on his way of the Chamber. The proper conduct, of course, is for Members to stay in their places until Mr. Speaker departs. Those are not examples of grave disorder, but they are disorders. Some examples, as I have said, are given in May.
However, May does not outline any other set of circumstances under which the Speaker is permitted unilaterally to suspend the sitting of the House. To use this entry in Erskine May as authority for the action undertaken by the Chair last evening would, I think, stretch the credulity of Members of the House. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, earlier editions of Beauchesne's include the same reference to the Speaker's authority to suspend the sitting in the event of a grave disorder.
Therefore, on balance, Sir, it would appear that the action undertaken by the Chair last evening has at least some procedural standing in the Canadian House of Commons. Certainly, based on the May, 1983 precedent, one cannot argue that similar actions have never been undertaken before.
However, there are two issues which remain to be resolved. I re-emphasize that in the May, 1983, instance where was a prior agreement which was communicated to the Speaker with respect to the time of the taking of the vote. As I say, two issues remain to be resolved. Is this case in fact similar to the May, 1983 precedent? And even if it is, did the Speaker make the correct decision at the time?
It is not for me to question the past actions of the House nor to impugn any decision of the Chair. But using the May, 1983 decision as a stepping stone, I believe I can draw a distinction between the decision made by Madam Speaker Sauve and the one made last evening. At the time Madam Sauve made her

March 20, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
decision, she did so on the basis of the advice of representatives of the Government and the Opposition who had informed her that a vote would not take place before the next morning. On that basis, where it was clear that the bells would be left to ring all night, it might reasonably be argued that the situation was akin to disorder, although my personal view is that that somewhat stretches the credulity of Members as well. Furthermore, if the practice of allowing the bells to ring all night were to become a standard practice, there might be some doubt arise in some Members' minds that that would be akin to grave disorder. However, such is not my submission because in my view it is irrelevant to this particular caveat I am drawing to the attention of the House with respect to our proceedings yesterday.
The motion moved by the Government which was before the House yesterday was the previous question. This motion was moved as means of closing down debate on second reading of Bill C-9. If it was carried in the affirmative, which it was yesterday-today-the motion would have the effect of bringing on an immediate vote on the second reading, which it did yesterday-or this morning. The argument does get a little ridiculous as we proceed with it!
Standing Order 12(1) is quite explicit as to how the division is demanded and how it is taken. The key word in the Standing Order is the word "demanded", in my view. The holding of a recorded division is not something which is to be taken lightly. It is a right which can be insisted upon by any five members who choose to rise in their places. The division is only completed once the actual recorded vote has been taken and the result has been announced by the Chair, as outlined in Citation 216 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Indeed, that is the only way that the proceedings of yesterday could have been brought to a close yesterday, in which mode we found ourselves this morning. That was by those two votes being taken. The division was not complete until that time.
As well, Citation 217 states that "the signal for taking the division is the return of the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip". In other words, the timing of the vote rests entirely with the Whips. This is appropriate because a division is an expression of the will of the House and not of the Chair.
It is therefore a matter of deep concern for me, to believe that this process can be arrested part way through by the Speaker or anyone else. The practice which has grown up around the lapsing of dilatory motions, for example, has the effect not only of relieving Members of their right to express themselves once a recorded division has been called, but also has the effect of potentially reversing the decision reached by the initial voice vote. This takes place not at the initiative of Members but as a result of a decision by the Chair. Needless to say, this practice might some day lead to grave consequences which occupants of the Chair might live to regret. What would happen, for example, if a procedural motion in support of a decision by the Chair were allowed to lapse?
By tinkering with the established practices governing divisions, the House is entering very dangerous territory. Certainly, attributing a decision to the House when no vote has been
taken is fraught with danger; but so, too, is arbitrarily delaying the taking of a division. Such a delay may very well cause numbers of members on either or both sides of a question to change, either because the Opposition or, more importantly, the Government has had the opportunity to round up more of its Members or dissuade Members from taking an independent line. The Speaker, by making the decision to delay the holding of a recorded division, opens himself or herself to the charge that the decision was made on a partisan basis. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, such a change in role of the Speaker would seriously undermine the stature of the office and would undermine the confidence that the House has in the impartiality and independence of the Speaker.
While no one would suggest that this is what happened in this instance-I the first among them-I felt that it was important to put these remarks on the record and ask the Chair to consider the direction being taken in recent rulings in order to determine whether or not they are truly in accord with the spirit of our rules in this place.
I raise this matter because of the concern that I had when it first occurred in May of 1983, and that circumstance was during the disposition of a dilatory motion. But last evening we were dealing with a substantive motion, so the matter becomes even more important down the procedural road as to whether or not we are following a wise course in embarking upon what 1 conceive to be an entirely different direction from established practices set by the rules and by the precedents of this place.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to make a distinction between the power of the Speaker to delay a vote and his power to order that a vote be taken.
Regarding the authority of the Speaker to order that a vote be taken at a given time, I think such cases are defined either by the Standing Orders or by Parliamentary practice as it has evolved in recent years. S.O. 12(2) indicates clearly that when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings, the bells shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.
I feel, within reason, of course, that in such circumstances the Speaker must be stricter than if the debate ends spontaneously, as was the case yesterday.
I remember that Speaker Jerome made this distinction when he interpreted former S.O. 9, now S.O. 12. He said that
S.O.	9(2), which is now S.O. 15(2), allowed him to demand that the vote be taken after fifteen minutes, provided he had interrupted the proceedings and the Members had received reasonable notice that the proceedings would be interrupted, thus safeguarding the principle that basically, Members should not be taken unaware, and I think his interpretation was a wise one. However, in certain cases, although S.O. 9(2) or 15(2) said that a vote had to be taken after fifteen minutes, Speaker Jerome was often more patient than that before demanding
March 20, 1984

that a vote be taken, since he first wanted to make sure that Members on both sides of the House had received reasonable notice, since it was not the intention of the Standing Orders to take them unaware. That is not the kind of circumstance we are dealing with now.
Another situation where the Speaker can demand a vote is in the case of dilatory motions. This is the result of a recent practice that has evolved, where your predecessor, and, if I am not mistaken, you yourself have, in the case of a purely dilatory motion, decided that at the normal time of adjournment it was no longer necessary to call a vote, since in any case the motion had achieved its purpose. Since things were getting out of hand, I feel this was a very sensible and logical decision. Again, however, does not this apply to today's situation.
We are now dealing with a very unusual situation in which the debate ended spontaneously, not because it was interrupted by the Speaker but because there were no more Members to speak to the motion. This eventuality is not covered by Standing Order 15(2). Therefore, the Standing Orders do not limit the time for division bells. That is clear. In cases, Mr. Speaker, where the Standing Orders do not specify how long the division bells are to ring, what is the Speaker's role? That is not so clear, and here we need to have a body of jurisprudence and parliamentary practice. I think the Speaker should take into account precedents established in other countries, and especially, as provided by the Standing Orders when a case is not clear, the precedents established in the United Kingdom. However, we must also take into account the specifics of each case and the procedure peculiar to these other parliaments. Now, the voting procedure in the United Kingdom, I must say, with respect, to my learned colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), is totally different from ours, and cannot be considered or be allowed to influence the debate at this point.
We have a very special voting system in Canada, and we have Standing Orders that do not specify how long the division bells are to ring. The Standing Orders also fail to provide any direction as to the Speaker's role in cases where there is an unusually long delay before a vote is taken.
I therefore say, with respect, that I think it is reasonable that, for the sake of the order he is supposed to maintain and also in the interests of common sense, the Speaker should consider the circumstances. I think it is both reasonable and sensible that the Speaker, if he decides it is appropriate, should consult with the Leader of the Official Opposition or his Whip, or the Government House Leader or the Government Whip. I believe it is wise for the Speaker to analyze the facts in the light of such consultations, if such was his decision, and in the light of the Standing Orders-where there is no provision for this case-since he has certain discretionary powers to maintain order in the House and ensure that the right of Members to speak to a question is not infringed upon.
Mr. Speaker, what you did yesterday was eminently sensible, and you are to be congratulated. I think that under the
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
Standing Orders, you had no choice, with respect, but to stop the division bells before the two Whips entered the House, unless you had found that in the circumstances, it was a purely dilatory manoeuvre on the part of the Government or one of the Opposition Parties. However, yesterday there was no evidence that one of the Parties was acting deliberately to delay unduly the taking of a vote. On the contrary, I believe the Government advised the Clerks at the Table or at least one of the Clerk Assistants, that exceptional circumstances prevailed and kept Hon. Members from exercising their right to vote, as a result of adverse weather conditions. Anyone who knows what the situation was like last night will agree.


Mr. McKnight:: Liberal leadership.


Yvon Pinard: It is sufficient to check on the climatic situation which was prevailing yesterday in eastern Quebec, for example-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Where were they? Were they in their ridings? Name two.


Yvon Pinard: -and in the Maritimes.

The fact is that many Members were held up by bad weather conditions.
Indeed, I would suggest that the Speaker does not have the right to conclude that Members are not telling the truth, and he has to give the benefit of the doubt to a whip who tells the table officers that certain situations are occurring. It could have been a plane crash that would have sent about ten Members to hospital, or a case of food poisoning after Members had eaten in the parliamentary restaurant, or any number of things. There are circumstances when the Speaker, after consultations, shows common sense and decides to delay the vote because it is not all that important. That is what happened yesterday, and I think the Speaker used sound judgment when he did not force a vote at 6 o'clock and simply interrupted the bells for the night.
You acted in a very humane manner, Mr. Speaker. I think that the House officials and all the staff are very grateful to you. From a humane standpoint, you did not force those people to waste a whole night looking after the fort because you knew full well that the Government whip was not going to show up for the vote before 10.30 the following morning, as he had made it clear to your officers, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. You prevented the staff from staying up all night, for which there would have been no justification under the circumstances. You know, you have saved public money and energy, but above all, I think, you have shown the Canadian people that although some Members of the House do behave like children now and then, yesterday we proved that we could, or at least the Speaker of the House could assume his respon-

March 20, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
sibilities and show that we can act as adults when circumstances so require.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think that the decision you took last night was quite sound, intelligent and sensible. Besides, you did not suspend the sitting indefinitely, but you did indicate shortly after six o'clock that the bells would start ringing again at 9 a.m., because you knew there was no point in having the vote in the middle of the night, something which is not humane and which, to my knowledge, has never happened under the new rules of the House.
Given those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, we support this intelligent and humane decision. Did it go against the Standing Orders or the parliamentary practice? The answer is no! Your decision did not go against any Standing Order nor any practice. Mr. Speaker, one can set precedents without necessarily going against the rules; indeed, no rule was broken and it was not necessarily contrary to precedents or previous practices. We have been innovating since the new Standing Orders have been in force, and I think that you can appeal to common sense for guidance in the kind of decision you made last night. As a matter of fact, when you decided to suspend the call of the bells for the night, you did not breach the only Standing Order which refers to the division bells. You did not go against Standing Order 12 in any way. I know of no precedent either which you might have disregarded. My learned colleague referred you to what he himself called a precedent, although it was not quite the same situation. I am talking about the incidents of May 9, 1983 when Madam Speaker, your predecessor, had indicated that, after consultations, she had decided to interrupt the division bells. I suggest that it was a specific case where, under the circumstances, she had decided to have consultations and say so publicly. Even if she had not consulted anyone, she was just as free to act as you did last night. Yesterday, you were free to consult and, whichever way you did, we respect your authority, Mr. Speaker. However, the fact that, when you interrupted the bells, you did not say in so many words that you had consulted the parties in the House does not mean that you were wrong. And I would suggest that this is one of the grey areas of the Standing Orders, but that the circumstances require that you make decisions which are logical and take into consideration the spirit of the parliamentary reform as well as the human aspect. Mr. Speaker, the major aspect of the parliamentary reform with which we have been experimenting for nearly two years is indeed that we wanted to make Parliament more humane. We no longer sit in the evening; we sit during the day, like other human beings who normally work during the daytime. Committees may sit during the evening and we may work in our offices, but the House sits during the day. On Fridays, we have deferred votes. There have been many changes which have done much to humanize this institution. It seems to me that it was also with this in mind that the bells were prevented from ringing during the night as we knew quite well that there was a
very good reason for the vote not to be registered during the night and as one of the two senior clerks of the House who are part of the voting procedure, had been told by the Government whip that it was physically impossible to have the vote registered before the next day. The Chair was told of this by the clerks of the House.
Because of these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think that there is no doubt that we support your ruling and hope that, in the future, if this situation ever reoccurs, you will continue to act with compassion and intelligence, as you have always done in the past. I shall conclude by saying that, in view of the circumstances, we must distinguish between delaying a vote and insisting that it be taken. What we are discussing here is a situation where there are no rules forcing us to have a vote registered within a specified period of time. In such cases the Chair is allowed a lot of discretion. If, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Yukon, you deem it appropriate to have further consultations, we are always at your disposal to explain why a vote cannot be registered at a given time. However, Mr. Speaker, there was no reason yesterday to rush things and I am sure that my learned colleague from Yukon would not go so far as to make such a request because, after all, we had not been through sixteen days of bell ringing. The bells had rung for six hours and a half at the most and while we once considered that having to listen to the bells for sixteen days was quite trying, and believed that consultations would have shown that such a delay was due to purely dilatory action on the part of one specific party in the House, this is all in the past. But now letting the bells ring for six and a half hours cannot be compared with letting them ring for sixteen days, and I doubt that it could be said that either one of our parties is using purely dilatory tactics to prevent a vote from taking place.
In this case, the Government was not ready to vote. Sure enough the Government is not interested in delaying passage of its own legislation, and it seems to me that any intelligent person would realize in such cases that there had to be a major reason for it. The non-attendance of Members when it is due to serious, objective and non partisan reasons, as was the case yesterday, seems to me something which ought to be taken into consideration by the Chair.
I therefore do not see how the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon could be founded, notwithstanding his comments. If he wants to ask the Speaker to have further consultations in the future if ever the bells are ringing for too long, I would find this suggestion intelligent and reasonable and would approve of it wholeheartedly. However, there is certainly nothing to prevent you, Mr. Speaker, if you have valid reasons, from doing so in the future, to interrupt the ringing of the bells when a vote cannot be registered especially after the normal sitting hours or between two regular sittings. I therefore see nothing which would indicate that you did anything wrong last night. On the contrary, at the risk of
March 20, 1984

repeating myself, I find this a useful precedent which complements the one set on May 9, 1983, and I hope that we shall not have to let the bells ring for too long too often in the future. 1 can assure you that, for our part, instructions will be given so that this will not reoccur unless, of course, reasons beyond our control justify or explain why certain Members are delayed from exercising their basic right of voting in the House.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief, but I do think it important to put some things on the record. I suspected some time ago when the bells rang for 15 days that the repercussions of that would be severe and they have, indeed, been severe. We have seen rulings, as you know, Sir, with which I have not been entirely satisfied. As a result of the fear that has grown that bells could ring forever, I think at some point the House of Commons has to come to grips with it as a potential disaster for the parliamentary system.
I want to say something about last night, Mr. Speaker. The vote that was supposed to take place last night was entirely at the behest of the Government. It was the Government that moved the previous question. It was the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) who, on Friday last, asked the House of Commons to complete the deliberations by Monday in order that the vote could take place. The deliberations were completed. One would have thought, given it was the Government's hope that the Bill could be completed by Monday, it might have had its Members here to vote. Not having them here reflects a lackadaisical attitude on the part of members of the Government who are not prepared to come to Ottawa at eleven o'clock in the morning on Mondays. We sit on Mondays at eleven o'clock and we sit all week until five o'clock on Friday afternoon. There are far too many members of the Government who do not show up on Mondays until late in the day. Had Government members been interested in carrying the legislation yesterday, they could have come here on Sunday night as many of the rest of us had to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I suggest that the excuse being used that somehow or other a storm blew up and Members of the Government could not get here so therefore the vote had to be delayed and that was justification for the action of the Speaker is absolute balderdash.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I find it offensive, quite frankly, that anyone would attempt to use such an argument in the House of Commons.


Yvon Pinard: Do not be so sensitive.


Ian Deans: I am being honest about it. It was the Government that wanted the Bill, it was the Government that moved closure on the Bill to limit the debate, and it was the Govern-
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
ment that failed to have its members present. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, given a similar set of circumstances on another day when the Government was sitting, benches full, and I were to rise and suggest that because three, four or five of my Members from northern British Columbia were unable to get here in time for a vote because of plane connections and that we would like the vote held over until the following morning, would you, Sir, then rise and intervene?


Yvon Pinard: No, you are a third Party.


Ian Deans: I put it to you that the rules of the House of Commons are intended to protect each and every Member.


Yvon Pinard: No, the two Whips.


Ian Deans: If the President of the Privy Council is quietly saying they only protect two Parties-


Yvon Pinard: Two Whips.


Ian Deans: -I say to him that the rules of the House are there to protect the rights of every single Member, and if a member of the government side is to be given additional rights to those given to Members on this side of the House from this Party, then the rules are not worth the paper they are written on.
I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a dangerous precedent here and I beg you not to allow what happened yesterday to become a precedent. It is vitally important that the Government not be permitted, for whatever reason, to decide that on its initiative it can go to the Table, whisper in someone's ear that perhaps it would not be advisable to have the vote since the Government cannot win it, and that therefore, it would be good, maybe, if the vote could be held over until another day, because that is exactly what happened yesterday. That vote was not taken yesterday because the Government could not win the vote yesterday. The Speaker unwittingly, unknowingly I say to you, Sir, without any knowledge of that, was put in the position of taking a decision which supported the Government's right to win every vote. I am not suggesting that it was done with any thought in mind to achieve that end, but that is what happened.
The vote before the House should have been taken yesterday. The vote before the House, had it been lost, would have made absolutely no difference to the Bill itself. It would have meant that the debate could have continued and the Bill dealt with. The end result would have been the same. When Government Members took it into their heads to show up suddenly from their constituencies or from out on the leadership campaign trail to vote, they would still have won the vote in any event.
The result of yesterday's vote was to create a situation which resulted in Members on one side of the House having less rights than Members on the other side of the House.


John Leslie Evans: Nonsense.

March 20, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen


Ian Deans: I ask you in future circumstances, Mr. Speaker, that that be taken into consideration and yesterday not be considered a precedent for any future action. I did consider yesterday to be most unusual, and frankly I believe it to be wrong.
I do think that in the circumstances referred to which took place in May-I remember them quite well-Madam Speaker Sauve consulted with Members of the House who represent the various Parties. Madam Speaker Sauve consulted, I believe, with the President of the Privy Council; I know she did with the House Leader for the Opposition and I know she consulted with me. She asked if in fact it were true that we would not be prepared to vote until the following day. I affirmed that it was true, as I believe did the House Leader for the Official Opposition and I assume the President of the Privy Council on behalf of the Government. Having ascertained that there was agreement among the Parties that the vote would not take place until the following day, she then decided to suspend the sitting until a time which the Members themselves had indicated would be a suitable time for the vote to take place. Such was not the case yesterday, Sir.


Yvon Pinard: You are wrong.


Ian Deans: I am not wrong on my facts.


Yvon Pinard: That is not what we agreed to. We were ready to vote and you were not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will have some remarks to make at the end of the Hon. Member's remarks.


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am being interrupted by the President of the Privy Council. He is obviously very nervous about this situation because he very rarely interrupts. I can tell that he is not on very firm ground today.
I do not know what the outcome might have been, but I suggest that yesterday, upon ascertaining that the Government was not prepared to vote, it might have been appropriate to have spoken to the representative of each of the two other Parties. I recognize that there is no requirement to do so, but it may have been done in the interests of seeing that the sort of situation in which we find ourselves does not arise. That kind of procedure would be very helpful in the future and would make it easier for us to support measures of the type which were taken.
In my judgment, what happened yesterday was wrong for two reasons. The first reason, which 1 stated quite clearly, is that it creates a situation which is unfair because the same kind of rights cannot be claimed by other Members as those that were claimed on behalf of the members of the Government who did not rather than could not show up in time for work yesterday. The other reason is that it does or could create a precedent which would allow the Government to not have to answer publicly for its failure to govern properly and provide sufficient numbers of Members in their places at any point in time to sustain the Government with confidence.
This kind of situation could provide the Government with the opportunity to shift the onus of political responsibility from itself to the Speaker when answering why bells continue to ring in the House of Commons. The outcome of it could be that the Government no longer must answer for why the bells rang all night because the bells did not ring all night. The Government no longer has to answer to the public of Canada for why the business of the House of Commons was ground to a halt yesterday because the Speaker has been put in the position of answering for the Government. I think that that is a bad practice.
Therefore, Sir, I say this without reflecting in any way on the decision itself. Nothing can be done about what happened yesterday. My only concern is for what might happen tomorrow or another day. I really do feel that the outcome of the precedent of May 9, 1983, regarding Bill C-155 which has been cited, though similar and I concede the similarity, was arrived at in quite a different way.
The situation yesterday was simply that the Speaker was put in the position of saving the Government from being embarrassed. The Speaker did not do that purposely, but that is what happened. The Government failed to do what it had been warned it must do during the leadership contest. Government Members were warned that if they wanted to continue to enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons, they would have to keep their Members present and they would have to be available to vote if, as and when votes came up.
Yesterday's vote was not a snap vote or a quick decision made by the House. It was clear that the Government wanted the vote yesterday and it was clear that the vote was going to be taken yesterday. However, government back-benchers and supporters of the Government simply shirked their responsibilities and did not come to work on time. The end result of that was to establish what could well be a very bad precedent. I ask you, Sir, if you do nothing else, to make it clear that what happened yesterday was a once in a lifetime occurrence not ever to happen again.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has already recognized the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) at some length.


Erik Nielsen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have a correction to make. While listening to the government House Leader, I reflected upon the remarks I made toward the close of my original submission. At that time, I believe I referred to the motion of May 9, 1983, as being a dilatory motion. That was not the case; it was a substantive motion. And, indeed, the only other substantive motion that gave rise to last night's practice was the motion that we dealt with today.
I do not ask the Chair to make a decision, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I think it would be unwise to do so. I am only asking that the Chair reflect upon what happened in May, 1983, and what happened last night. Those are the only two instances of substantive motions to my knowledge that have been dealt with in that fashion. Dilatory motions have given
March 20, 1984

rise to another practice. Here we are dealing with something far different. I think that the two must be kept very separate.
I do not think we should expect you, Sir, to return to us with any definitive reflection upon what you have heard today. I think we should all treat it as a situation of a caveat having been raised. It has now been drawn to the attention of the Chair and the Chair may well want to follow the suggestion of the government House Leader that you call us together for a meeting with you.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It is certainly up to you, Mr. Speaker, but I do not mind having you reflect upon all of this. We are not expecting any decision to be made on a short term. However, if two years ago it was fair for the Chair to allow 16 days for the Official Opposition to decide if it was ready to vote, then today in 1984, a couple of days should not be indecent. We will take into account very seriously, if this situation occurs again, the precedent of waiting 16 rather than 2 days.


Erik Nielsen: The motions are different. One is dilatory, one is substantive.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Yukon invites the Chair to reflect. I can assure him that the Chair will give the matter a great deal of reflection. I can also assure the Hon. Member that the Chair will have something to say at an appropriate time after reflecting upon the record.
The Chair would like to put only one item of information before the House. Reference has been made many times to the Chair's communicating with the Parties involved. The channels of communication are informal and imperfect. Whatever communication took place last night was on the initiative of the Chair.
Until five minutes to six o'clock, the Chair had the firm understanding that there would be a vote at six o'clock. This was a communication which had been received by the Chair. The Chair then received a fairly substantial indication indirectly to the effect that a vote would not take place until the following morning, on the basis of which the Chair began to consider its position seriously.
The Chair attempted to negotiate with the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) through the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who conveyed a message to him. The Chair observed that after the message was conveyed, the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and a number of people near him left the House.


Erik Nielsen: Because we thought there was going to be a vote.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair took that to be an indication that the Hon. Member was accepting the position that there should not be a vote. Surely the Hon. Member for Yukon did not anticipate having the bells ring all night and repeating an experience which did nothing but wear out bells. I think that
Tabling of Documents
80 bells were worn out during the course of the famous bell ringing episode of 1982-


John Leslie Evans: And energy.


Mr. Speaker:: Not to mention energy wasted. The Chair did attempt communications. However imperfect, the message received by the Chair was that there was no prospect of a vote taking place before the following morning. In this respect, the Chair's decision was on all fours with the decision of Madam Speaker on May, 1983. That is one observation, and the Chair will have a number of other observations to make after mature reflection and careful examination of everything which has been said today.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since you and not I have raised the matter of last night's communications specifically with respect to myself, I can tell you, Sir, that the message that I received, which caused me to leave the Chamber, was that you were going to cause a vote to be taken at six o'clock without the Whips. That was the message that I received, and I am sure that that practice would be repugnant even to the government House Leader. That is why we left.


Mr. Speaker:: The message that the Chair attempted to convey was to indicate the position with regard to the circumstances that were indicated by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), fully bearing in mind the implication as exposed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and its possible reflection on the Chair. With this in mind, the Chair was fully cognizant of the possible charges that could be raised against it, but the Chair attempted to act by giving everyone an indication of what the objections were. The Chair, however imperfectly, received back a message from the Leader of the Opposition that the Leader of the Opposition, in the circumstances, did not feel that a vote should take place at that time. However imperfect the communication, that was the message received by the Chair.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that opens up another area. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were prepared to vote all day yesterday and we were prepared to vote at any time last night, whether before six o'clock or after six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair, of course, takes the Hon. Member at his word.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the Table an extract from minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy held on Monday, February 20, 1984,

March 20, 1984
Petitions
concerning revisions of the salaries of employees of the House of Commons effective April 1, 1984.


PETITIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition on behalf of 250 residents, most of whom live in my federal riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. In signing the petition, which originally was a petition against the Cruise missile, the petitioners say that they support the statement endorsed by the United Nations in 1982, which was as follows:
The increase in nuclear weapons, far from strengthening international security, on the contrary, weakens it. Enduring peace cannot be built on the accumulation of weaponry.
I should like to submit that petition and file it with the House of Commons on behalf of the petitioners.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Parry Sound-Muskoka who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that, whereas acid precipitation is the most serious environmental issue facing us, especially in Muskoka, in this century; whereas the technology does exist to reduce the amounts of acid causing pollution from smokestacks and car emissions; and whereas the cost of not taking action would be detrimental and far more expensive in the long run, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to encourage the Government to continue its efforts toward greater emission control. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
This petition was signed by 166 petitioners from the United Church in Huntsville.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CORPORATION ACT


Pierre Bussières: for leave to introduce Bill C-25 intituled "An Act respecting the Canada Development Corporation, Canada Development Investment Corporation and certain other corporations".


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 179, 351, 404, 425, 436, 508, 532, 608, 613 and 614.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Are all food catering contracts for federal public buildings held by one company, Cater Plan and, if so (a) for what reason (b) were other catering companies given an opportunity to submit tenders for provision of this service?
2.	Are there any food service contracts outstanding and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the duration of each contract (c) by what method will the contract be renewed?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. All
food catering contracts for federal public buildings under the administration of Public Works Canada are not held by one company, CaterPlan. (a) Not applicable, (b) Yes.
In accordance with Treasury Board policy, the Ottawa Civil Service Recreational Association operates the cafeterias established for public servants in Ottawa and must call public tenders for caterers to provide this service.
Outside of Ottawa, Treasury Board has given the Canadian National Institute for the Blind the first opportunity to accept catering contracts which are for the use of public servants only. CaterPlan is the food service division of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.
The decision with respect to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind was made by Treasury Board to provide employment for many blind Canadians and to yield revenue to assist CaterPlan in their work with the blind. CaterPlan Services continue to be the largest single employer of blind Canadians.
In cases where a Crown-owned building incorporates a commercial facility, i.e. one not for the use of public servants only, Public Works Canada advertises publicly.
Although not now in Quebec, Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CaterPlan Services) still maintains a working relationship with Servibec owned by blind former employees of Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CaterPlan Services). Servibec continues to maintain an objective similar to Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CaterPlan Services) in its employment of blind persons.
March 20, 1984	COMMONS
2.	Outstanding food service contracts exclusive of the Civil Service Recreational Association, Canadian National Institute for the Blind and Servibec: (a) Eight.
(b)	The duration of each contract is as follows:
1.	Ottawa, Ontario: Federal Study Centre; a continuing contract with a 90-day cancellation clause.
2.	Arnprior, Ontario: Federal Study Centre; a one-year contract. Expiry date July 31 1984.
3.	Hull, Quebec: Place du Portage, Phase 3; a five-year contract with an option of yearly renewal. Expiry date May 31 1988.
4.	Hull, Quebec: Asticou Language School; a contract with a 90-day cancellation clause.
5.	Ottawa, Ontario: Carson Road Language School and Aselford Martin Bldg. Language School; Hull, Quebec: Bisson Centre Language School; 1 contract for the 3 schools with a 90-day cancellation clause.
6.	Calgary, Alberta: The Harry Hays Building; Contract has 90-day cancellation clause. Contract to be reviewed every two years. Next review date November 18, 1984.
7.	Goose Bay, Labrador: A two-year contract with a one-year renewal option. Expiry date October 30, 1985.
8.	Winnipeg, Manitoba: Board of Grain Commissioners Building; A five-year contract. Expiry date November 30, 1987.
(c)	Public Tender.


Mr. St. Germain: Did the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources publish "The Car Economy Book", and, if so at what cost for (a) concept and research (b) production (c) printing (d) distribution and what was the total cost of the publication?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, EM&R published "The Car Economy Book" in October, 1981.
(a) The publication was developed and written within EM&R in consultation with Transport Canada. No outside costs were incurred.
(b)	Artwork was designed and produced within EM&R. Typesetting costs amounted to $1,300.
(c)	Total printing costs were $180,000 for 600,000 English and 300,000 French copies.
(d)	The publication was distributed through the EM&R exhibit program and through the Department's publication distribution facilities at headquarters and in the regions. No special distribution costs were incurred.
Total cost of the publication was $181,300.
DEBATES__________________________________________________2253
Order Paper Questions AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Hargrave: 1.	What was the average live fed cattle (steers and heifers) market price for 1983 as required by the Agricultural Stabilization Act?
2.	What was the previous average five year fed cattle market price immediately prior to 1983?
3.	What was the previous five year fed cattle market price prior to 1983 adjusted for the cost of production factor?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The average live feed cattle (steers and heifers) market prices for 1983 as required by Agricultural Stabilization Act have not yet been compiled. In the meantime, the average annual price of the Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg markets for steers was $78.67/cwt. and $75.28/cwt. for heifers (basis A1A2).
2.	The average annual market price (steers and heifers combined) for the five years prior to 1983 was $73.70/cwt.
3.	The average support price for the five years prior to 1983 was $65.92/cwt.


Mr. Howie: In 1983 were any contracts awarded by the Department of Supply and Services for the conducting of opinion polls and, if so, to whom and in what amount?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Yes the Department of Supply and Services (Supply Administration) awarded contracts for the conducting of public opinion polls as follows:
Value of
Contractor	Contract	$
The Mengen Institute, Toronto	75,000
Goldfarb Consultants, Willowdale	95,100
Including
Amendment
Contrefort Inc., Quebec	97,680
Including
Amendment
Canwest Survey Research Corp., Winnipeg	77,500
Goldfarb Consultants, Willowdale	100,000
Canwest Survey Research Corp., Winnipeg	72,900
Sorecom Inc., Montreal	22,700
Decima Research Limited, Toronto	25,500
Decima Research Limited, Toronto	49,000
Goldfarb Consultants, Willowdale	100,000
Decima Research Limited, Toronto	43,000


Mr. Howie: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation plan to establish a full-service television station in New Brunswick?

March 20, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Yes, as soon as public funds become available and (1) a suitable arrangement can be concluded with the private affiliate station which distributes the CBC English television service in New Brunswick, or (2) alternative VHF transmission capability becomes available.


Mr. Howie: Since March 1, 1983, did Petro-Canada or its subsidiaries make any loans to its employees and, if so, in each case (a) on what date was the loan (i) made (ii) due (b) what was the (i) amount of the loan (ii) interest rate charged (iii) purpose of the loan?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
Petro-Canada has a housing relocation policy which enables the Corporation to offer, on a case-by-case basis, interest free loans to new and transferred employees, (a) & (b) Details regarding individual loans and their recipients cannot be released to the public because such information is considered to be of a managerial and administrative nature between Petro-Canada and the Corporation's employees.


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


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows:
			Remuneration
		Remuneration	for meetings
		as Chairman or	of Executive
		Council Member	Committee
(a) Name	(b) Position	FY 1982-83	FY 1982-83
		$	$
*J. Mavor Moore	Chairman	18,600	1,300"Jean-Jacques Fortier	Vice-Chairman	4,275	675and Chairman	of the Executive	Committee	"D. Owen Carrigan	3,600	900"Gordon Dowsley	3,075	675Peter Duffield	2,625	Celia Franca	2,050	Gerald Fraser	2,550	Marc Gagne	675	Nicholas Goldschmidt	4,125	"Julien Hebert	3,375	900Marilyn Huband	3,375	"William Kilbourn	7,800	900"Sandra Lynne LeBlanc	2,700	900Elizabeth McGowan	2,475	Patrick O'Flaherty	2,925	Penny Petrone	4,725	"Ruth Schiller	5,400	900Marcel Sormany	5,025	*H. Arnold Steinberg	1,575	900Matthew Norman Young	2,025	
Note: Should the term "Executive" be taken to refer to the Executive Staff, as distinct from the Executive Committee of the Board, the relevant information is as follows:
(a) Name Timothy Porteous Gilles Lefebvre Claude Gauthier
David W. Bartlett
(b) Position Director
Associate Director
Assistant Director and Treasurer
Secretary
Salary range FY 1982-83 ($75,360-$88,610) ($63,070-$74,200) ($57,770-$78,970)
($51.410-$70,060)


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines): 1.	As at January 31, 1984, how much revenue did the government receive pursuant to the 1979 federal-provincial agreement on lotteries?
2.	What is the anticipated return for 1984 from the agreement on lotteries?
3.	What monies were received in net revenue from Loto Canada on an annual basis?
4.	Was $80 million in net revenue received in any one fiscal year and, if so, in which year?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: 1. Pursuant to the 1979 federal-provincial agreement on lotteries and, as of January 31, 1984, the revenue received is as follows:
Year	Payments	Received	Cumulative1980	4	$25,576,884.43	$ 25,576,884.431981	4	28,938,693.45	54,515,537.881982	4	31,881,407.03	86,396,944.911983	4	33,621,105.52	120,018,050.431984	-	-	-
2. Pursuant to the 1979 federal-provincial agreement on lotteries, the annual payment of $24 million is indexed to the 1979 CPI. Therefore, the amount anticipated in 1984 is approximately $35,300,000.
3. The net revenues received from Loto Canada Inc. were as follows:
Fiscal Year
Net Revenue
1976-	1977
1977-	1978
1978-	1979
1979-	1980


[Stage Direction]
Note: In fiscal year 1979-1980, Loto Canada Inc. was in operation for only nine months.
4.	No. The greatest net revenue received from Loto Canada Inc. in one fiscal year was $74,315,402 (in fiscal year 1977-1980).
Executive Committee member for all or part of the fiscal year.
March 20, 1984
Mr. Howie: In (a) the current fiscal year (b) each of the two preceding fiscal years were any persons employed by the Royal Canadian Mint and, if so, how many and, in each case, what amount was allocated for salaries?


Charles Lapointe: am informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: Yes.
(a)	657 employees, 1983 calendar year: $19,129,000 (unaudited).
(b)	650 employees, 1982 calendar year: $18,476,000.
(c)	688 employees, 1981 calendar year: $17,580,000.
As reported in the annual report, the above figures include, in addition to salaries, allowances and employee benefits.


Mr. Howie: Does the Royal Canadian Mint perform services or engage in sales to persons or organizations other than the Government or Government agencies and, if so, approximately what percentage of its revenue was derived from such sources in the last fiscal year?


Charles Lapointe: am informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: Yes.
In 1983 calendar year, 94.9 per cent was derived from sources other than the Canadian Government. In 1982 calendar year, 94.2 per cent was derived from sources other than the Canadian Government.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-21, which calls for federal authority to borrow $29.5 billion. The Bill places a very heavy responsibility on those of us who serve in Her
Borrowing Authority Act
Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I say this because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has announced that he will be stepping down and following a leadership convention in June, the Liberal Party will have a new leader and the country will have a new, though temporary, Prime Minister.
This metamorphosis is not too dissimilar from that which occurs when a lobster sheds its shell. He leaves the old shell behind and takes on a new shell which is soft and fragile, so he cannot fill it with his limited body weight. The lobster cannot move for some time, and when he does he lacks direction and co-ordination. It takes a long time for the lobster to fill out his new shell, which is why dealers have a very difficult time selling soft shell lobsters to Canadians. I will stop right there, Mr. Speaker, because, as you will realize, I am speaking about the Liberal Party.
I say this Bill causes us problems in the Official Opposition because the Government's Budget and this borrowing Bill are not likely to be repeated by the new leader of the Liberal Party. Already leadership candidates and potential leaders in the Liberal ranks are making strong statements about government waste and government extravagance.
For example, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who has not peaked yet, when speaking at the Liberal biennial policy conference in Ottawa on November 7, 1982, is reported as saying: "The government is wasting millions of dollars by sending monthly pension cheques to wealthy senior citizens and baby bonuses to families who do not need the money. Such funds should be redirected to help the most needy". The Minister does not say what yardstick he would use to define the most needy, nor does he say when, if he became Prime Minister, he would cut out the baby bonus. I think it is important that we get this Liberal Minister on the record, however.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is reported in The Toronto Star of November 3, 1982, as saying: "The current crisis we are living in makes people think much more deeply than they used to about a number of issues and to realize that there are no free lunches and that we cannot plan on the basis that there is a kind of growing federal pie from which everybody can get an increased share. When you see a financial situation where the Government is not getting the revenue that it used to-where the economy is not growing-where public funds have been used extremely sparingly and targeted better than ever before, then you have to ask yourselves questions like this". The Minister did not say where he is going to cut down nor why the economy is not growing, but he makes a mockery of his Party and his Government when he says that public funds have been used extremely sparingly and then earmarks $1.35 billion to prop up the Government's leading loss maker, namely, Canadair.
Canadair has already shocked taxpayers by its bad management record which has been concealed from Parliament as long as possible. There is no reason to believe that this recent move will do little more than delay the executioner's axe while eating up more tax dollars. If the original owners, General Dynamics, could not run this company despite a substantial

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
military business in the United States, then there was no reason to suppose that the federal Government in particular could find a genius capable of reversing reality. By throwing a hundred million here and a billion there, the Government has not solved the problem; it has simply compounded it with taxpayers' money, thereby adding to our inflationary spiral, our increased interest rates and our rate of unemployment.
What does another aspiring leader, the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston), have to say about his Party and the Government? On page 5 of Fiscalamity in 1974 he stated:
This book is dedicated to all Canadians who share my belief that Canada, with its beauty, its resources, its people, and its legal-political heritage, could be a country of unequalled opportunity and happiness, were it not for too much taxation, too strong a bureaucracy, too much government, too much welfare, too many politicians, and too few statesmen.
To all of these criticisms we simply have to ask, who has been governing Canada since 1963? What Party has been in power?


Mr. Nystrom:: The Liberals and the Tories.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The Tories were in for a brief period, yes. We did have nine months in office. But I submit that our Party could never create all the mayhem which has happened under the ruling Liberals since 1963. These are criticisms by Liberals, some of whom seek to lead, not by the Tories. This is the joke of the 20th century, these criticisms of the Government and its overall mismanagement of the economy. This same Minister is also on the record as supporting the sale of Canadair.
What about the so-called crown prince, John Turner?


John Leslie Evans: Now, now!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: "Now, now", someone says. I will be as fair as I can.


Mr. Turner:: Are you talking about me?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, I am not talking about Charlie. I am talking about John, Mr. Speaker. 1 am only quoting from what I found on the front page of our newspapers just in the last few days. John Turner simply promised no miracles if he is elected Prime Minister. In fact, when interviewed he seemed to have no answers to anything on anything, aside from pointing out that our deficit in Canada is now 50 per cent higher on a relative basis than the deficit in the United States. He can only say, when asked at whose expense the deficit would be cut, that it would have to be at the expense of someone. Well, that is a profound statement. I watched his interview on CBC by Barbara Frum. At the end of the interview, she became so frustrated that she said, "Mr. Turner, you are giving answers to questions with questions. You have been out of office, free to think about these matters for a long time. The economy has been in trouble for some time. You ask Canadians for their confidence. Should you not, in fact, give them some answers
now to justify that confidence?" The answer to that was only a continuation of the original waffling.
1 say to the Liberal Party through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is simply not good enough for the Canadian people. As a long-time Hon. Member of this House, I well remember the "Turner" years and the effect of his budgetary policies. Inflation, for example, as of January, 1972 was 4.9 per cent. By September of 1975, the inflation rate had more than doubled to 10.6 per cent. In the same period our unemployment rate jumped from 6.3 per cent to 10.6 per cent, an increase of 26.9 per cent. This same man, when asked if he had policy disputes with Mr. Trudeau, replied that whatever it was, it would remain between them. He was not going to resurrect the past but only deal with the future. In my view, Mr. Turner left Parliament Hill because he had failed to carry out the tasks assigned to him, and while he and the Liberal Party may like to forget about the past and only deal with the future, the record of the government's policies and its mismanagement of our economy is clear and plain enough for everyone to see. It will be remembered by all Canadians whenever the next federal election is called, and I feel certain they will render an honest and just verdict on the Liberal Party and its period in office.
I say to the Liberal Party, let us end this charade. Let us call a federal election as soon as possible and let the people decide the issues at the ballot box.
I stated earlier, Mr. Speaker, that this Bill places a very heavy responsibility on Hon. Members of the Opposition because of the excessive borrowing and spending programs of the Government which are slowly but surely pushing up interest rates. The pressure upon us is showing no signs of diminishing in spite of the hopeful dreams of the Minister of Finance. Last week one-year Treasury bills again moved upward. All of the present net federal debt matures within approximately two and a half years. The effect of last week's increase alone increases the cost of carrying our $150 billion net debt by some $750 million. The size of this increase totally shatters all of the Budget figures of the Minister of Finance.
Another important point is that this Bill makes no reference whatsoever to borrowing by Crown corporations, or to guarantees given by the Government of Canada in the open market for private companies. All of this uncertainty is having its effect on the value of the Canadian dollar, which has been moving up and down recently like a yoyo. The blame for this situation must be placed squarely on our Minister of Finance who is on the record as saying he was not losing any sleep over the fall in the purchasing power of our dollar. Here, of course, he is in direct conflict with the Governor of the Bank of Canada who is on the record as stating that letting the dollar slide still further would lead to almost immediate increases in inflation. Mr. Bouey said last week that he had no choice but to raise interest rates in order to maintain the fight against inflation, and he hinted that if the Government changed its policy, opting to let the dollar fall still further in order to promote sales abroad of Canadian goods, he would resign as Governor of Canada's central bank. Is it any wonder that our
March 20, 1984

dollar is down to little more than 78 cents officially, when those who deal in international finance see our two leading Canadians in the finance field openly feuding on the front pages of our newspapers?
This type of situation destroys confidence in our currency, in our country, and in our entire economy. As confidence in Canada is eroded by this Government, we see the effects in higher unemployment, in lost opportunities, in broken homes and in the despair evident among our young people.
If this Government would agree today to cut the amount required by this borrowing Bill in half to $15 billion instead of $29.5 bilion, the effect would be miraculous on our entire economy. It may well mean the paring of some programs, but this is the course being promised by some would-be leaders, in any case. I say, why wait for summer, let us do it now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words today in opposition to the borrowing authority Bill which is before the House today. I do so because I have the impression that the Government across the way has been borrowing a lot of money and running up a tremendous deficit without any real plan or vision as to where it wants to take this country of ours in the next number of years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the House must deal with Bill C-21 whereby the government is seeking again to borrow $29.5 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85. But Canada is already saddled with a huge deficit. Its total indebtedness is already reaching $151 billion, which is an enormous amount of money to owe for a country like Canada. It represents a debt of nearly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Another way of putting it is to say that some 21 cents out of very tax dollar are used by the federal government to pay the interest on its debt: it is a lot of money indeed for a country the size of ours. As Members of the House, as I said, we have to deal with another bill whereby the government is seeking the authority to borrow again $30 billion, which is certainly unwarranted without a national plan or vision for the future of our country.

I believe if we are going to be borrowing this kind of money, we will have to be very precise as to where we want to go as a country. I have no objection whatsoever to borrowing money or building up a deficit if that money is going to be spent on specific projects which will create long-term job creation and economic security for the people of Canada. That would be the same thing as a farmer in my riding going out and borrowing a few thousand dollars to buy a quarter section of land in order to expand his farm operation, or a small businessman borrowing to improve his business in order to be more efficient and productive and to create more jobs in the community. In other words, it is an investment in the future of the business or farm. The farmer or businessman will reap a return on that investment. However, what I object to is borrowing money to take a
Borrowing Authority Act
holiday, to buy a very expensive car, or to blow it on parties and booze. That is very destructive borrowing in this country, whether it is at the individual or national and provincial levels. That is my main concern with the Government across the way.
I want to bring this home to my own Province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. In the 1930s and 1940s Saskatchewan was a very poor province. We had the tremendous depression and a drought. Because of that an old Liberal Government, run by a fellow named Patterson, was going into massive debt in Saskatchewan. When the CCF won the election in 1944, they were able, under the leadership of Tommy Douglas, to get the province out of debt and bring in many services that we did not have in other parts of the country. In doing so, they often had to go out and borrow money. One very good example was the borrowing of money to establish the Saskatchewan Power Corporation. It was to build a power utility owned by the people of Saskatchewan. After the debt was paid off, the people of Saskatchewan owned, and still own, that facility. It was like paying off a mortgage on a house.
Another example, of course, was the Saskatchewan Government Telephone Company. Money was borrowed to build that company and make it into one of the best and most efficient telephone companies, public or private. That debt is now paid off and as well the company is owned by the people of Saskatchewan.
What has happened since, Mr. Speaker? We have seen a Government that was pretty well able to balance the books and not put the people of Saskatchewan into debt. In this House we often hear charges that we are the Party of the big spenders. We like to spend a lot of money and we are not responsible or efficient managers. We are absolutely irresponsible. We hear that charge often, not just from the Government across the way but from the Conservative Party at the other end of the Chamber.
I see my good friend is here, the Hon. Member for Kinders-ley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). I am sure he would agree when I say that we have never seen an example of greater mismanagement of public funds in our province than we have in the last two years in office of Premier Grant Devine. After less than two years of Conservative Government we now have in that province a deficit of around $550 million. There are one million people in that province, which means $550 for every single man, woman and child. All this after only 20 months. We never had that kind of irresponsibility during the Douglas years, the Blakeney years, or indeed under Liberal Premier Ross Thatcher between 1964 and 1967. The interest on that debt of $550 million is already the astonishing figure of $1 million a week. I understand Grant Devine wants again to emulate the Government across the way tomorrow night because there is going to be another budget.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to address his comments to Bill C-21, which is the federal Bill.

March 20, 1984
Adjournment Motion


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Well, in trying to persuade Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to give you a very good example of something happening locally, where a very bad example set by the federal Government is now being followed by one of the soul sisters of that Government, namely, the Premier of Saskatchewan. That debt is driving oridnary farmers, workers and pensioners in my province, into debt in the future. It is that kind of lack of planning, vision and imagination which is really driving this country into debt. When you look at the debt of countries around the world you will see it is generally rightwing, conservative governments which have the largest debts. Look at the United States and Ronald Reagan. That is a very right-wing, very conservative government, and it has the largest debt in the history of the U.S.A. You can look at the Government of Great Britain with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the tremendous deficits there. This debt situation allows the banks and financial institutions so much power over the lives of ordinary citizens because we become beholden to these large private concerns. My argument is that if we are going to borrow money, we should be borrowing money for investment purposes to build a strong, productive and competitive industrial sector where we produce long-term jobs and security for the people. That should be the objective.
I believe we should also be using the tax system to reduce the deficit in the long run. It is about time that we started taxing corporations their fair share. Right now so many of those corporations which dominate the economy are getting away without paying their fair share of taxes. Another group that does that is the rich. I suggest it is about time we started taxing the rich, making the rich pay their fair share. If we did that, we would not have this massive deficit and we would not have to borrow such a massive amount of money which the ordinary citizens of this country must pay off. My concern is that the irresponsibility of the Government across the way is contagious. It certainly has been in my province where we now have a Government trying to emulate the federal Government by running up huge debts. Therefore, I appeal to this House to defeat this Bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher)-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Non-profit housing-Allocation sought for Toronto area; the Hon. Member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr.	Forrestall)-Employment-
Allocation of funds to Nova Scotia ridings, (b) Affirmative action program funding; the Hon. Member for Kootenay West
(Mr. Kristiansen)-Forestry-Negotiation of federal-provincial agreements, (b) Expenditure of funds in British Columbia.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-21, the borrowing Bill. I have not been in this House that long but I can go back over a lot of borrowing Bills presented by this Government. This one, asking for $29.55 billion, is not the largest. The Hon. Member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde) presented a borrowing Bill in which he really gave it a good shot. He got it up to $31.5 billion. Then there was another one by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) who came up with only $25 billion. That seems quite small then we had the one from the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) whose best effort was $12 billion. Then we had the prime minister from the Canadian Pacific, Mr. Turner, and the best he could do was $5 billion. Therefore, all in all, this is not a record borrowing Bill.
The one thing you have to look at in borrowing Bills, Mr. Speaker, is what use the money is put to. My friend, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), spoke about the Province of Saskatchewan. To draw an analogy, Mr. Speaker, there are times when Crown corporations, which are not even discussed in this Bill, carry tremendous debts on behalf of the people of Canada over which this Parliament has absolutely no control. The same thing occurred in the Province of Saskatchewan. There were huge debts built up in the Sask. Power Corporation and Sask Tel. A lot of money was borrowed by the past administration in the Province of Saskatchewan and spent on the uranium mine at Key Lake. They are full 51 per cent partners in the Key Lake Mining Corporation. The NDP says we really should not continue with this.
If we are going to borrow money, let us borrow money for things that are good. Let us borrow money to start young farmers on the land. Let us put money forward so that young men and women can borrow to own their own land rather than be tenants of a government, such as they were in the Province of Saskatchewan until the new administration came in.
The total borrowing of the Government, Mr. Speaker, is about 91 per cent of the total personal savings forecast for Canadians this year. The Government wants to borrow almost
March 20, 1984

as much as the people of Canada are going to save this year. In the first quarter of the fiscal year there is a large drain on the federal Treasury. There is need for new funds. One reason for this is tax refunds, which will probably amount to about $3.8 billion this year. The Government now wants to borrow to pay the money to the taxpayers of Canada who have been paying in for 12 or 15 months. They have been paying that money to the Government of Canada, trusting that the Government will have the money to pay it back. It does not have it. It has spent it. The Government has blown it on things like Canadair and de Havilland.
In 1968, our debt was about 2 per cent of the Gross National Product. Now it is about 4.7 per cent. In 1968, when you and I were paying taxes, Mr. Speaker, it took $1 out of $9 to pay the interest on the debt which the Government had incurred on behalf of Canadians. Now it takes $1 out of every $3 for which Canadian men and women work to pay the interest on the debt which has been incurred.
I would like to look at promises which have been made in the past, Mr. Speaker. I recall that in campaigning the Government said it would keep its 1980 election promise to hold spending growth below the rate of GNP and to reduce steadily the size of the deficit. The Government made that promise in 1980 along with a lot of other promises.
Let us look at how well this promise has been kept. In the
1980-	81 national accounts spending was 15.4 per cent. Public accounts spending was 15.2 per cent. The nominal GNP was 13.9 and the inflation rate on the CPI was 10.2 per cent. In
1981-	82, the spending increase on national accounts was 19.6 per cent, public accounts spending was 16.7 per cent. The nominal GNP was 14.3 per cent and the inflation rate on the CIP was 12.5 per cent. In 1982-83, there was an 18 per cent increase in national accounts and a 17.9 per cent increase on public accounts. The nominal GNP was 5.2 per cent and the inflation rate on the CPI was 10.8 per cent. It goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
The Government said it was not going to spend beyond the GNP or increase spending. We just had a Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. At the longest this Parliament will last 12 months. It may last six or seven months. In the Throne Speech there were 24 promises for new spending. There were 28 promises for new legislation, which I am sure will incur spending. There were 26 promises to set up task forces and engage in consultation or create new bodies or boards, which are going to cost money, Mr. Speaker. There were 20 other promises of Government action. These are all direct initiatives which the Government is going to put forward in six to eight months. This is more legislation than the Government has put forward since 1980.
The Government is asking for $29.55 billion. The amount of $15 billion would carry the Government through until the end of August. Parliament will be sitting at that time. If the Government needs more money, then it could come before Parliament to say it has spent its money and what it has spent it on. If it feels that some deserving programs should be funded and it does not have the capital to do it, it could ask to borrow more money. Part of the more than $29 billion is contingency.
Borrowing Authority Act
It is a $4 billion slush fund, according to the Government's own accounts. It can run the next fiscal year with $25 billion, but it wants $4 billion to play with. Maybe the Minister of Finance likes to have some change in his pocket. That is a lot of change to leave at the discretion of these people.
If the money were going to be used to re-establish VIA Rail, it may be acceptable. However, it is not. We have heard the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) talking about new cars servicing certain parts of Canada under the VIA Rail Act. He tells us they will be there in 1986 or 1987. However, the President of VIA Rail says it may be by 1989 and more likely in 1990. So this money is not going to go to that.
The whole point of the matter is that the borrowing authority for which the Government is asking is beyond reason in the minds of all Canadians. It wants $4 billion for discretionary spending but the balance of the money is not being spent to employ Canadians, return investment, build growth in our country, lower our inflation rate or put 1.5 million Canadians back to work.
I certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that other Members will speak against this Bill and vote against it when the time comes.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it would appear that Bill C-21 is intended to put Canada's economic remains in the vault. We are going to take the whole $29 billion that we are going to need now. We are not going to take a second bit of this cherry. We do not want to remind Canada again how much we are borrowing. We will take it all now and put Canada's economic remains in the vault. We do not want to exhume the body for any purpose whatsoever, not even for its proper burial.
I like some of the things which were said about this Budget. Of course, the Budget is the cause for Bill C-21. I like particularly some of the sources from which they came. I like the idea that was expressed on CBC TV that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is correct in his economic predictions, then a lot of other economic seers would have to be wrong. I think the Minister of Finance is wrong. I also like what Barbara Frum said. She said that the Budget appears to be speaking directly to the NDP constituencies. I know the NDP members would contradict that statement. They would have gone even further and the vault would have had to be bigger. Nevertheless, that came from just a casual observer who has been somewhat more than favourable to the NDP over the years. I also like what Peter Newman said about the Budget. He said it is a mugwump Budget, meaning someone who sits firmly on the fence.
Let me be more serious. I am concerned about what Premier Lee from P.E.I. had to say about it. The Island Premier says that even though the federal Budget contains a few tidbits of good news, like pension increases and tax adjustments for farmers and small business, he is disappointed that there was not more substance in the federal financial projection. He

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
stated that until the investment community itself has a little more confidence in the overall economic conditions in Canada and until we get the unemployment rate down and get people working, we are in a serious situation and these band-aid approaches in some areas and some programs in others are not really the solution.
Let me refer to the Hon. John Baxter, Finance Minister for the Province of New Brunswick, who says that the Budget reads more like social planning than like a budget. He says that it is hard to tell which programs are new and which are old. He gives the $150 million youth employment program as an example. He also said, "It looks as if New Brunswick will lose out in federal transfers because of changes in cost-sharing agreements". All these examples do not give one much heart in being part of the parliamentary system in Canada. Another comment on the Budget was that it has no imagery, no direction and little, if any, substance. It is promisory Budget which the Government may or may not intend to honour.
Although the Government has made certain proposals for 1985, it is unlikely that it will have anything to do with the commitment it is making for 1985. I think we must be concerned that the Government is making many commitments for the future but doing very little at present.
As usual, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has essentially approved most of what is in the Budget, but it ends up its initial remarks by saying, "We have serious reservations about the Budget deficit". Of course, these reservations arise in light of what business can expect as a consequence of this Budget and this deficit. That is the primary subject of conversation as we consider this huge borrowing Bill.
The Budget did not address the cost of energy for the primary industries in Canada and therefore gave little hope to those who need assistance more directly. The Budget did not address this situation in any other industrial aspect, yet nothing has contributed more to inflationary tendencies than the energy policy of the Government and the cost of production in all spheres of Canadian business. Most seriously, it did not address this issue with respect to the farming or fishing community where bankruptcies have reached incredible and totally unacceptable levels as a result of the Government's policies.
Another area which is of concern to me and many others, and probably has been repeated, is that the Government's demand for over $29 billion in government financing will not allow enough money for other types of financing. There will not be enough to make a money market that will bring about lower interest rates for others who want to borrow. The Government has cornered the market in the borrowing sphere. This is a great threat to our total economy due to the fact that all the other window dressing proposals in the Budget only hide the fact that it is only investors, small and large, fishermen, farmers and small businessmen who can provide employment. The Budget does not provide adequate relief to stimulate those people to make money and to spend money to improve the basic economy of this nation. This necessity has been utterly overlooked in the Budget.
I must ask whether the Government has considered if it can afford to borrow the savings of all Canadians at this level and have a prosperous Canada. How much consideration has the Government given in its Budget to the fact that it is increasing provincial borrowings by the amount of the cost savings and cost sharing programs it is transferring to the provincial Treasuries through other government policies? The Government's financial policy is totally irresponsible in a country which must have money if it wishes to expand and if it wishes to consume.
It disturbs me that the Department of National Revenue has become so desperate to collect money that it has initiated quotas in the tax collection system, whether it is by way of revenue collected by the income tax collector or by way of financial or employment rewards to customs officers. I am concerned that the Government, in desperation, leans on the small Canadian taxpayers to make demands for amounts that are too small to defend but which the small taxpayer virtually must pay because he finds himself helpless against the system which tries to collect the money.
I am concerned about the method of promotions in the customs division of National Revenue. Those employees are in the position where their performance as tax collectors is criticized if they do not meet a specified number of seizures within a year or a month. I am also critical of the fact that these employees receive pay increases or higher classifications that correspond to the number of seizures they make. That seems to be the purpose of their jobs.
It seems that the Government will borrow more money than Canadians will save. At the same time it will ignore the borrowing at all other levels of Government. The Government is leaning on average Canadians to collect taxes and is pressuring departmental employees with the threat of no promotion for not meeting certain quotas.
We have seen a deterioration in fiscal policy ever since the Budget which was introduced by the aspirant for the Liberal leadership. He set the pattern for the downgrading of the Canadian economy when he introduced his Budget. At that time I predicted that if the following budgets continued the same trend, we would eventually see an 80-cent dollar. Our dollar has continued to drop to the point where it has reached 78 cents after successive Liberal Budgets. The first Budget I am talking about which set this pattern was the Turner Budget. Since the Government followed his philosophy we have finally reached this point. Some of us will be going home during the Easter break to see our grandchildren. When I do so, I must say that I will face them with a very guilty conscience, because it is they who will have to pay this bill for the Government's financing. For the first time in my life I have reservations about being a Member of Parliament and part of a Parliament of Canada which would do this to our children and the generations to follow. It is very close to heresy and very close to a sabotage of our economy when the Government takes this persistent approach without any consideration for the long-term well-being of Canadian citizens.
March 20, 1984


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), I speak to this Bill today with mixed feelings. While I am pleased to participate in the debate, the subject matter is not something which makes one happy. We are discussing a Bill to give the Government borrowing authority of $29.5 billion. That amount is astronomical and almost incomprehensible to the average person, let alone to the average Member of Parliament. It is even more bewildering when one realizes that Bill C-21 seeking to borrow $29.5 billion is actually the eighth borrowing Bill that the Government has introduced since this Parliament was resurrected after the last election. The total of those borrowing Bills is over $102 billion. As I say, billions are almost incomprehensible and are difficult to register in terms of why we are so concerned about this borrowing authority for $29.5 billion.
I have been informed that the $29.5 billion is more than the accumulated deficits of the Government of Canada, whichever Party was in power-and unfortunately the Liberal Party has been in power far too long-from 1867 to 1975-76. That is a sad commentary on what the present Government is asking the Parliament of Canada to do.
If we use the base of 25 million Canadians, every billion dollars means $40 per capita. If we take the $29.5 billion, which in effect is $30 billion, then we are talking about $1,200 for every man, woman and child in Canada. In effect that will be the future debt with which they will be saddled as a result of just this one Bill, not the previous seven I mentioned. Of course, for a family of four that means $4,800 of extra debt as a result of the actions of the Government of Canada. Debt has to be paid for. Debt has to be serviced by interest. In effect, the interest on the debt of Canada is now one of the largest items in the Budget. It is over $20 billion, which amounts to $800 per person and, for a family of four, to $3,200.
Those are just a few graphic figures which indicate why Canadian taxpayers feel a bit under the weather, especially when they start to appreciate the wanton spending of this Government since 1980. Since we are recognizing changes in positions at the post-new Leaders come and go-I would like to go back to those halcyon days of June 1968 when the just society was supposed to have burst on to the Canadian horizon like a comet in the air and with starlight vision. One of the best ways to typify what has happened to the psyche of Canada or to the economy of Canada is to refer to the first Budget of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968. It included an amount of a little over $12 billion as the total spending program. I was a Member of the Elouse when that Budget came down. The first Budget was for about $8 billion or $9 billion but with supplementaries, as the public accounts will show, the actual Budget of that year was $12.4 billion or $12.5 billion. The total Budget of 1968, the year of the supposed just society, is now equal to the present payout of the unemployment insurance fund of $12 billion for 1983-84. That is a graphic, horrible statistic. It capsulizes what has happened with government spending at the federal level since the days of
Borrowing Authority Act
yore of 1968 when the total spending program was $12 billion plus, let alone the fact that this Bill asks for a borrowing authority of $29.5 billion.
We in Atlantic Canada still try to be a little frugal. We recognize that a dollar is worth a dollar even in an inflationary world and with the debts of governments. I would like to describe in another way this amount of $29.5 billion. It is more than the total Gross Domestic Product-they do not call it Gross National Product-of the four Atlantic provinces combined. The Conference Board forecasts for calendar year 1984 that the Gross Domestic Product for Nova Scotia will be $9.2 billion; for New Brunswick, $7.4 billion; for Prince Edward Island, $1.1 billion; and for Newfoundland, $5.3 billion, for a total of $23 billion. The Gross Domestic Product is the product of provincial governments and of the peoples of those four provinces in the goods and services they produce. The borrowing authority in this Bill is more than those figures combined. That is another way of putting this amount into perspective. This is why, perhaps, Hon. Members on this side of the House have been using the time of the House of Commons to repeat and perhaps to belabour the fact that the Auditor General has said that the spending programs of the Government are out of control.
It is a tremendous Bill to have on the floor of the House when we talk about the legacy of the present Prime Minister, when we talk about his 1968 Budget of $12 billion, which is now equal to the payout of the unemployment insurance fund, and when we look at the present incumbents or contenders for succession to the office of the Prime Minister. It is interesting to look at how four Ministers of Finance of the present Government have fared. At the moment only two of them are in the race; perhaps the other two will not join in. As other speakers have indicated, the spending programs of Government started to go out of control in the seventies when the then Minister of Finance, John Turner, brought in a Budget which ended up with a deficit of $5.4 billion. Then the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) came along as Minister of Finance with a deficit of $12.2 billion in his Budget. The succeeding Minister of Finance, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), came in with a budget of $25.2 billion. If the leadership of the Liberal Party is to be determined by the deficits racked up by Ministers of Finance, not their Budgets, then the present Minister of Finance and his deficit of $31.5 billion would certainly give him the titular crown.
The figures are too vast for any human being to comprehend. I have tried to reduce them to terms with which people could identify, be it provincial budgets, provincial Gross Domestic Product, the deficits in previous Budgets or the unemployment insurance fund. With only ten minutes in this debate, I am extremely limited. I hardly had time to hiccup before I got going. I see Mr. Speaker indicating that I must wind up. I find that very difficult in ten minutes. It takes me about ten minutes to warm up, and then I like to really move. The only thing which is moving quicker than I am at the moment is the dollar. It is going down. The reason it is going
2262

March 20, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
down is that government programs have been going up. Interest rates have started to go up, and now I am supposed to sit down.
In conclusion, I say that it will take a change in government to correct the situation. If the Governor of the Bank of Canada wants to go out and play golf because interest rates will have to rise to protect the dollar and to help it find its own float, then we should send him out to play golf with the Government. They should be sent out to pasture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the ten and a half minutes or the ten and three-quarter minutes of the Hon. Member were very entertaining. However, if he were to be informative, the hiccup he proposed would have been a much more intelligent contribution than the speech we heard on the topic at hand.
We have been hearing, it seems to me, an awful lot of political nonsense about this Bill and about the Budget that was brought down. We have heard Conservatives opposite comparing the deficit position today versus the circumstances in 1968. They are taking federal numbers and data isolated from comparative figures for provincial deficit spending, municipal deficit positions and deficits currently being incurred by other nations in the world. If they had a comparative look at numbers, not isolated from reality, they would see the position of the federal government stands it in very good stead indeed relative to other nations in the western world and relative to the position of provincial Governments.
1 find it somewat presumptuous on the part of Members opposite to stand and say that there has to be a reduction in the deficit, that we have to cut this deficit greatly. But they do not tell us which programs they have earmarked should be cut.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Your salary.


Brian Vincent Tobin: God forbid they form a government. It seems, as I said, somewhat presumptuous to see that kind of approach being taken. I had intended to stand and debate in very technical ways and rationalize the current Bill before the House. But seeing there is no sensible, logical, well-prepared and documented serious argument opposite, there is no point.
Let me say to Members opposite that when I look at the kind of examples of Conservative administration in action- the examples we have of provincial governments-I shudder to think that there is a possibility this crew across the way could form a national government in Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Give us a chance.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We have a spectacle in British Columbia of brutal Bill Bennett and his minions attempting to balance the budget on the backs of those who can least afford it. The sad part is that his Government is not even balancing the budget.
His Government is merely picking on those who can least defend themselves and is taking the proverbial axe to their necks.
We have the example of great Conservative philosophy in action in Newfoundland in the person of Premier Brian Peck-ford. He announced to his employees after years of 4 per cent, 3 per cent, 3 per cent and 2 per cent that for the next two years they will get zero and zero. His Government is giving no increases. He is announcing to his public servants that if they so much as dare expect that collective bargaining should have a place in the Province of Newfoundland it will simply not be a zero and zero increase, it may well be no jobs.
Only in Benito's Italy and the other fellow's Germany was that kind of dictatorial approach taken, that kind of swipe at the fundamental rights of citizens of a province exercised by governments. We look at this great panic across the way by those who profess to be the disciples, the apostles, of Ronnie and the apostles of Margaret. What do we see in the United States? We see a President elected on a commitment to balance the budget in four years, now giving the U.S.A., that great bastion of free enterprise and capitalism, the largest deficit ever incurred by that nation. It is the largest by far, Mr. Speaker. There is not even a close second. These are the apostles of Ronnie across the way.
In Britain, we see Margaret Thatcher elected during a period of emotional war fever-war fever, Mr. Speaker, not economic policy. Where does she stand now in the opinion polls just a few months later? Where does she stand now when thousands are on the streets in that nation? She stands where she properly belongs as far as economic policy is concerned, and that is at the bottom of the opinion polls.
It is not at all unusual to have a contingency fund. Much has been made about a $4 billion contingency fund. The Government is acting in a responsible manner to make that kind of money available. A contingency fund has traditionally been included in the request for borrowing authority. It means the money is there if and when it is needed. It also means that should funds be spent, the funds have to be approved by this Parliament, by the peoples' representatives. It also means that if the money is not spent it lapses from year to year. It is absolute nonsense to try to describe as an election porkbarrel or to try to ascribe some devious motive to what is quite accepted by many nations of the world as the proper procedure to follow.
Talking about the prospect of this crowd opposite forming a government, I find it frightening, when I look at the statements of the five major candidates for the Conservative leadership campaign. What do I see? Isee the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) who so brazenly gave the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) a backhand on the question of universality. When I look through my notes going back to the leadership campaign, I find that it was he himself who proposed that there be a means test, that the notion of universality was not sacrosanct and that it had to be looked at. I see the Hon. Member for St. John's West proposing the same thing. I see the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. March 20, 1984

Wilson) proposing exactly the same. The only candidate who said, "We have to be careful" was the Rt. Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the former Leader of the Conservative Party who is now as loyal to the Hon. Member for Central Nova as the Member for Central Nova was loyal to him when he shook his hand in Montreal previous to the pin-cushion exercise of a convention the Tories had in western Canada.
As frightening as that is, I look at the question of Crown corporations. These people, the Tories, are going to reduce the deficit. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre wants to sell all Crown corporations. The Hon. Member for St. John's West wants to eliminate CDIC. The Rt. Hon. Member for Yellow-head, when told of this, said, "Frankly, I find that position dangerous". Then I looked at the Hon. Member for Central Nova, the current Leader, and what he said about Crown corporations. When told that the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre wanted to sell off Air Canada, he asked why does he say such things? Who is going to pay for it? I do not know. What bank is going to finance it? On a fundamental question, Mr. Speaker, five different front-benchers, presumably five different Cabinet ministers, cannot agree. And what do they say about free trade with the United States? The current Leader says, "Free trade with the U.S. is like sleeping with an elephant". The Hon. Member for St. John's West says, "We have to open the borders and study the possibility of a common market". The Rt. Hon. Member for Yellowhead said, again, "Frankly, I find the proposals of the Hon. Member for St. John's West dangerous". And what about the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre? He says, "Talks of free trade strike me as unrealistic and naive".
We have been making a mistake on this side. We have been saying that the Tories will not tell us where they stand because they have no policy. But that is not true, Mr. Speaker. The Tories on the front bench have five different policies for any question you name, including the Manitoba language question. The Tories have not been very successful in keeping their differences on that one quiet either. I think that until these gentlemen make up their minds-


Mr. Forrestall:: That was about Turner and Trudeau.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -that they stand for something rather than just against the honest attempts of this Government to provide good management of our economy during a difficult time, they had better go back and do their homework.


J. Michael Forrestall: Tell us about the anointed and the about-to-be anointed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The people of Canada simply will not be fooled by rhetoric and lust for power.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, because of the time, may I call it five o'clock?
Government Affairs Control Act


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Order, please.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items listed preceding Order No. 71 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Stand.



Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: that Bill C-208, an Act to provide for the control of conflicts of interest in Government affairs, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in presenting to the House of Commons legislation respecting conflicts of interest in government affairs, my purpose is to draw attention not only to the specific provisions of this Bill but to the spirit that it represents. Bill C-210 is entitled the Government Affairs Control Act. It is an attempt to codify in a sensible way some of the rules with respect to conflicts of interest that ought to be imposed upon Cabinet Ministers in the Government of Canada and those who work in the employ of the Government of Canada and its various agencies.
I do not suggest for one moment that this Bill is a complete answer to the conflict of interest situation or that indeed it provides a code of conduct for Members of the federal Cabinet or the officers of the Government of Canada. However, it at least offers an indication that some legislative action can be taken in order to provide not only for the protection of the public but for the preservation of the high degree of honesty and integrity which the public expects of the elected people who assume the offices of Cabinet Ministers in the Government of Canada and those who also assume various other offices within the Government of Canada.
What I really mean by the spirit of Bill C-210 is that we recognize that we must impose upon those who hold the high offices of Cabinet Ministers some restrictions regarding their activities and we must establish some method by which they are held accountable for their actions even though, by com-

March 20, 1984
Government Affairs Control Act
parison, those in the private sector would not be held responsible in the same way. Simply stated, we want to impose a higher degree of responsibility upon members of the Cabinet and upon those who assume office within the Government.
1 am reminded of a survey that was referred to on a television program. In that survey, people were asked what qualities they were most concerned with in elected representatives. That is to say, it asked what qualities the people felt were most important in those seeking public office. It was very clear from the survey that what people expected from candidates for public office was, first and foremost, honesty. Second, they expected intelligence, and third, they expected an element of compassion. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the quality which everyone desires in those elected and seeking public office is that of honesty. That is really what Bill C-210 and its provisions are all about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Just a moment, please. I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member. He should know his Bill better than I do, but I had read a Bill C-208 standing in the name of the Hon. Member. This is the third time the Hon. Member has mentioned a Bill C-210. Just to avoid any confusion, perhaps it would be possible for a correction to be made.


Howard Edward Crosby: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The number of the Bill is indeed C-208. I might explain that it was introduced in the House of Commons during an earlier session. I am guilty of experiencing some confusion with the numbers. However, for the record, the number of the Bill is C-208. It is, as I have said, an Act to control conflicts of interest in government affairs, and the short title, for the record, is the Government Affairs Control Act.
I indicated that my purpose is to advance what I believe to be the interest of the public in terms of the responsibilities of elected officials, and particularly members of the Cabinet, and that is, the preservation of honesty and the assurance that they will deal honestly with public matters that are brought to their attention. There are other Bills before the House that relate to conflicts of interest and provide codes of conduct. I am reminded of a Bill introduced at the first session of this Thirty-second Parliament by the former Member for Nepean-Carleton, the Hon. Walter Baker. He introduced a Bill numbered C-679 which is entitled the Public Officers Standards of Conduct Act. That Bill contains much more extensive provisions that would affect a much larger group of public officials including, as I understand, Members of Parliament. For the moment, the Bill that I propose simply applies, as I have said, to members of the Cabinet and to those who hold public office.
I would like to review briefly the provisions of Bill C-208 in order to indicate how the Act would apply. First and foremost, the Act defines the persons who would be included by the term government officer and official. As I have indicated, that would include members of the Cabinet and all employees and officers of the Crown including officers of Crown agencies. In Clause 3, the Bill specifically sets out all of those circumstances which constitute conflicts of interest. That is to say, it
sets out in some detail the circumstances under which a Cabinet Minister or government officer would be considered to be involved in a conflict of interest. That includes, for example, a situation in which a government officer or Cabinet Minister becomes involved in a contract or in bestowing any kind of benefit on another person.
The importance of setting out in clear terms conflict of interest situations is that when these situations arise, some action can be taken. The action proposed by Clause 4 of the Bill is that the Deputy Registrar General, having been made aware of a conflict of interest situation, presents the facts and circumstances to a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. The judge of the Federal Court of Canada can then conduct a judicial review and determine what action ought to be taken in order to protect the public interest with respect to that conflict of interest. The action that could be taken by the Federal Court judge in the case of a Cabinet Minister who involves himself or herself in a conflict of interest situation is that the appointment could be terminated. That is relatively drastic action but certainly action totally justified when a Cabinet Minister becomes involved in a conflict of interest.
The administration of the Act would fall under the Deputy Registrar General, and that is the officer who now administers the so-called voluntary code of conduct or guidelines that applies to members of the Cabinet and employees within offices of Cabinet Ministers. Provision is made for the administration of the Act in that way.
One problem that exists, and I think one of the reasons why we do not have clear conflict of interest legislation in Canada or a code of conduct applicable to Members of the House of Commons, Cabinet Ministers and other government officers and officials, is that it is a very difficult subject with which to deal. It is very difficult to define specifically the things that constitute breaches of a code of proper behaviour or indeed a conflict of interest. I want to illustrate the effect of this Act in clear terms so that we all know what we are talking about when we seek to present to the House of Commons conflict of interest legislation or legislation establishing a code of conduct.
By way of example, Mr. Speaker, Clause 3(1 )(f) of the Bill would declare a conflict of interest situation as being one in which an employee or an official of the Government of Canada including a Cabinet Minister gives preferential treatment or privileged access to others and particularly to former employees or officials of the Government of Canada. Very simply, that means that if a Cabinet Minister gives preferential treatment to a former employee of the Government, a conflict of interest situation arises.
I have before me a newspaper report which makes it very clear that that is exactly what happened in the case of Jim Coutts. As all of us know, he was principal secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and resigned from that post to seek a seat in Parliament. He was unsuccessful for reasons known to the voters of Spadina. If anyone wants to ask
March 20, 1984

me what the reasons were I would be glad to contribute my view. I will not even mention his arrogance or his career in the Public Service in which he assumed authority beyond the scope ever intended to be assumed by any public servant. He was defeated in the election, and that verdict has my complete endorsement. Did Mr. Coutts quit and go off into so-called honest employment? No, Mr. Coutts could not give up the kind of activities he had pursued while he was in government on the public payroll. Instead, he established himself in the riding of Spadina in Toronto as a sort of super-parliamentarian or extracurricular parliamentarian. He was defeated, but he continues to reside in Spadina notwithstanding the fact that he claims to be a former resident of Alberta and to have lived in other parts of Canada, including Ottawa.
According to this public report by Lawrence Martin which appeared in our so-called national newspaper, Mr. Coutts is the man to contact if you need some help in Ottawa, where he still maintains an apartment. A Mr. Chen wanted to get his father to Toronto from Hong Kong and got hung up in red tape. The article reads:
Call Jim and he'll call Immigration Minister Lloyd Axworthy. When Jim calls, people such as Mr. Axworthy still listen.
The article goes on to say exactly how that immigration case was settled and how the subject of it got into Canada-just because Jimmy Coutts called Lloyd Axworthy. apparently there is no law on record that says to Jimmy Coutts and the former Minister of Employment and Immigration, now the Minister of Transport, that they simply cannot get together on the telephone and decide who shall come into Canada and who shall not according to their own ideas and attitudes.
Clause 3 of Bill C-208 would make it a conflict of interest when a Cabinet Minister gives preferential treatment and privileged access to a former employee and officer of the Government. It is a shame that there is no legislation on the books that would prohibit that kind of action on the part of a Cabinet Minister and a former government official. If we only pass this one provision of Bill C-208 it would stop Mr. Jim Coutts from calling a Cabinet Minister, as reported in this article and in other places, and getting preferential treatment. Is it too much to ask the Parliament of Canada to pass a law to stop that kind of activity forever so that no person in the country will get special treatment simply because of a relationship that existed in the past and is projected into the future?
I will not even give advice to Liberals-perhaps they do not want it-but I would ask them if they want a man like James Coutts as the leader of their Party, a man who goes to Toronto and sets himself up in the constituency of Spadina as a kind of super-parliamentarian. It is not enough that he calls Cabinet Ministers and gets immigration cases fixed, now he wants to become leader of the Liberal Party. I hope they make him leader of the Liberal Party because then all Canadians will see what kind of person he is. I will not have to stand up in the House of Commons and list the mischief he has performed in the country and the arrogance he has shown for the governmental process over the years. If the Bill stops that preferential
Government Affairs Control Act treatment then it will serve the interests of Parliament and of Canada.
There are many other cases that have come to light that demand this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I want to refer to the travesty that took place in February or March of 1983 and which was evident in the House of Commons by the "Coal-gate" affair. It involved a former Minister of the Crown, Alastair Gillespie, who, notwithstanding so-called guidelines issued by the Prime Minister, set out to obtain a very special kind of contract with the Crown. He did this with the full knowledge of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who was at that time Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and with the full knowledge of other Members of the Government. When the case was brought to light they said that the guidelines were just voluntary and that he did not have to observe them. They clearly prohibit the kind of arrangement made by Mr. Gillespie, but apparently they are only voluntary guidelines and if Mr. Gillespie does not see fit to observe them there is nothing the Government can do.
There was a hue and cry from Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and of the New Democratic Party, and together we brought a resolution to the House demanding that a parliamentary committee inquire into the subject and set guidelines. It was defeated by the Liberal Government. Instead, it appointed a task force to establish conflict of interest guidelines and a code of conduct. It is supposed to report by the end of 1984. It will be interesting to see what it says, but if it does not bring forward recommendations to stop the Coutts type special treatment or the Gillespie type nibbling at the public purse, then its work will have been useless.
There are provisions in the Senate and House of Commons Act and in the Canada Elections Act governing the qualifications of Members of Parliament and the Senate. I can give you a horrible example of that, Mr. Speaker. In the Constitution Act it is set out very clearly that if a Senator is convicted of a felony, a serious offence, he or she must vacate the seat. We have such a case in the Senate of Canada. We have a Senator who was convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada who still sits in the Senate, who was fined $25,000, who could pay that fine two or three times over from the amount he has received in Senate compensation since he was convicted, but nobody is the least concerned about it. I can tell you that the people of Canada are worried about that kind of mischief, Mr. Speaker. They recognize that there ought to be a law that Members of Parliament, Senators, Cabinet officers and all government officials should not be allowed to get away with a standard of conduct lower than the standards that prevail in the private sector among ordinary people. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker; the public insists upon parliamentarians and members of Government having a standard higher than normal.
I have presented Bill C-208 which deals with one aspect of the problem, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the Parliament of Canada to pass that measure; all I want is that it be referred to a committee so that we will at least recognize that we know a problem exists. We know that the public demands high stand-

March 20, 1984
Government Affairs Control Act
ards and we should be prepared, at least, to look into the imposition of standards on ourselves to govern our conduct and our position with respect to matters of personal interest. At least, then, we will have relieved ourselves of the burden which is places on us to provide a code of conduct with which we can all live and from which the people of Canada will benefit.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased with this opportunity to speak to the issue of conflicts of interest, and more specifically to Bill C-208, an Act to provide for the control of conflicts of interests in Government affairs, introduced by the Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).
Mr. Speaker, it is a subject that is very close to us and that requires reflection. In fact, for over twenty years a great deal of reflection, effort and initiative has been expended on this matter by the Government. The concept that official duties, public or otherwise, should be performed in an entirely objective and disinterested manner-which is the principle of integrity-is the cornerstone of all good Government, and I am pleased to see that the Member for Halifax West also recognizes the importance of this issue and has put it before the House for consideration.
Bill C-208 which the Hon. Member is presenting today gives a list of personal activities that constitute circumstances where a conflict of interest arises for a Minister or public servant; it authorizes the Deputy Registrar General to inquire into cases of conflict of interest and to put the results before a judge of the Federal Court of Canada. The judge would then take the necessary steps or measures. If there is a conflict of interest, he may terminate the employee's employment and, in the case of an official who is not an employee, suspend or revoke the appointment of the official. Interestingly, although the Bill before the House is aimed at maintaining a standard of ethical conduct, it tends to stress the control aspect, and I would refer Hon. Members to the explanatory note on page la):
The purpose of this bill is to ameliorate the control of conflicts of interest by Cabinet ministers and officers and employees of the Government of Canada by defining the circumstances under which a conflict of interest is deemed to arise and by providing a method of enforcement through the Deputy Registrar General and the Federal Court of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, before going any further, I would like to remind the Members of this House that in our system of Government, the issue of ethical conduct is still relatively recent. I said earlier that the Government has been considering this question for twenty years, and I am referring to the matter of establishing a set of ethical guidelines for members of Cabinet and Government employees. Mr. Speaker, I believe that any new initiatives in this field should be put in perspective and be considered within the general context of the Canadian situation. If we go back to the sixties, which is not so long ago, we find there were no conflict of interest guidelines.
It was then up to one's own standards of moral behaviour and one's personal conscience. Employees did not have to be told what to do. When they entered the Public Service, they did whatever was necessary so as not to be in a conflict of interest situation. Guidelines and regulations were not necessary.
I realize that times have changed, but to what extent? What do we have to do now to make sure that public servants observe high standards of ethical conduct? I believe this is a question that the present Members of this House will have to consider very carefully.
Times have changed, and the Government realized this early on. In 1964, the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, wrote to his Cabinet Ministers, stressing the importance of maintaining a high standard of ethical conduct and emphasizing that the same standards should apply to their staff. In the same letter, he formulated what was to become the basis and the essence of the standard of conduct to which all public servants would have to conform for many years to come. I shall, if I may, quote some extracts from this letter, Mr. Speaker:
It is by no means sufficient for a person in a position of responsibility in the public service to act within the law. There is an obligation not simply to obey the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny. The conduct of public affairs must be above all suspicion, in terms of standards of conduct, objectivity and equal treatment.
Another aspect of Prime Minister Pearson's philosophy in this field was that Ministers must refrain from giving preferential treatment to their friends and acquaintances, that Ministers of the Crown and their excluded staff must act in such a way that no one would consider it possible to have privileged access to staff or services, that they should not have a pecuniary interest that would conflict with their official duties and that they should not use information acquired in the performance of their official duties for their personal benefit. Mr. Speaker, these points, as you may have noticed are still relevant.
In the late sixties, the Public Service of Canada underwent many changes. The number of employees increased, the duties and specializations became more diversified, more technical and, of course, more complex. Many Government organizations were decentralized. The situation had to be reviewed because it had become important that Government employees be better informed about what was expected of them in their particular field. The Government acknowledged the situation and, in June 1973, the Prime Minister told the House, and I quote:
An effort will be made by the Government to reconcile the very real desire of the people of Canada to have people of eminence in their service ... with the important principle of avoiding a conflict of interest situation where such a person would serve his own personal interest in serving the public.
That was when the Government began drafting conflict of interest guidelines. As you recall, Mr. Speaker, guidelines for Ministers of the Crown and public servants were issued in December 1973, guidelines for people appointed by the Gover-
March 20, 1984

nor in Council were issued in November 1974, guidelines similar to those applicable to people appointed by the Governor in Council were issued in November 1975 for Lieutenant Governors and, finally, those guidelines were extended in 1978 to cover ambassadors, high commissioners and heads of missions. In November 1975, guidelines were issued for so-called excluded personnel, namely people working in a Minister's office who are not necessarily public servants. Finally, in January 1978, guidelines for any Government employee- Minister or public servant-were issued to avoid conflict of interest situations after their employment with the Government.
The purpose has always been the same, Mr. Speaker: to maintain the impartiality and the integrity of the Government.
I am talking about the initiative of the Government in that field, and that leads me to mention a project which was begun not so long ago. I am referring, of course, to the task force on conflicts of interest set up last July at the request of the Prime Minister. Their mandate, Mr. Speaker, is to review the policies and rules which now govern the conduct of people who hold or have held public office. The mandate emphasizes that the study must take into consideration, first, the fact that those people must discharge their official duties so as to maintain public confidence towards the Government and, second-an important point raised by the Hon. Member for Halifax West, I am sure-the fact that the Government has to recruit highly qualified people with wide-ranging career profiles to look after public affairs and the administration of the country.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of conflicts of interests is a complex one. What is important, and that is the difficulty, when faced with the task of developing standards of ethics for such a large body as the Public Service, is to strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, a set of rules that are strict enough to ensure integrity and public confidence and, on the other hand, a system which is reasonable enough so as not to discourage Canadians from entering the Public Service and which does not preclude the Government from hiring the qualified employees it needs to administer the nation's business and offer to the public high quality services which the public not only expects but, I add, which Canadians are also entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that conflicts of interests are a complex matter. One point to consider is the field of application. Is it more appropriate and more equitable to have only one set of rules for all employees, whatever their rank and function, or several for different groups?
I note that the proposal introduced by my colleague from Halifax West, and I refer to the definitions that are included in the measure, applies to any member of the Cabinet who holds a portfolio in the Government or who is a Minister of State, to any official of the Government or of any government
Government Affairs Control Act agency, as well as to any person, other than an employee, who is a member of the governing board, council or body or who holds some office or official appointment in the Government or a Government agency.
In some cases, similarity of responsibilities could justify a single wide ranging system. However, in other cases, more particularized systems could be more effective in meeting our objectives.
Another thing I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the method or means to be used to ensure that employees adhere to the standards of ethics advocated by the Government and to avoid that they be tempted to serve their personal interests before the interests of the public they are supposed to serve. While I recognize that there is some need to exercise control, I must admit that I have reservations as to the means to do so. In my view, an excessively rigid system would interfere with the obvious requirement for the Government to hire the qualified personnel that is needed, and indeed, it might possibly affect motivation and morale among existing staff. I repeat that we must aim for a system or mechanisms which provide a balance between the need to guarantee the integrity of the Government system and the necessity to attract and retain qualified and able people within our organization.
I believe that the whole issue of control and of the proper mechanisms to ensure this control must be reviewed. I am speaking about both the administrative mechanisms and the legal provisions which can be implemented. I regognize that it is not easy to determine what is the best way to protect the Government against disreputable practices used by employees, for instance. But still we must aim for a balanced position between legal provisions and administrative mechanisms, in other words, acts and regulations on the one hand, and procedures and guidelines on the other. If I had enough time, Mr. Speaker, I would explain the difference between an act and a regulation. However, I am running out of time and I would like to conclude my comments.
Mr. Speaker, a system should reflect the balance between rigidity and flexibility and between the general and the specific. If we look at the present system, we find that Government employees are already subject to several acts which dictate their behaviour and provide penalties for possible offences. I am thinking for instance about the provisions dealing with fraud and corruption in the Criminal Code and in other acts such as the Customs Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Income Tax Act, the Public Service Employment Act, especially Section 33, as well as many other acts which for lack of time I cannot mention here. All of them provide guidelines and prescribe a certain behaviour for the public servants to whom they apply.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that these laws are useful because they undoubtedly discourage temptation and dishonesty and clarify possible penalties for certain offences. However, some of these laws are sometimes needlessly restrictive and do not always

March 20, 1984
Government Affairs Control Act provide an effective answer to cover the various activities of an employee. We must look closely at practices generally viewed as disreputable and determine the most appropriate system to define prohibitions and penalties. Experience and research show that if penalties are too severe, people have a tendency to overlook reprehensible actions. However, if the system is too flexible, it may invite abuses. We must not forget that cut and dried situations are very scarce in our system. The difference between a serious offence and what is simply an act which calls for a reprimand is often difficult to determine. Any government must have at its disposal, based on the nature of the misbehaviour or the seriousness of the offence, several means for settling the issue, such as a reprimand, disciplinary action, suspension and even dismissal. These mechanisms are already provided for in our legislation. I am thinking about the Public Service Employment Act, which contains a clear and specific provision about conflicts of interest for public servants, and I have already mentioned others. I would like to thank the Hon. Member for having called the attention of the House to this question. At the end of his comments, he moved that the subject matter of the Bill be referred to a committee. I believe that, in due time, as parliamentarians, we should seriously consider this very important issue, and I thank the Hon. Member for having given me the opportunity to make these few comments.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for introducing Bill C-208, an Act to provide for the control of conflicts of interest in government affairs. This is long overdue with regard to some of the examples of conflicts of interest we have witnessed on the government side over the years. When they are caught, they have no shame whatsoever and they carry on. They do not have the decency to resign.
I will give an example of a conflict. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, recently transferred the auditing of Canada Ports Corporation from the Auditor General to a friend of his in Winnipeg, a Liberal hack. Of course we in Winnipeg have a great knowledge of ports so that is a great place for it to go. The Minister of Transport had no shame in transferring this nice little plum to a friend of his in Winnipeg who has been a Liberal official agent responsible for collecting funds donated to the Party and forwarding them to Ottawa since 1978.
That is an example of a conflict of interest. We should not be using our powers as Members of Parliament or Members of the Cabinet to look after our friends back home in this manner. This was of great concern to the Auditor General. The Auditor General said that such appointments should be perceived to be independent by all Canadians. There is nothing independent about giving the auditing work in the Canada
Ports Corporation to a Liberal hack in Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker. That is a definite conflict.


John Leslie Evans: Why do you not say those things out of the House?


Mr. Fisher:: Go outside and say that.


John Leslie Evans: I will sue you right up to your neck.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I hear a lot of yelling and shouting from Liberals in the House, Mr. Speaker. It is something along the lines that I am afraid to attack Liberals outside of the House. I have been attacking Liberals outside and inside the House for 20 years and I will continue to expose them at every opportunity.


John Leslie Evans: You just attack individuals in the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I would also like to mention our former colleague in the House, the late Hon. Walter Baker. This was a matter of great concern to him.


John Leslie Evans: You do not have the right to mention Walter Baker's name.


A. Daniel McKenzie: He introduced a Private Member's Bill to deal with conflict of interest. Mr. Baker stated that ex-Ministers and former public officials covered by the conduct code would face fines of up to $10,000 for each standard breach in a conflict of interest situation. Mr. Baker's Bill was a result of Opposition MPs' frustration over their inability to force the resignation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when he was involved in a special arrangement with another former Liberal Cabinet Minister. He was caught but did not have the honour and decency to resign. That is why we need this type of legislation as outlined by my friend from Halifax West and the late Walter Baker.
Mr. Baker said that there have to be legal sanctions governing the conduct of public officials because the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) voluntary conflict of interest guidelines were not working. We have seen ample evidence over the years that these voluntary guidelines simply were not working. We now need laws to deal with this.
Mr. Baker went on to point out that public life in Canada has been degraded by the revelations in the Coalgate deal. Another example, of course, is the Minister of Transport giving a contract to his friend in Winnipeg. That is why many Canadians are disgusted with Parliament and Members of Parliament and this type of conduct.
On March 15 I was proud and also saddened to see my friend and former colleague, the former Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist), handing in his resignation because he was involved in a tax trial. He did the honourable thing in the parliamentary tradition, he resigned. I would like to read part of his statement. He stated: "It is my unshakeable belief that my constituents are entitled to the best possible representation without any shadow of doubt cast on the integrity of their Member of Parliament." That is an honourable state-
March 20, 1984

ment and he did the honourable thing. We have the example of another Liberal Member who is involved in a tax trial, the Member for Burin-St. Georges (Mr. Simmons). We do not see him resigning his seat.
If you are involved in a tax trial, Mr. Speaker, you could be guilty. It is time consuming. You are going to have to spend time in court, with your lawyers and so forth. You are certainly not going to be able to fulfill your duties properly as a Member of Parliament. It was certainly refreshing to see someone with that sense of honour in the House setting an example for other Members. I was very pleased to see that a number of the media editorialized on this saying that it was an honourable day when we finally saw a Member resigning when he had a conflict of interest rather than hanging on as a person who has no shame whatsoever would do.
I hope that Government Members do not intend to talk this Bill out. It has a lot of merit. There have certainly been enough examples over the years to show why we need stricter guidelines and laws to deal with conflicts of interest after what we have observed many Members on the Liberal side doing over the past years.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise very briefly to speak and give general support to Bill C-208, an Act to provide for the control of conflicts of interests in Government affairs. The explanatory notes states:
The purpose of this bill is to ameliorate the control of conflicts of interest by Cabinet ministers and officers and employees of the Government of Canada by defining the circumstances under which a conflict of interest is deemed to arise and by providing a method of enforcement through the Deputy Registrar General and the Federal Court of Canada.
I do not intend to discuss this at length, but we have had a number of examples during the last year which have been referred to by the author of the Bill, which have demonstrated at least some inadequacies with the current informal guidelines as to the code of behaviour. I do not want to say anything more than that. However, I believe that there has been, amongst the public and many of the media, as well as Members on both sides of the House, some feeling that those informal guidelines are, at best, rather inadequate.
In earlier months some reference has been made by Members on the other side to the fact that after all these are only guidelines. At least one of the debates we had in the House on one of the subjects referred to, I believe it was the Coalgate affair, was enough to cause many of us to think we needed something that codified the area of conflict of interest a little more carefully and succinctly.
There may be some problems with the definition as proposed in Bill C-208 itself. My colleagues and I have no objection to the Bill and are interested in seeing it receive consideration in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We are pleased to give our support to take it at least that far.
There is one possible problem which I can see. We should take some care, for example, with respect to some new concepts of management which have been referred to even in the Throne Speech. For example, these involve labour representa-
Government Affairs Control Act tion on boards of directors and the concept of worker directors, which has been explored and experimented with in some jurisdictions across the country, particularly with regard to Crown corporations. This idea is in its infancy. I would be careful about Clause 3 which states:
(1) For purposes of this Act, a conflict of interest in relation to Government affairs shall be deemed to occur when any of the following circumstances exists:
(a) when an employee or official of the Government or of a Government agency seeks, holds, enjoys, undertakes or executes any contract, agreement or arrangement of any kind with the Government, any Government agency or Government officer for valuable consideration, or supplies or provides any goods, services, work or matter of any kind to the Government or a Government agency or a Government officer for valuable consideration.
It may be that such a clause, if presented without some caveat elsewhere in the Bill, might prevent us from exploring some of the new concepts in industrial relations which are being given some consideration. With that consideration, and there may certainly be others, I would like to see the Bill go to committee now so we could give some attention to that area just to ensure that we do not kill the possibility of an idea before it has been further explored.
With that comment, I am pleased to support the thrust of the Bill and I congratulate the Member for introducing it. I hope that by speaking briefly I can assist in seeing that it does get some further consideration.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely interested in rising to speak to this particular Bill. I had a good deal of material that I wanted to go through.
The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) just raised a rather interesting point. I think the Bill is so seriously flawed that there is no way we should send it to committee until it has been reconsidered by its author.
Let me give some examples. I am a Member who represents a large number of public servants. Probably 50 per cent of the people in my riding are public servants and a higher proportion are the families of public servants. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West just referred to Clause 3 of the Bill which states:
For purposes of this Act, a conflict of interest in relation to Government affairs shall be deemed to occur when any of the following circumstances exist:
The Hon. Member just read Clause 3(l)(a). Let me read Clause 3(1 )(b), which reads:
(b) when an employee or official of the Government or of a Government agency sells, transfers, conveys, leases or otherwise disposes of any property or interest in property to the Government or a Government agency or a Government officer;
I can think of some situations where this would arise, especially in Ottawa where we have increased the presence of the federal Government. Let us suppose that a public servant owns some land in Ottawa or on the outskirts of Ottawa and the federal Government indicates its desire to build a federal office building there. It indicates to the individual that it wants to purchase that land. If the federal public servant sells the

March 20, 1984
Government Affairs Control Act
land, immediately a conflict of interest in relation to government affairs shall be deemed to have occurred.
What happens when this conflict of interest is deemed to occur? Let us move on to find out what heinous things can happen to the individual. Clause 4 of the Bill states:
Where a conflict of interest is deemed by Section 3 to occur, the Deputy Registrar General shall apply-
-not may apply-
-to a judge of the Federal Court of Canada seeking a declaration that a conflict of interest has occurred and an order directing the action to be taken by each person involved in the conflict of interest.
In situations where individuals in Ottawa who happen to work for the federal Government, whether they are secretaries, clerks or deputy ministers, were involved in a land transaction, a conflict of interest is deemed to have occurred and action shall be taken.
This is the kind of nonsensical overkill that does not make for good law in the country. It seems to me that we cannot deal with conflict of interest with laws and laws alone. We now have laws on the books that deal with conflict of interest. I believe we also have a very good set of conflict of interest guidelines that set general principles that should guide Members of Parliament and members of the Public Service in their behaviour in situations where the possibility of conflict of interest arises.
I would like to go through precisely what those guidelines are. They were brought down by a person whom I considered to be a great Canadian, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in 1973. Let me quote from these guidelines as follows:
1.	These Guidelines may be cited as the Public Servants Conflict of Interest Guidelines.
They are currently in force and have been since they were brought in by this Government in 1973.
2.	It is by no means sufficient for a person in a position of responsibility in the public service to act within the law. There is an obligation not simply to obey the law but to act in a manner so scrupulous that it will bear the closest public scrutiny.
Laws dealing with conflict of interest situations exist right now. These guidelines set general principles above that law. Guideline 2 continues:
In order that honesty and impartiality may be beyond doubt, public servants should not place themselves in a position where they are under obligation to any person who might benefit from special consideration or favour on their part or seek in any way to gain special treatment from them. Equally, a public servant should not have a pecuniary interest that could conflict in any manner with the discharge of his official duties.
That guideline is quite clear. I do not believe there is any need to make additions to it. The guidelines continue:
3.	No conflict should exist or appear to exist between the private interests of public servants and their official duties. Upon appointment to office, public servants are expected to arrange their private affairs in a manner that will prevent conflicts of interest from arising.
4.	Public servants should exercise care in the management of their private affairs so as not to benefit, or appear to benefit, from the use of information acquired during the course of their official duties, which information is not generally available to the public.
5.	Public servants should not place themselves in a position where they could derive any direct or indirect benefit or interest from any government contracts over which they can influence decisions.
6.	All public servants are expected to disclose to their superiors, in a manner to be notified, all business, commercial or financial interests where such interests might conceivably be construed as being in actual or potential conflict with their official duties.
7.	Public servants should hold no outside office or employment that could place on them demands inconsistent with their official duties or call into question their capacity to perform those duties in an objective manner.
8.	Public servants should not accord, in the performance of their official duties, preferential treatment to relatives or friends or to organizations in which they or their relatives of friends have an interest, financial or otherwise.
The key to this is that this is a set of guidelines that guide behaviour. They are a set of principles against which behaviour can be evaluated and measured. However, I suggest that measurement is, by definition, subjective. It will be a matter of degree and it will have to be evaluated within that context. I suggest that to try to codify the moral behaviour in a statute such as this is an impossible task. To bring such a law into being would make it extremely difficult to operate at all because this net is cast so broadly that it goes beyond a matter of whether a public servant could benefit from becoming involved in the decision-making about a certain situation. It deals with public servants involving themselves in any relationship with the Government whether or not they have an interest or the ability to affect the decisions that are being made. If the NCC, being a government agency, leased or purchased land held by a current public servant for a new park-and this could be a high probability in the City of Ottawa-the public servant would be in direct conflict of interest according to this law. The extent of the ludicrous nature of this particular law when we have adequate conflict of interest guidelines-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the other day I rose to ask the Minister responsible for housing his reactions to the recent Ontario decision to omit both the City of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto from the 1984 allocations for public non-profit housing. I believe the Ontario Minister of Housing, Mr. Claude Bennett, is ignoring the traditional partnership which exists in the social housing area. He is attacking the most vulnerable people living in the
March 20, 1984

Toronto region because of his actions. Furthermore, he is attacking the smooth operation of federal-provincial affairs in housing matters.
Let me look at those three areas and explain my charges to the House. First, social housing projects are a partnership. There are three main streams under this marvellous federal program: the co-operative stream handled by private citizens; the private non-profit stream handled by churches, associations and other private groups; and the one about which I am concerned, the public non-profit stream which is a partnership among federal, provincial and municipal governments.
The federal Government allocates a budget annually for public non-profit social housing. In Ontario this year that budget allows for the construction of 1,400 units. The provincial Government then takes those funds and divides them, presumably equally, across each province to each municipality. The municipalities then receive the funds and the unit allocations. The build the projects and they supervise and manage them into the future.
By and large this system has been successful. It is one of which we in Ottawa can be very proud. We have seen over
100.000	units built from coast to coast in the past four years under the General Social Housing Program. Regretfully Ontario under Claude Bennett has attacked the system financially in the past. By now ignoring the needs of the Metropolitan Toronto region he is attacking the people themselves.
Metro Toronto, together with the City of Toronto have over
5.000	applications on file from people who need to live in social housing projects. Canada's biggest urban area faces the prospect that it will not get one unit allocation to meet the needs of these 5,000 applications. This abuse by the Government of Ontario has hurt both the people and the facilities at the municipal level designed to serve them.
What kind of people am I talking about? They are single parents, disabled, pensioners, and low income families. Let me take an example from my own region. In Peel we have excellent facilities managed and built by the Peel Non-Profit Housing Corporation. One thousand seven hundred units have been built in this area between 1979 and 1983. Seven hundred and seventy-three of those units are within my own riding of Mississauga North. Two hundred and thirty units are specifically rent geared to income. Of the other 543, families generally must have incomes annually below $29,000 to be eligible to live there. We know today that in a city like Mississauga $29,000 annually is not a rich man's income. There are another 400 units currently under construction. One hundred will be specifically geared to income and 300 will be at market rents for moderate income people. These are the people the Government of Ontario is attacking by its neglect.
The other day when I asked my question, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc) who replied said:
-we recognize in the area of social housing that we must make a special effort to direct housing units to those most in need and who have been waiting the longest.
Adjournment Debate
These are the people who are being overlooked by this gesture from Ontario. It is unconscionable.
Further, this action attacks the basic partnership between the federal and provincial governments which I described a moment ago. This attack had already taken place financially. In Peel's budget for 1984 $16 million is being allocated to this area. The Ontario Government is paying only 4 per cent of that figure. The federal government is paying 51 per cent. The tenants are paying 44 per cent. Now we have a new strain put on this partnership, the strain of ignoring the most populated city with the largest number of applications and with the greatest proven need.
I ask the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary to object most strenuously and to point out the basic negligence and abuse that this move by Ontario represents.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I feel first of all that the Hon. Member should be praised for his dedication to the cause of social housing especially for medium and low income families.
I wish to reply to the question which the Hon. Member raised on March 15 concerning the allocation of funds for the construction of public non-profit housing units within Metro Toronto municipalities.
The Hon. Member is certainly aware that under federal-provincial agreements, the federal government allocates funds for social housing to the provinces which in turn are responsible for sharing these funds between their respective municipalities. To meet the criteria of the program, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation allocates these funds to the provinces on the basis of their respective requirements for proper and affordable housing.
On this basis, the share of the funds earmarked for Metro Toronto municipalities should have been considerable. Unfortunately, the Ontario government seems to apply its own rules for setting up priorities and has decided to ignore the needs of that metropolitan area.
Mr. Speaker, the federal minister responsible for housing has asked CMHC officials to examine all 1984 proposals to determine priorities. He has also invited provincial representatives to carry out a similar study of the housing quotas allocated to them. As the minister himself indicated in reply to this question, the province of Ontario has ignored the needs of medium and low income families living in the Toronto area in not providing this urban centre with unit allocations.
Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that the province of Ontario is using this pressure tactics to force the federal Government to increase its housing unit allocations to meet the needs of that area. The province knows fully well that it takes quite some time to put together public non-profit social housing development packages within the various municipalities,

March 20, 1984
Adjournment Debate
and it is unfortunate that it ignored the housing needs of families and senior citizens when it decided two months ago to distribute the funds allocated by the federal Government.


EMPLOYMENT-ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO NOVA SCOTIA RIDINGS. (B) AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM FUNDING
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago I raised a question in the Chamber with respect to the cutting off of funds which were allocated to a program which happened to be occurring in Dartmouth, though it was a metropolitan area program. It dealt with and related to affirmative action designed to assist women entering the work force and women desirous of reentering the work force, once they had left it for one reason or another. The funding was cut off quite unilaterally, arbitrarily and suddenly.
Perhaps the funding of projects of this nature should be dealt with at arm's length but this program has particular significance because it dealt almost entirely with members of the black community. I am rather curious about why this would have happened at a particular point in time when funds were privately and secretly being made available to Liberal Members of Parliament for whatever projects they wanted.
At the same time, I was very curious and will continue to be curious in the weeks ahead about the decision process behind the decision of the Lion. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), the distinguished senior Minister from Nova Scotia, to cause massive disruption in the lives of students attending the Nova Scotia Nautical Institute. He decided unilaterally that he wanted that institute to be located within his constituency in a place called Port Hawkesbury. I suspect he wanted it there because he will not receive the pipeline activity for his constituency which he thought he might receive this election year. Let us not deal with that but with the Nautical Institute.
The Nautical Institute has been located in Halifax for 112 years. Four thousand students pass through its doors annually. It is the principal and indeed only nautical institute of its kind for the private sector in Atlantic Canada. It is the place to which seamen, engineers, mates, mates seeking master's papers and all of those seamen who must have emergency training must go. It is located in Halifax because Halifax is the centre of marine activity in Atlantic Canada.
Halifax is the most active port in Atlantic Canada and it is the university centre for Atlantic Canada. To become a master seaman today, one must have an extraordinarily high level of knowledge of marine law. Dalhousie University is located in Halifax. To move the marine institute from Halifax to Port Hawkesbury would be to deny students access to that institution which offers the help they need.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me why it was that the universities were not consulted, the shipping companies were not consulted and the officers of Bedford Institute of Oceanology which has exchange services were not consulted?
Why were Fisheries and Oceans and other government Departments closely associated with the Nova Scotia Nautical Institute not consulted? Above all, why were the 4,000 students, 90 per cent of whom live within a half-hour's commuting distance of the school, not consulted? Does it not matter that a man spends two months at sea, comes home for the purpose of upgrading his certificate and is forced to move 200 miles away from his family, when in fact his livelihood keeps him away from his family? Why were the students not consulted? The students at the Nova Scotia Nautical Institute want answers to questions like that. Was there a quick fix?
Where was the Hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Regan)? Did he give up an $18 million project for a $5 million federal contribution toward a $50 million white elephant in the heart of an area already congested with traffic in the City of Halifax? Did he even know about it? Did he enter into a deal, a quid pro quo, so to speak? Talk about conflict of interest, Mr. Speaker.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us why this matter cannot be suspended; why any further movement should not be taken until such time as the students, the teaching staff, the institution, the shipping community, and government departments are all consulted so a rational, sensible decision can be made? The institute must be replaced and renewed and it should be renewed in the metropolitan area of Halifax-Dart-mouth somewhere, not on the Strait of Canso at Port Hawkesbury, depriving 90 per cent of the students daily access to their homes and families.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it would be a pleasure to answer the question put by the Hon. Member but I am afraid there is some misunderstanding about it. The answer I have in front of me is to a question that the Hon. Member put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) on February 23. That is not the question he put just now. I am afraid I do not have an answer for the question he just posed. The question listed for the late show, and which was submitted to the Department, was about a problem on February 23, not about the school and the students that the Hon. Member referred to. I will be very pleased to answer the question the Hon. Member just put by letter, but right now I will give the floor to another Member who has a question on the late show. Perhaps I can discuss this with my colleague.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For the purpose of clarification, I should say that the question announced for discussion tonight by the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) was Allocation of funds to Nova Scotia ridings, Affirmative action program funding, and the reference is Hansard, February 23, 1984, pages 1669 to 1670.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.
March 20, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Unfortunately there can be no point of order during the adjournment debate. I just put that on the record so that the matter might be clarified.


FORESTRY-NEGOTIATION OF FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS. (B) EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, on February 10 I put two questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in the absence of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia) who is responsible for forestry. I asked:
Can we have the commitment now from the Minister of Finance that the $5 million out of the $130 million that had been allocated will in fact be available-
That referred to the negotiations for a renewal of the Canada-B.C. forest subsidiary agreement. Initially, the federal Government had supposedly allocated some $52 million, to be matched by funds from the Province of British Columbia, for a $100 million plus campaign to begin to restock some of the
640.000	hectare backlog of non-satisfactorily restocked forest land in the Province. There has been a renewal of the existing agreement which, instead of providing for $52 million plus $52 million, provides for a total of $11 million being spent on that grave problem in the Province.
This is a missed opportunity, Mr. Speaker, which simply cries out for attention because, according to the federal Government's own reports, more than 30,000 direct jobs and
30.000	indirect jobs will be lost between the next 5 to 20 years in British Columbia alone. This will necessitate the probability of a massive financial bail-out of the entire Province of British Columbia, if we do not get started now on a massive reforestation project. It will be a disaster which is almost beyond comprehension to people like myself, the people I work with and the communities who depend on the forest industry for their very existence.
Another question I asked on that date of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in the absence of the Minister responsible for forestry, was whether he would give us some assurance that the moneys not spent from this year's allocation, because of the failure of the Province and the federal Government to reach agreements, will be added to whatever moneys might be planned for this coming fiscal year in order that we can save whatever little is left of the most important industry in this country. The Minister of Finance at that time answered that it would be given consideration.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Speaker, we had the government estimates which showed that expenditures forecast for 19841985 for forestry, as compared to the expenditures forecast for 1983-1984, fell in total by some 61 per cent, from $ 115 million to almost $45 million. This is at a time when not only British Columbia, but almost every major forestry province across Canada, is crying out in anguish because the fall-down effect is going to begin hitting very soon. We will see community after community go the same way as the former British
Adjournment Debate
Columbia community of Ocean Falls. It was totally obliterated from the map because we simply have not done the job.
My colleagues and I realize, Mr. Speaker, that under our Constitution-and this Party played a part in strengthening that section-the prime responsibility and jurisdiction is with the Province. However, the fact is, by the Government's own report, that unless we begin now to expend that money, whether or not it is matched, we are going to have to bail out the Province of British Columbia and communities in other Provinces anyway. While I can understand the problems of the Government, we cannot afford to wait any longer.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the action of the Minister of the Environment in not attending the founding meeting of the Canadian Council of Forest Industries just a few days ago, which was held just a couple of blocks away from Parliament Hill, was absolutely abominable. The Minister said in a recent meeting in Vancouver with the professional forestries association that he would do anything possible to ensure the forestry industry's survival. Shortly after making that commitment in British Columbia-and he made the same commitment to my leader on February 13 in the House of Commons-he did not attend that very important meeting. We have been trying for 10 or 20 years to get representatives of the Canadian forestry industry into one group which could speak with one united voice to the federal Government yet the Minister could not even go that few blocks to the conference. I do not know if he was visiting with royalty or what he was doing, but he should have at least accorded that industry the recognition of its rightful place in Canada.
That industry, in terms of dollars coming into this country, is the most important industry we have. Some Members on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, must get that message sunk in to their heads or we are all in for trouble in a few short years.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the charge concerning the absence of the Minister at that conference, I wish to tell the Hon. Member that when the Minister is here he will reply to that, I am sure.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question with respect to forest renewal, the framework for forest renewal approved by the federal cabinet in 1982 spoke of increasing the federal contribution to forest renewal in Canada to $130 million annually by 1987, through a new generation of five-year federal-provincial forestry agreements. It was understood, however, that the $130 million figure represented a notional amount for which funding for each agreement would be sought on a case by case basis through submissions to cabinet. Although only notional amounts, some Provinces, including British Columbia, took it for granted that the figures mentioned in the framework paper had been approved. Such is not the case.

March 20, 1984
Adjournment Debate
The Minister intends to put before his Cabinet colleagues federal-provincial agreements which would implement the forest renewal policy. Indeed, officials of the Canadian Forestry Service began negotiating such a deal with officials of the B.C. Ministry of Forests close to a year ago. As of January, 1984, it became obvious that it would not be possible to conclude any new agreement with B.C. which would allow us to launch a major forest renewal program before March 31. Since both the current intensive forest management agreement and the general development agreement expire on that date, the Minister agreed with provincial officials that an extension of the current agreement was the best course of action for now, thus avoiding a costly interruption of the federal-provincial co-operative forest management programs in British Columbia.
Earlier today the Minister tabled before Cabinet a proposal to obtain the $5.5 million required to carry the current agreement for one more year. A decision is expected momentarily and I do not foresee any difficulty in obtaining approval. This extension does not in any way preclude our reaching an agreement with British Columbia which would involve substantial levels of funding over a five-year period.
The proposal I just mentioned would see both Governments spend $11 million jointly this year, mainly on reforestation and silvicultural prescriptions as well as research and development. This would lay the groundwork for further initiatives to be
undertaken with the Province and industry of British Columbia, within the framework of a new forest renewal agreement that could be implemented as of 1985-86.
I take this opportunity to remind the Hon. Member that this Government has steadily increased its financial support to forestry in B.C. over the past years. Through the ongoing research and development work of the Pacific Forest Research Centre, the current intensive forest management agreement, the Ul/JC-Forest Sector Program and Co-operative Overseas Market Development Program, unique to B.C., we have brought federal expenditures in B.C. from $10 million in 1979-80 to $35 million in 1983-84, totalling over $112 million over the last five years. A few examples of this are, increased funding to the Faculty of Forestry at UBC, the upgrading of the Pacific Forest Research Centre in Victoria, and a current innovative study to develop an economic timber supply model for B.C.
Let me conclude by assuring Members of the House that this Government will maintain its commitment to the forest sector, in B.C. as well as in the rest of the country, as expressed in our policy on forest renewal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.28 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 21, 1984