1984-03-27

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 21, 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; and the amendment of Mr. Darling (p. 2292); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 2299).
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill we have before us is based on the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) which was presented over a month ago. In that Budget the Minister of Finance indicated that the borrowing requirements for this year would be $25.55 billion. In addition, he wanted $4 billion as a contingency allowance running into the year 1985-86, for a total amount in this Bill of $29.55 billion.
[DOT]	(mo)
A number of things have happened since the presentation of the Budget and the introduction of this Bill. It is quite apparent now that the demand for borrowing in the Budget and this Bill is no longer appropriate to today's conditions. That is the reason for the amendment which is before you, Mr. Speaker, specifically demanding a change in the Bill. May I point out that as of March 21, the Government had $8.1 billion on deposit with chartered banks, trust companies and the Bank of Canada. Let me also point out that under existing borrowing authority the Government expects to raise an additional $500 million or $600 million before this weekend is over. The Government currently has more cash on hand than it needs, even with its profligatory spending habits, to carry through until June 30.
It is unconscionable that the Government should ask us to approve this Bill in its present form. Indeed, if one analyzes the $8.1 billion presently on hand and takes at face value the $25.55 billion that the Government says it needs, then the right to borrow should be limited in this Bill to below $20 billion. There is no justification to grant the total amount
asked for in the Bill. The Bill is an attempt to have Parliament approve that which Parliament should not approve.
It would be different if we could trust the spending habits of the Government but it has become abundantly clear to all of us that the Government knows no limits in controlling its voracious appetite for money. If there is a nickel to be found, it will find two or three places to spend it.
Last year the Government overestimated the amount of money it would need for interest in the year ending March 31 of this year. You will also note that in the Supplementary Estimates the Government found that it had a provision for an extra $440 million. Did the Government reduce the deficit of Canada by $440 million as a result of a decline in interest rates for a period last year? Not at all. It spent that money and even more.
When the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) came before us at approximately this time last spring and produced estimates for the year 1983-84, those estimates involved spending in the order of $86 billion. By the time we were through with the Supplementary Estimates (C) for this year alone, those estimates climbed to $92.66 billion, which is an increase of over $6 billion. The Government overestimated and overspent. Part of that overspending was due to the fact that it saved $440 million in interest because of a short decline in interest costs for last year.
The fact is that if the Government saves money it will spend it. If it can borrow money it will spend it and does so faster than any other government in the history of this country. Parliament is required to stand up, be counted and demand that the Government pay attention to the future of Canada. We can only do that by denying this Government borrowing authority for moneys it clearly does not need. If we do not deny the Government, and if we allow the Government to have this Bill-on the face of it the Government does not need it; the Government could reduce the amount in the Bill by $10 billion and it would still have a lot of money-the Government will borrow the money and spend it. We cannot afford to give the Government that privilege.
The Liberals ask where would we save money? I have indicated to this House on a number of occasions, and I repeat, that it would not be very difficult for anyone to slice back at least $5 billion of this Government's spending without touching a single social program.
Is there a reason to pay for the insulation for people's homes, Sir? Is there any reason that the Government of Canada should borrow money to give people new furnaces? Is there any reason we should borrow money to buy French

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
butter at $5 a pound to maintain that high-falutin' restaurant on Sussex Drive in the Pearson Building? This kind of expenditure program, if it is only butter at $5 a pound from France, insulation, new furnaces or a host of advertising, or if it is large grants to corporations like the CBC and the Export Development Corporation, can be cut down. These expenses must be cut down.
To reduce seriously the amount of money in this Bill, to demand that this Bill be rethought, is not an unrealistic demand. We as a responsible Parliament must make that demand and we do make that demand. That is the purpose of the amendment before you, Sir.
I said the Minister was profligate. I have only to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister's own departmental spending on administration in the Ministry of Finance. That Department was budgeted to spend $26 million in March, 1981. This year that Department will have spent on administration alone $44.5 million. In the course of less than three fiscal years, the Minister of Finance has increased the cost of administering his own Department by 75 per cent. You call that restraint, Mr. Speaker? You call that control over spending? You call that reasonable administration? I call it maladministration, Sir. To have the Ministry of Finance propose this Bill to us today is disgraceful. On that basis alone, this Minister must be brought to task.
In past days interest rates have risen dramatically. I draw your attention to the fact that in June or July of last year this Government was able to borrow long-term money, that is on 25 and 30-year bonds, at a yield of 11.5 per cent. This week those bonds are being offered at 13.5 per cent. In other words, the cost of long-term money has risen since last summer by two full percentage points. Since February 15 interest costs on government debt have risen at least 1 per cent. If we are going to come to grips with this problem, and I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the increased cost of interest is at least $1.5 million since the budget, then we must come to grips with the amount of borrowing; otherwise we will have no control over interest expense.
I note that my time is up. I ask this House to pay close attention to the amendment and demand that this Government change the Bill.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note how few members of the Government care to defend their borrowing requirement, to stand in this House and deal with it. Any time this House is faced with a borrowing Bill, it has an obligation to screen that Bill as closely as it can. Every member of this Chamber must ask themselves how much does the Bill really entitle the Government to borrow. They should ask when Government intends to borrow this money, because that has an effect. I suppose most critically they must ask why the Government needs to borrow the money and what it intends to do with it.
When reviewing these three questions, Mr. Speaker, we must examine this piece of legislation before us which indicates that the Government wants to borrow $29,555 million, or $29.5 billion. That is not what the Government intends to spend; that is just what it intends to borrow and what it is asking this House to approve. That is such an enormous amount of money, Mr. Speaker, that it boggles the mind. To put it into perspective, it is 91 per cent of the projected savings of all Canadians. The Government wants to borrow 91 per cent of every penny saved by every Canadian.
That is nice for those who have the savings. There will probably be some competition to borrow that money and, therefore, the interest on those savings will increase, but it leaves 9 per cent for the rest of us who may want to borrow to buy a car, put a mortgage on a home, start a small business, or even to keep a small business going. When the Government takes 91 per cent of Canadian savings through borrowing and only leaves 9 per cent to the rest of Canada, what can we predict, Mr. Speaker? We can predict that interest rates will go up. The minute this Bill was laid on the Table in this House of Commons, interest rates started to go up, Mr. Speaker. If they go up far enough and fast enough, it will bring hardship to everyone on fixed incomes. It will drive businesses into bankruptcy and create increased unemployment.
It is bad enough, Mr. Speaker, that the federal Government now wants to borrow 91 per cent of Canadian savings, but we have been faced in this House over a four-year period with legislation put through by closure which provides Crown corporations with unlimited borrowing authority. So when the Government says it wants to borrow $29.55 billion or $29,550 million, it is talking about borrowing it wants to do straight up front. It is not talking about the additional amount which this Government has insisted Crown corporations and their boards of directors have authority to borrow.
It is not very much of a logical leap, Mr. Speaker, to see that in reality the federal Government and Crown corporations are trying to borrow all of the savings of the taxpayers of this country, leaving nothing for Canadians to borrow without going abroad. And, Mr. Speaker, when we go to the United States, Germany, Japan or England to borrow money, we get it, but all of a sudden we begin to notice in the daily newspapers that the value of the Canadian dollar is falling. A dollar is not worth a dollar. A couple of months ago it was worth 82 cents or 83 cents. Today it is worth 78 cents.
Then we have to look at a senior citizen on a fixed income who goes to the corner grocery store to buy a tomato. If the value of the dollar has fallen a nickel, from 83 cents to 78 cents, you can be sure that the cost of that tomato has risen, 5, 6, or maybe 10 per cent, simply because the Canadian dollar has fallen. That's the rhythm. That is the insidious nature of a government borrowing Bill.
We are looking at the largest government borrowing Bill in the history of this nation. Never has a finance minister and a government come before this Chamber to ask Members to vote to give them permission to borrow so much money. They are asking for permission at a time when there is already enor-
March 27, 1984

mous pressure on ordinary Canadians. Think about the last two weeks. Interest rates are rising, the cost of living is rising, and unemployment is rising. All of those things that bothered us for the last two or three years bottomed out and we are starting back in the direction of trouble.
What does this Government want to do? After watching back-benchers on the government side for four years, you see that the first impulse is to throw money at any problem they face, not money the Government has the courage to collect through taxes, but borrowed money, hidden money. They always choose to transfer the debt obligation to their children. They spend today to get re-elected and let the kids worry about paying it back. That is the kind of government we have had.
We have grand announcements in the budgets. We are going to have marvellous job creation in this country. I look at a leadership candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada. He has supposedly been in charge of the Special Employment Initiatives Program, $150 million a year. Where does the money go when we finally get the data on the table? It does not go to Canadians who are unemployed. It is not distributed justly or equitably. It goes to Members of Parliament to hand out to their friends in their ridings, if they happen to be Liberal Members of Parliament. That is why the Government wants to borrow money and that is why it wants so much. It is facing an election. It wants to borrow money to create slush funds to ensure the election of Liberal Members of Parliament.
If there is any sense of fairness in Government back-benchers, any sense of commitment to this country on what is right for it instead of what is wrong, I urge Members opposite to stand in this House and vote for the amendment. Once in the life of this Parliament, just once, let them do what is best for Canada and not what they believe is best for the Liberal Party of Canada. That is what is at issue in this amendment. I urge that course of action upon them.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been in this House since 1979, much too long for some Members opposite, because every time they come here and demand more money without a sufficient accounting and without Members across the way doing their duty to their constituents, I will stand up and object again and again. Government Members have been before us seven times in the last year demanding billions of dollars, every dollar of which comes out of the hide of ordinary Canadians who are very much pressed when trying to maintain their families, keep their children in school and carry on. There is simply no way that Government Members are going to get this money. They might as well bring in the closure motions and oppress the people once again because they are not going to get it with any consent.
If government Members were to reduce the amount of $29.55 billion to something that they could rationally convince us the Government needs for the more legitimate dimensions
Borrowing Authority Act
of its spending, then of course we would be prepared to sit and listen to that and approve of a Bill which was within limits. As my colleague said, the $29.55 billion is simply not relevant to the needs of the Government today. It has $8.1 billion in cash in the bank right now and it has the authority to raise by this Friday an additional half a billion dollars. Therefore, it has more than enough to get it through to June.
Come June, there will be a new leader on the government side and there will very likely be an election. The new government which will come in after that election should then have to face the reality and expose to the Canadian people the true facts about the financial bankruptcy of the Government on the opposite side.
However you cut it, Mr. Speaker, it returns to the ordinary Canadians. When the Government brings on inflation with these massive deficits, that impacts on senior citizens with fixed incomes far more dramatically than it does on the rest of us who might have a bit of land and who have indexed salaries that go up every year. It impacts on the poor who never have an opportunity to escape their plight. The inflation has resulted in post-secondary educational costs rising so that young people are even having to give up on the expectation of going to university.
How can a young man ever hope to purchase a farm today, Mr. Speaker? The inflation brought on by the Liberal Government has affected land as much as anything else and has driven the price of land well beyond its productive capacity. One might say that if the property is valued at more than its productive capacity, why not buy it and extend the payments for 15 or 20 years rather than 10 years. Oh, no, the Government does not want that to happen. It stepped in with its forward averaging and its blocks on rollovers so that no one can buy that land. Even within one's own family, those payments can only be extended for 10 years. I know from my own family farm experience that, based on the productivity of the land, those payments must be extended at least 18 years in order to purchase that land and still be able to pay income taxes on the income derived from it.
The Government has blocked the young people of Canada. Any farmer who votes Liberal in the next election is voting for a noose around his own neck. Six times now government Members have imposed taxes on fuels that are used by farmers. There are six individual taxes on energy. Every acre of land, amounting to hundreds of acres throughout the country, must be driven over at least five times every year. That includes the working of the land before seeding, the spraying for weeds, the swathing, the harvesting and the post-harvesting work. Every acre must be driven over that many times and every gallon of fuel has had six individual taxes imposed upon it by the Liberal Government. I say that any farmer who votes Liberal is putting a noose around his neck and that is absolutely true.
Any senior citizen who votes for the Liberal Party is voting for absolute poverty in the last few years of his life. With an inflation rate of 3 per cent or 4 per cent, it takes 12 to 15 years before a pension of $1,000 has dropped to $500. However,

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
what happens under inflation of the kind the Liberal Government has brought about?
Liberal back-benchers do not stand up in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I do not care about that, but they should be standing up in caucus and telling Cabinet Ministers that if the Cabinet does not get the deficit under control, they will stay out of the House or rise and vote against the Cabinet. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if any P.C. cabinet of the future tried to do what this one has done, there is no way I would support them.
Under our system of parliamentary government, the Cabinet or executive is responsible and must be accountable to all of us as ordinary back-bench Members of Parliament. We have to do our job. If a cabinet of whatever stripe fails to do its job, we have an obligation and a duty, not only in democracy but in law, to bring that Cabinet down. Liberal members opposite have not done that. They have not fulfilled their duty to the country. Surely that duty is not only to the people who are living today, to the senior citizens who are in poverty and the young people who do not have an opportunity to go to university or buy a business. They have a duty to our children and our grandchildren as well. That is their real failing, Mr. Speaker. Liberal members on the opposite side have no sense of the future. That is typical of a radical, left-wing socialist group. That group wants to remake mankind on one giant, quantum legislative leap. As a result, government Members pass laws and get themselves into troubles which they cannot get out of because they do not have a sense of the future. They have no sense of what it means to build a country like John A, Macdonald and John Diefenbaker did.
In 1968 there was a minuscule national debt. There was a balanced budget and yet in 1968 there was Old Age Security, health insurance and medicare. There was a post-secondary education system and the economy was generating 10 jobs for every one of us who came out of the university system in 1968. What do we have now? There is now a national debt that, including Crown corporations, amounts to over $200 billion. Over 35 per cent of every tax dollar goes to service the debt. That 35 per cent of every tax dollar goes into the hands of people in this society who already have incredible wealth.
With another decade of rule under Liberal members, we will be like all of the Third World countries. There will be a small group of people who have massive wealth and there will be a huge class of poor people. What the Government is doing, as any radical, left-wing socialist government does, is destroying the middle class. The middle class is that great buffer that avoids extremes in language, religion or economic matters. The middle class is a great buffer against extremism. However, once the Government has destroyed that middle class, we will find extremism in this country. Unfortunately, it will be ourselves, our children and our grandchildren who will suffer.
Our grandchildren will look back and wonder how it could have been that in 1968 we had balanced budgets and a tiny national debt even though we had just come through a major depression and a World War that required an enormous drainage of wealth from ordinary citizens. In 1968 everything
was fine until we elected that Government across the way and the ordinary Liberal back-benchers, in order to be re-elected again and again, got us into a deficit situation.
It is true that one can fool all of the people some of the time and one can buy the people with their own money. Besides creating the deficits, Mr. Speaker, another despicable thing government Members have done is pit one region of the country against another. They were prepared to go to the people of central Canada and say: "If you vote for us, we will get that western petroleum energy for less than world price". However, were they prepared to go against the hydro-electric power that is produced in the central provinces? Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. There is no export tax on hydro-electricity but there is on petroleum energy. Are there six individual taxes imposed on hydro-electricity in the country? Certainly not. However, there are on petroleum energy.
People in the west are simply fed up. I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that they have had enough of this. If the Liberal Government is re-elected again, there will be an uprising in the west that you will never forget because it will tear this country asunder, and it will happen because that Government has not done its job.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words to the debate on Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority to the federal Government. Today the federal Government is asking for authority to borrow some $29.5 billion which would allow it to gather in enough money to operate for the coming fiscal year. It has also asked for a $4 billion contingency over and above the amount actually set out in the Estimates.
As it bothers the Conservatives, it also bothers me that we are in a perpetual debt situation. In the past I have said that if it is necessary to have deficit financing, so be it, but it cannot be ongoing. Any government deficit financing, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, must be viewed as an investment in the future so that at some point there will be a return on the money borrowed. That is not the case today. The ongoing deficit financing of the Government has brought us to a situation where by the time the borrowing authority is approved-and because of the Government's majority it will be approved-the debt will amount to over $70 billion. At some point that has to stop, Mr. Speaker. There is no business, no law practice and no government that can continue with deficit financing and still operate as we do in this country.
What bothers me as much as the deficit financing that so many governments go into today, particularly the Liberal Government, is what the Conservatives say in this House. Their record in the federal Government is not a very long one. The Conservative provincial governments have also shown a dismal performance. Indeed, some of the things that the Conservatives in this House criticize are evident in the actions of Conservative provincial governments.
The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was quoted in Maclean's magazine on July 12, 1982 as saying "If I
March 27, 1984

told what we would do we would never get elected". I think that is true, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) spoke of doing away with programs that would get the construction industry going in the country. Those are the programs that the Conservatives would cut from the Budget in order to try to balance the books. I do not think they could do it even then. They have the same mentality when it comes to government financing as the Liberals. The Conservatives never criticize the Government's bailout of Dome Petroleum, Chrysler of Canada, Maislin Industries or Massey-Ferguson, and the list goes on of cases where the Government has thrown good money after bad.
We cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. If the Liberals and the Conservatives believe in leaving the private sector alone and letting the marketplace take its course, why is it that when large corporate entities get into trouble they are handed a cheque yet some of the companies still go under. That is one place where government debt could be drastically cut.
I only have ten minutes to speak in the debate, Mr. Speaker, so I want to turn to the situation of that great Tory Government in Saskatchewan which said it was open for business when it took office in April, 1982.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: Today the Tory Government of Saskatchewan has the largest and fastest growing deficit in North America. The previous government left a surplus of $139 million and in the previous 11 straight years had balanced or surplus budgets. Since the Conservative Government took over it has brought in three budgets. Until Wednesday of last week, when the last budget was brought in, it had a deficit of over $500 million, the largest in the history of the province. In addition-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair fails to see how the deficit situation in the Province of Saskatchewan relates to Bill C-21 which we are discussing here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I should like to suggest to the Hon. Member that he try to relate his remarks to what we are discussing.


Douglas Keith Anguish: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, because of the transfer of money to the provinces from the federal Government under the Established Programs Financing legislation and many other things that the borrowing authority is used for, I am sure you can see the relationship between the provincial deficit and the federal deficit. Much of that money goes to the provinces. If you cannot see the relevance I should like to explain it a little more. Then, when I finish my remarks, perhaps you could make an assessment of whether the two are related.
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member resume his seat? The assessment of the Chair is that we should be discussing Bill C-21.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I can see that the dignity of the Chair is increasing with each new occupant. I congratulate you on your firm delivery of the rules.
At the present time the Conservatives criticize deficit financing as done by the Liberal Party in Ottawa, the Party which you used to represent, Mr. Speaker. Things are coming to the point where about half of the money raised in taxes goes to pay interest on the national debt. In Saskatchewan the interest on the deficit alone now amounts to $92 million per year or $11,000 per hour. Whether the deficit in Saskatchewan or the deficit of the federal Government is relevant to you and me, Mr. Speaker, is something that people have to think about. It is not something far removed from them as individual taxpayers; it is something governments do, to make a commitment on behalf of the taxpayers of this country. A previous Conservative speaker said that even if we are not responsible at this time for repayment of the debt, our children and our children's children will be, and I agree with that.
The amount of taxes paid by individuals is an ever-growing proportion of their gross income. At the same time, a number of companies do not contribute to taxes in this country. Fifteen of the largest industrial corporations in Canada did not pay any corporate taxes in 1981 and 1982. General Motors of Canada did not contribute anything to the general revenues of the country in 1981 and 1982, nor did Alcan Aluminum, Canadian National Railways, Hudson's Bay Company, Steinberg, Simpson-Sears, Noranda Mines, Total Petroleum, Mas-sey-Ferguson, Stelco, Genstar, Domtar and Inco.
The Government must do two things in order to balance the Budget, but first, it must aim at getting the debt under control. So many times the Auditor General has said that we have lost control of it and he is right. After more than 100 years of Tory and Liberal administration we find that the debt is increasing every year.
[DOT] (U50)
The Government can either raise taxes or, preferably, collect taxes where they are due from those with high incomes who pay no income tax at all, and from those corporate entities who do not pay any corporate tax at all. Or you can start slashing programs, like the Conservatives say they would do and which the Liberals are afraid to do. I prefer that we have responsible fiscal management without arbitrarily slashing programs as the Reaganomics of the Tories suggest under their Bay Street boy from Baie Comeau. The Liberals, who are afraid to do anything, are the greatest manipulators in the history of Canada, and they have their Bay Street boy from wherever he is. Some say he is from the west, some from the east, depending on where he stands. We have to find parliamentarians who are going to act more responsibly to get the things like this borrowing authority and our huge national debt under control for the sake of the taxpayers of Canada, the individuals, and the children who will have to suffer the consequences.

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, we talk about responsible Members of Parliament. For the last ten minutes I have listened to some of the most irresponsible statements I have heard in this House for the past five years.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Is that relevant?


John William Thomson: Where is this gentleman coming from?


Douglas Keith Anguish: Is he relevant, Mr. Speaker?


John William Thomson: The Hon. Member mentioned 15 corporations who did not pay any income tax in 1981 and 1982. I am not familiar with the financial statements of those 15 companies but I suggest not one of them made a profit. You cannot have it both ways. Does the NDP expect corporations who do not make money to pay taxes over and above their losses and thereby deprive Canadians of an opportunity to work? The Member asks for responsibility. Day in and day out the NDP members stand up in this House and suggest greater programs and greater spending. The latest suggestion is to have another $4 billion of job creation in Canada. Where does he think the money is going to come from? Does it grow on trees? In one breath he says he wants responsible government, and in the next breath he wants totally irresponsible fiscal management.
It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that Members in this House cannot speak intelligently to what I believe is the single most important problem facing this country today. All of us in this House are responsible and what is at stake is the economic future of this country. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stands up in this House and says interest rates need not prevent growth. Who is he kidding? Every single Member in this House knows full well that when interest rates increase, productive capacity in this country goes down. We all know that when fewer corporations embark on upgrading plant and equipment, there will be that many fewer Canadians buying a house and taking on a mortgage. Yet the Minister of Finance, one of the most responsible posts in the federal Cabinet, has the utter audacity to say that increases in interest rates need not prevent growth in this country. It is an unmitigated misrepresentation of the truth.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Then why do you support the policy?


John William Thomson: Why does the NDP support the Government? You have been the rump for the last five years, and for the last 15 years you have kept these boys in power.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That is unmitigated BS.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, is this relevant?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. With all due respect to the Member who has the floor, I would like to ask all Members to refrain from shouting in the House when someone is trying to speak.


Mr. Pepin:: Or trying to sleep.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: When you dump this stuff on the street, someone has to shovel it.


John William Thomson: I find this extraordinary. It reminds me of that great fellow Nero who fiddled while Rome burned. The Liberal leadership candidates talk about jobs and a new beginning. Someone said something about a new incentive system for private enterprise and greater recognition of the private sector. I cannot understand where these guys have been for the last 15 years. Women's place in society; medicare; income redistribution; federal-provincial relations; we talk about everything except the most significant problem facing the future of this country, that of a $30 billion deficit.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The deficit is between your ears.


John William Thomson: Mr. Speaker, it is utter fiscal madness. I am not opposed to borrowing money. I would not even be too upset if we were borrowing $30 billion for perhaps one year to address the problem of a serious recession. But it is not $30 billion, it is $150 billion which has been borrowed over the past 15 years of Liberal government, and it is the next $111 billion which will be borrowed over the next five years. Those are staggering numbers and I am not going to go into the numerical size of the problem. What aggravates me is that Members opposite have the audacity to stand up and say there is really nothing wrong with a $30 billion deficit; after all, it is only 6 per cent of the GNP. What has that to do with the problem? The Government will simply not recognize the enormity of the problem these deficits are going to create for future economic growth in this country.
Therein lies the problem. They ask; "What is the problem? What are you complaining about, John? We have managed to struggle along for the last 15 years. We keep borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. So what is wrong with keeping on borrowing?" I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with that. Hundreds and thousands of young Canadians in our schools today are not going to have jobs. They are going to look back and ask why. This Government stole their birthright.
The size of these deficits today, Mr. Speaker, will remove the opportunity for a future generation or generations to go to work. Why? Every Member of the House, including the NDP, understands that it is the private sector that creates jobs rather than the Government. Government does not create jobs. If we want the private sector to create jobs and be the engine of growth in Canada, as so many of the leadership candidates of the Liberal Party propose, we must give them a chance. There is not going to be economic growth when the Government borrows all the savings of Canadians. That is what is happening. That is part of the problem. We have 1,400,000 people out of work today in the country because of 15 years of profligate fiscal mismanagement by the Liberal Government.
Canadians are going to realize more and more that governments cannot borrow their way to prosperity. In order for future generations of Canadians to have jobs and for us to have economic prosperity in this country, we must come to
March 27, 1984

grips with the size of these deficits. We must face them head on. Yet I hear not one single word from the Liberal Party or the Liberal leadership candidates today about the most serious problem that faces the economic future of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his 10 minutes are up.


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on one of the comments made by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) who preceded me. Managing a government is really no different from managing your home or your own personal business. Here on the Hill we often lose sight of the fact that if one continues year after year to spend more than one takes in, sooner or later someone catches up with them. We are debating the necessity or lack of necessity of borrowing $29.5 billion. As I pointed out earlier, that is more than the total fiscal planning and financial forecasts of the present Government. In other words, the Government is looking for a slush fund of $4 billion, far beyond what is required to run the current operating costs of the Government.
We have reason to be suspicious of slush funds. On numerous occasions in the House we have pointed out some of the uses these extra funds are put to. It is sad and I regret to report that when there is a requirement to borrow $29.5 billion in order to continue the Government's business it means that for every dollar of revenue the Government takes in it is planning to spend $1.50. You cannot run your home, your own personal business or a country that way. The dollar ends up being devalued. Inflation goes up because it costs more dollars to buy the same imported goods. The net result of all this added inflation is added unemployment. Since the number one issue in Canada today is getting more people back to work, it is counter-productive to spend more money than we have, thus driving up inflation and devaluing our dollar. They all go hand in hand with a forecast which is rather gloomy for the 1.5 million people who are presently unemployed and falls short of what they might expect from the Government. They would [DOT] expect the Government to manage its own affairs better.
To drive the point home, you sometimes have to use what seems on the surface to be a rather ridiculous example. I am going to use butter as an example. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has left the House. He will probably be back. The Minister responsible for agriculture in the country has allowed something to happen which should never have happened. The Minister responsible for foreign affairs has also allowed something to happen which should never have happened. In other words, our Government is condoning the illegal importation of agricultural products. Not only is it bringing in products which are not approved, but they do not fall under the Official Languages Act. They are imported with French only on the wrapper. They are sold in downtown Toronto.
A Mr. Herbst in downtown Toronto was fined $4,000 when he tried to sell a four-ounce chocolate bar that did not have metric on the wrapper. To appeal the case would cost him in
Borrowing Authority Act
the neighbourhood of $20,000 which he cannot raise. Consequently, he cannot appeal. That is what the Government will do to a small, independent retailer who is trying to sell a four-ounce chocolate bar which does not have French on it, or metric.
I wonder what the Government would do to the foreign affairs officials who allowed the purchase of butter with a French only wrapper. That has been proven in the courts to be illegal. Do we have two systems of rules and regulations? Do we allow French only material to come into the country? Do we not prosecute the people who use, purchase and sell them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: What civil servant is being prosecuted for purchasing French only butter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The importer.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The importer? The Minister mentions the importer as being prosecuted. What about the official, who is on a salary as well, who buys illegally imported product? Why is he not in court? What happened to the chef at the embassy-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. The Chair has some difficulty relating the Hon. Member's remarks to Bill C-21 which is under discussion at this time. May I ask the Hon. Member to try to get back on the subject.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 calls for a $4 billion slush fund to allow the present Government to continue to waste money. I am trying to give an example of where some of that money is going. This morning's Ottawa Citizen reports that it costs $500,000 a year to run the ninth floor Pearson Building dining room which is using illegally imported French butter. It is reported they are paying as much as $10 a pound. Some of the $4 billion slush fund is being spent to sustain a restaurant. We have enough trouble selling products from our own agricultural community today without importing French butter illegally and then having it sold in one of our Government ministry restaurants. This is not the Parliamentary Restaurant which we as Members of Parliament are responsible for, but the restaurant at the foreign embassy which is under the ministry of foreign affairs. They are wasting Canadian taxpayers' money and are not spending the money locally buying Canadian agricultural products. The chef says the reason he buys it for that restaurant is that it is the best. It is brought illegally into Canada and should not be purchased by any Minister. It should not be the Herbsts, the small independent dealers in Toronto, who are prosecuted for selling English only chocolate bars. We have a ministry here which imports French only butter.
I was flying on Air Canada the other day and had some wine. I noticed that the labels were all in French only. We are importing and paying more for that wine than we would for domestic wine. Yet the Air Canada people are serving it. I believe that needs investigation as well.
2458

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
If the Government would show some accountability in the priorities it places on its spending, the Canadian people would have more respect for its request to borrow funds above and beyond what is actually required. It is perfectly safe to say that we in the Official Opposition have no intention of supporting a $29.5 billion borrowing Bill. Even if the Government must bring in closure at every stage, we still have no intention of supporting it. We have shown that to date and we will continue to show it. We might be here for a long time debating the Government's need for $29.5 billion more than it is taking in income.
It costs every Canadian $1.50 for every $1 received by the Government. In other words, the Government cannot live within its means. Thus there should be no concurrence in this piece of legislation which will put our grandchildren in hock.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a resource-rich land that is wanting in nothing. It is filled with agricultural productivity and has one-fifth of the world's fresh water. Its forestry capacity is unparalleled by any nation in the world. Its hard rock mineral capacity is the envy of virtually every nation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There are no oranges.


Arnold John Malone: When we compare Canada with Japan, which is an island of rock with resources of fish and tin, we are wavering well below in our economy compared to what it was in 1968 and we are now about sixteenth in the world compared to Japan which is in second place. While we have had a blessing of great wealth, we have not had the capacity to take advantage of it. We have some of the world's best educated people yet today we are faced with a borrowing Bill for $29.5 billion.
It is the eighth time that the Government has made a trip to the public pump in this Parliament. The other Bills the Government brought in were Bill C-30 for $12 billion, Bill C-59 for $14 billion, Bill C-lll for $6.6 billion. Bill C-125 for $7 billion, Bill C-128 for $4 billion, Bill C-143 for $19 billion, Bill C-151 for $10 billion, and it has now come to Parliament with Bill C-21 to ask for $29.55 billion. The amount of money being asked for has shocked Canadians into not caring. They do not understand what is happening because they do not have any concept of what $1 billion is. This present Government is trying to hoodwink the people the same way that C. D. Howe did when he said "What's a million?"
Let me describe the amount of money we are dealing with because it may be important to some people to put what the Government is trying to do into perspective. The Government is asking to borrow $29.55 billion. If that is put into $1 bills and stacked one upon the other, there would be a column 120 miles high. I fly back and forth between Ottawa and my constituency in Alberta. When I am in the airplane flying at 40,000 feet, I am sometimes concerned about that first step. It seems to me that I am a long way up, yet 40,000 feet is just a little under seven miles. If we hit that column of dollar bills,
representing the amount the Government is asking to borrow, it would extend another 113 miles above us. It is an example of the debt that the Government is imposing upon us. When one includes Crown corporations, the country is now some $200 billion in debt.
The Government pretends that it is not a significant problem. It takes the attitude that it is only borrowing 6 per cent of the Gross National Product. The fact is that the tradition in the United States has always been to try to keep the debt within 2 per cent of their Gross National Product. When their debt went above 2 per cent of the GNP in the past five-year period, there was an energetic approach to try to return to the 2 per cent ratio of the GNP in the United States.
The Liberal Government basically believes that it can borrow without end. Let me say that the notion of borrowing is that when one borrows, one lives at a higher standard of living but at a cost which must be repaid in the future. Today the Government is living off the fat of the land of a resource-rich nation but to the indebtedness of our children and their children. A burden is being placed on them of debts of a spendthrift government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Have you never borrowed?


Arnold John Malone: The Government presently has $8 billion cash on hand and is asking to borrow an amount of which $4 billion has not been accounted for. I say to the Minister opposite, who would like to give my speech, that when the Government seeks to borrow $29.55 billion it would do a Liberal grand to stand up in the House and defend that request. Yet there has been one Conservative speaker after another, one NDP speaker and another seeking to be recognized, who are speaking in this debate. The Government wants to borrow $29.55 billion but its members do not have the courage to stand in their place and tell Canadians how they justify that request. I can say why they cannot justify it. The Government already has $8 billion which it can use and another one-half billion dollars of borrowing authority that it can borrow before this weekend.
More importantly, after the upcoming Liberal leadership convention presumably there will be a new government. It does not matter to Government members now who will be in power; it will borrow for all of next year, including $4 billion which it cannot even account for. Those members do not worry about the books. There is no accounting for the Liberal Government; it just takes money without any idea or responsibility for its use.
When parliamentary democracy began some 725 years ago, it became clearly established that the purpose of Parliament was to control the king's purse. That is why we are here. However, not only does the Liberal Government borrow wildly, it is asking for money without the decency of telling us what it is for.
Furthermore, as indicated by the Auditor General of Canada, there is a massive hidden debt couched in our Crown corporations. Mirabel, Canadair and Petro-Canada are all spending money frivolously.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mirabel is not a Crown company.
March 27, 1984


Arnold John Malone: The two tallest skyscrapers in Calgary belong to Petro-Canada. There are 500 acres of marble on the outside of those buildings. That marble was cut in Finland but Finland could not polish the marble. That did not bother the Crown corporation because it simply stacked the marble on a ship and sent it to Italy to be polished. Since it wanted the colour of marble that came from Finland, it sent it to Italy to be polished, and then to Canada.
The Government's perspective on such matters is simply to borrow and borrow. The Government has a hidden level of bureaucracy that looks after Canadair with billions of dollars, Petro-Canada with close to a billion dollars and Mirabel with close to a billion dollars, all without any accountability. Now it returns to Parliament to ask for $29.55 billion. When one includes the Crown corporations, its total debt is close to $200 billion.
The good Minister across the way tries to give his speech while I am giving mine, without standing up to take his ten minutes to justify why this country must continually go into debt. Why can he not stand in his place and tell us that this debt should come down? Why can he not tell us that 2 per cent of our Gross National Product is a more realistic goal for borrowing rather than hovering as we are at 6 per cent of our GNP and always between 5 per cent and 8 per cent?
Surely we have an obligation to bring that debt into some kind of perspective. Since the Government takes the C.D. Howe attitude by asking "What's a billion?", perhaps it would be wise to put into perspective just how much $1 billion is. For any person in Canada, whether from Gopher Gulch or Cactus Creek, $1 billion means spending $100 every minute, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for 19 years. That is $1 billion. Would it not be a great high school graduation party if you were able to take $200 billion at that rate? Yet this Government does not give us any answer why it should be extended money. It has $8 billion now and another half a billion coming up if it wants the authority by the end of this week. It is also asking for another $4 billion.
After Mirabel, Petro-Canada, Canadair and all the rest, the answer from this side of the House is no, the Government is not going to get it. We are going to dig in and we are going to fight, because we have a responsibility not only to make the national economy work but to make Parliament work. Parliament will not be working, Sir, unless we make this Government accountable to its economy, to its finances, to its borrowing, to its debt. Our debt ratio is too high. It is unacceptably too high. We have no hope for the future if we are going to borrow against tomorrow. What is needed in this country are jobs. We have to get those jobs in place by putting financial strictures in operation. Every time we pay $3 in tax, $1 goes to pay for the interest charges on the debt.
I see that you are telling me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I want you to know, Sir, that that is all that is up, certainly not the issue, just the time. It is unfortunate because I want to get into other matters. We could have 30 per cent
Borrowing Authority Act
more services or 30 per cent less tax. But as long as we have that kind of debt-


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


Arnold John Malone: I am sorry it has, Mr. Speaker. Could we have unanimous consent for me to carry on because I have more to tell the Government?


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in the debate today on Bill C-21. The Government is asking Parliament to pass this Bill so it can borrow an extra $29.55 billion. I oppose this Bill. I am sure the Government can find ways and means to spend $29 billion. It seems to be quite successful at spending money, but it certainly has not been successful at balancing the Government's books.
Right now the total federal public debt stands at some $181 billion. The interest on that loan is some 20.3 billion per year. In other words, 21 cents out of every dollar collected in taxes is spent just to pay off the interest on our public debt. This is crazy.
An individual who managed his own finances this way and found that 21 per cent of his income had to go to banks and other organizations from which he borrowed money could not survive. Perhaps the only reason this Government continues to survive is that it is able to borrow more and more and can dig itself deeper holes in order to get the dirt to fill in the previous hole it dug for itself. This is irresponsible, shortsighted and just plain dumb.
It is interesting to hear some of my colleagues to my right, members of the Conservative Party, raising some arguments against the debt. They have certainly projected themselves as a Party in favour of balancing the books. The Tories have projected themselves as a responsible Party. But the actual facts and figures prove something different. My colleague, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), earlier gave Saskatchewan as an example where a Conservative Government which came into power in 1982 has proceeded to run up the fastest growing deficit in North America at present. When that Conservative Government took power, it found a surplus of $139 million in the Saskatchewan treasury. Right now with a budget brought down last week in the Saskatchewan legislature there was a deficit this year of $267 million. That is an accumulated deficit in three years of some $929 million. The interest on that deficit is costing the people of Saskatchewan $92 million a year. Broken down into a shorter time frame, that amounts to $11,000 an hour which the people of Saskatchewan are paying in interest charges. This is a Conservative Party that claims to be responsible and not to believe in deficit financing.

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I must remind the Hon. Member that he should try to relate his remarks to Bill C-21 which is before us. Discussing the deficit in another jurisdiction-


Mr. Nickerson:: It is an analogy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Yes. The Hon. Member can mention en passant what is happening in a province but he cannot make his whole speech on something other than Bill C-21.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I would like to debate the point with you but I do not want to lose part of my ten minutes. I was attempting to show in a discussion on deficit financing some of the deficits that are occurring. I was attempting to point out some of the track records of some political parties which are making certain claims in this House. I believe it is very relevant to this debate and what is being said here. It is certainly a heck of a lot more relevant than whether chocolate bar wrappers have French on them or not.
Not only do we find deficit financing in Saskatchewan but we find it in Tory Ontario, Tory Alberta, and Tory British Columbia. The highest deficit in Great Britain has occurred under a Tory Government led by Margaret Thatcher. We find the highest deficit in the history of the United States has occurred under a new right-wing President, Ronald Reagan. Why do we have a Party that believes in less government, in cutting government services, yet when Conservatives get into government they end up having some of the largest deficits in the history of their jurisdictions? At the same time these governments are cutting government services and social programs. This is happening in the United States, Great Britain, in the Province of Saskatchewan, the Province of Alberta, the Province of British Columbia and the Province of Ontario. We wonder why.
The Conservatives do know how to cut government spending but they do not know how to raise government revenues in a fair and equitable manner. That is the cause of major deficits.
En passant, Mr. Speaker, to use Saskatchewan as example, in the last year of the NDP Government of 1981-82, some $512 million in provincial revenues were collected through income tax. At the same time, from our non-renewable resources in Saskatchewan the provincial government collected some $758 million. How does this compare to the Tory record of 1984-85? Well, personal income tax as a percentage of provincial revenues has gone up some 40 per cent. The provincial coffers collected $714 million from personal income tax, up some $200 million. But what happened to revenues from non-renewable resources? There was no change, Mr. Speaker. The Government is still collecting $759 million from resources. In other words, the percentage of public revenues from the personal income sector has increased, yet that from the corporate and resource sector has, as a percentage, decreased.
We find the same circumstance, Mr. Speaker, with our national Government. The Liberal and Tory economic policies do not differ all that much. We find it on the federal level. In 1952 total tax revenues from individual taxpayers was some 46.3 per cent, while the corporate sector provided some 53.7 per cent of the total taxes which were collected in 1950. In 1962, individuals were paying 59.9 per cent of the total revenues whereas the corporate sector share had dropped down to 40.1 per cent. The latest statistics are for 1980, when the federal Government took in $24.9 billion in revenue, 30.5 per cent of which is derived from the corporate sector and 69.4 per cent from individuals.
That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. Government has allowed the multinational corporations tax loopholes and special tax incentives, so that they are no longer carrying their fair share of the tax burden in Canada. It is not that we are over-spending on social programs. Canada's record in terms of social programs is certainly not one of the best in the world. Some European countries, Mr. Speaker, Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries, with much less natural resources than Canada, pay their old age pensioners, unemployed, sick and disabled much better pensions and income support than we do here in North America. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they do not have deficits because they make certain that everyone pays their fair share. We do not, Mr. Speaker.
I am reminded of a recent article in The Globe and Mail about how big corporations beat the tax man for billions by using tax havens, setting up dummy companies in Bermuda or in the Dutch Antilles, costing the Canadian taxpayers billions of dollars every year. I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, of the $22 billion in deferred corporate income taxes for 1980. I am reminded of the billions of dollars which companies like CPR owe the federal treasury in deferred taxes. Yet, Mr. Speaker, not a word about this highway robbery by the corporate elite of this country, the multinationals. It is not the small-businessmen; it is the corporate elite sponsored by the Conservatives or the Liberals.
Essentially, they have the same notion, and that is the trickle-down Reagan economic notion of "You feed the horse a lot of oats and eventually the sparrow will get some". We must watch our step, Mr. Speaker, because it is a slippery road out there and the sparrows are sure not getting any. I stand opposed to the Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few statements concerning the subject matter before the House and to put a few facts on the table.
The broad economic objective of the last Budget, as was that of the April, 1983 Budget, is to initiate and sustain an investment-led expansion of economic activity which will create employment without the re-emergence of inflation. That basically was the objective. This objective has been pursued both through short-term expansionary measures designed to provide stimulus and jobs and through longer-term initiatives
March 27, 1984

designed to increase investment and improve productivity and competitiveness.
A rise in the deficit during a period of cyclical weakness provides an important cushion to the over-all level of activity. It helps ensure that individual hardship during a recession is not excessive. If the Government was to attempt to prevent the automatic increase in the deficit that is induced by the recession, this would result in a more severe recession, more unemployment and more hardship for the Canadian people. That would be the result of a policy which has been advocated by the Hon. Members opposite. In the medium-term, however, a deficit reduction is vital. This is to ensure that public sector deficits do not crowd our private investment as the latter is expected to grow more rapidly after 1984.
A continuation of the recovery will automatically result in a narrowing of the deficit. Rising employment will mean less money will be required for unemployment insurance benefits and personal income taxe revenue will be higher. Corporation income taxes and revenues from sales taxes will also increase. That is automatic. In addition, scheduled increases in tax rates, in part implemented in order to finance the Special Recovery Program announced in the April Budget, will reduce the deficit further.
Developments over the past year and a half or so demonstrate that there is no clear connection between deficits and interest rates; none. Interest rates are considerably below their pre-recession peak despite a rise in the federal deficit. This is not to suggest, however, that interest rate developments are not affected by events in the United States, as the former speaker suggested. Rather, during a cyclical downturn private demands for credit generally decline-indeed, this is in large part what causes the recession-so there need not be any conflict between private and public borrowing. As economic conditions improve, government borrowing requirements should automatically diminish when private credit demands are rising. If it becomes clear that the federal deficit is not falling fast enough, the Government stands ready to adjust its fiscal plan in order to prevent a clash of credit demands.
Since 1975 the federal Government has been committed to restraining the trend growth in spending to no more than the trend growth in GNP. This commitment does not mean that the growth of expenditures must equal the growth in GNP every year. During a cyclical downturn expenditures would generally be expected to grow faster than GNP, since a deterioration in economic conditions would put upward pressure on expenditures and GNP growth would, of course, be slower. Similarly, the ratio of expenditures to GNP would be expected to decline during the recovery phase of the cycle.
The Government has been successful in meeting its expenditure targets, although it has been suggested otherwise in this debate. In the 1975-1976 fiscal year, total outlays, which are the Government's expenditure control variable, were 22.9 per cent of GNP. By 1980-1981 they had fallen to 19.1 per cent of GNP. Slow growth in GNP, the associated upward pressure on spending from low activity levels, rising public debt charges and some discretionary measures resulted in total outlays
Borrowing Authority Act
rising to an estimated 23.3 per cent of GNP in the current fiscal year. However, if trend rather than actual GNP were used in the calculation, the total outlays-to-GNP ratio would fall to 21.6 per cent, significantly below the ratio in 19751976. In other words, the ratio of total outlays to GNP is projected to decline continuously from 1984-1985 forward, reaching 20.8 per cent by 1987-1988. Restraint in expenditures should contribue to maintaining the downward momentum on inflation.
The Budget also introduced measures to strengthen economic partnership and enhance economic security. The proposals for employee profit participation plans are aimed at encouraging business and labour to share in goals through profit sharing. Economic security will be most visible and most visibly enhanced by the increase in the guaranteed income supplement for single pensioners. The pension proposals, including the reduction of the vesting period of two years-


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have before me Hansard of March 5, a time when you were in the Chair. You repeatedly called to order the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall), who at that time was reading his speech. You quite correctly brought him to order and told him not to read from a prepared speech but to address the House verbatim. I wonder if Members on that side could be brought to the same order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member who has the floor was reading. Would he start speaking as provided in our rules?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was merely reading from some notes I had prepared, after listening to the globbledegook originating from the other side. It is very important that you listen to what I was saying. What I was trying to do was capsulize the important points which Hon. Members opposite have been making. It is very difficult to do that when somebody is required to speak in this House verbatim, as the Hon. Member put it. The comments I would have to make would have to be very general, if I were not allowed to refer to my exact notes. If the Speaker will permit it, I will continue my address. If the Hon. Speaker will also permit me to make reference to some of my notes during my address-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It would settle the problem for the Speaker to let it be known that the Hon. Member's time is up.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did you say my time was up, my entire time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. Will the Hon. Member resume his seat. His time is up. I have to recognize another Member.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, the basic point that seems to be missed in this debate is that this borrowing authority of $29.5 billion equals 96 per cent of total personal

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
savings in Canada this year. To indicate to anyone in this House, as the previous speaker tried to do, that the borrowing by this Government does not affect private industry and its borrowing is pure balderdash and he knows it.
This is the largest borrowing request by any government in Canadian history. More important, contained in this Bill is $4 billion that is intended to be used as a slush fund. It begs the question: Is this because the Government is worried about its forecasted revenues? Is it because the Government is planning some grandiose spending scheme prior to the upcoming election? Is this slush fund to be used once again to buy the voters of Canada with their own tax dollars?
We talk about the economic climate in Canada today and how we can improve it so that government expenditures will be reduced. In the last week or so, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) indicated in Question Period that Canadians are sending their money offshore or to the United States because of the higher interest rates there. He accuses Members on this side of the House of being one of the first to do that. He told our socialist friends to my left that they would be the first to move their money to the United States if they could earn more by investing there, and that is why interest rates are going up.
Has it not occurred to the Members of this House that we should have a stable climate in this country, where investors can have confidence in what will happen to their investments? We would then have a capital inflow and a drop in our deficit. Has it ever occurred to Hon. Members that every month we pay $1 billion in the form of unemployment insurance to people we are telling not to work? In order to keep the unemployment figures down, we are paying people to go to schools and universities for training. This is paid out of the unemployment insurance fund and exceeds the $1 billion.
It is lunacy for this Government to come forward with a borrowing authority that contains a $4 billion slush fund. I do not trust the Liberal Government to use that money wisely. It is like me going into a bank and applying for a 550,000 loan when my requirements are only 340,000. If I told the bank manager that the extra 310,000 was for a slush fund, just in case, the bank manager would run me out of the building. Every Member experienced with borrowing money from an institution knows that would happen. The person who authorized the loan containing the slush fund would be fired from his job. The people of Canada should fire us if we do not stop this spendthrift Government from gaining access to a 34 billion slush fund. That is the main point before us today.
We know that the Government requires authority to borrow money. We know the economic mess the Government is in and therefore it has to continue to borrow. We know this must happen because we cannot shut down everything overnight. Bills have to be paid. However, we also know that no government going into an election campaign should have at its disposal 34 billion to throw at the taxpayer. That is our concern today with this borrowing authority. Remember, too, that the borrowing authority is 96 per cent of all savings across Canada. That is the disaster.
Has the Government deliberately underestimated the deficit? Was it a political ploy that at the time of the last Budget the Minister underestimated the deficit? Was it deliberately underestimated? There are clear signals in the Budget that that is what was done. Was that done so that the Canadian people would not know before the election how disastrous this Government's economic policies have been? Is that the reason? Now the slush fund is to be increased by 34 billion. Will the deficit really be 34 billion higher, or is it a slush fund for an election? Clearly their fiscal projections lack confidence.
The tragedy of this borrowing authority points to the tragedy that exists from coast to coast. A million and a half people are unemployed because the economic climate has dropped so drastically. The tragedy of the unemployed across the country exists because the Government has created, over the past 15 years of Liberal administration, a climate in Canada in which the world investment community feels it is no longer safe to invest. In order to invest in Canada, investors must go through a bureaucracy. Investors who look at opportunities in Canada throw up their hands and say: "Who needs it?" They say that because they feel their investment dollars are required all over the world in the emerging countries and they may move freely from one country to another.
As a result of the eighth borrowing authority Bill which has come before the House since 1980, the fundamental problem we face is that we have not established and maintained an investment climate in Canada which is trustworthy and for which the rules will not be changed. An investor must be able to say to himself: "I know what the rules are, I can invest for 10 years and I know that the Government will not, through retroactive legislation, confiscate some of my property". This has been done. It was done through the National Energy Program. We set the rules and we told investment companies to invest their dollars, to explore, to find us oil and gas and to invest in our mines. What did we do? A Budget was brought in that included the National Energy Program and said that we were going retroactively to confiscate some of the wealth that had been created-


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


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I think that before proceeding I should make reference to the fact that we are not debating the motion that the Bill now be given second reading but rather the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). His amendment reads as follows:
That the motion be amended by deleting ali the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House holds the opinion that the granting of an authority for the borrowing of a sum greater than the amount required to meet the government's needs to the end of the current fiscal year is objectionable in principle and this House therefore declines to give second reading to Bill C-21, An Act to provide borrowing authority."


Some Hon. Members:: You are reading.
March 27, 1984


Dave Nickerson: I thought it very necessary to read briefly into the record the excellent amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. May the Chair just add that we are dealing with a subamendment which reads as the Hon. Member has indicated except that the word "fiscal" has been deleted and replaced by the word "calendar". This is a subamendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Dave Nickerson: Of course you are quite correct, Mr. Speaker, but because that is a frivolous and meaningless amendment, I did not care to mention it.
1 share the views that have been expressed by many Members on this side of the House this morning. I think the time has come when Parliament must say no to the Government. Every Member of the House, whether on this side or the other, should recognize the inequity of the situation as it exists today.
I would call upon all Members of the House to use, just for once, the responsibility that has been imposed upon them by their electors and to vote in favour of the amendment that is before us today. I call upon every Member to make sure that the Government goes back to the drawing board and returns to the House with a Bill that does not ask for $30 billion, $4 billion of which is some kind of slush fund or contingency fund, but with one which makes the Government do its homework and come before Parliament with a request for only those moneys which are absolutely required.
It is my opinion that the national finances of Canada must be brought back under control. We simply cannot continue to live the way we are living. We simply cannot continue to have borrowing authority Bills brought before us time after time asking for more and more money as if there is no end to it. We know that the end must come. I would hope that it would come now and that the Government and all Members of the House would exercise some degree of responsibility.
The Government is drunk with its own spending and its own borrowing. Time after time it returns to the House. It seems unable of its own accord to exercise any form of self-control. It is fiscally incontinent and it lies upon Members of the House to bring the Government back to reason in the financial field. It is a historical responsibility of Parliament to do so.
It has been brought to our attention once before today, but it is worthwhile to repeat, that looking back over the many years, the historical responsibility of Parliament is to be a shepherd of the taxpayers' dollars. When the time comes, as it has today, to say no to the Government and to refuse to authorize the expenditure of additional unnecessary funds, the Crown must be refused for the sake of Canada.
It is of great concern to me that the deficits we continually incur are of a structural nature. We have heard the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) try to argue that this is not the case, but anyone with half an eye can see what has happened. Ever since the days of the former Minister of Finance, John Turner, there has never been a year in which
The Late Bora Laskin
the Government has not come before us to borrow yet more money. We are on a roller-coaster, so to speak. Even if the economy were to improve somewhat, perhaps as a result of what is happening in the United States, it still would not solve our problems because they are built-in problems. We can only change the continuing, re-occurring and ever-increasing deficits through an over-all change in policy.
We need a new approach. The approach taken at present is that every government department figures out how much money it needs or thinks it would need and every Minister is subject to pressures from various public interest groups which invariably want the expenditure of additional public funds. Each department totals that amount and perhaps adds another 10 per cent for contingencies or some kind of slush fund, and all of this is totalled together and eventually presented to Parliament. This is the wrong approach.
The fundamental question parliamentarians must ask themselves is what is the maximum fiscal burden Canadians are prepared to carry by way of taxation, and by way of deficit financing as well because we pay for that eventually through inflation and the lowering of the value of each dollar that we own. What should happen is that this determination should be made and then the government departments and each Minister should be forced or obliged to operate within that maximum amount.
Parliament must say no to Bill C-21. We must call a halt to this profligacy. We must make the Government become responsible and we must implement the system I have outlined.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. 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.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with the House Leaders on the other side and we have come to an understanding that at this time today tributes will be paid to the Right Hon. Bora Laskin. I understand that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants to do that and he is on his way. I would ask you very respectfully to recognize the Prime Minister for that purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).

March 27, 1984
The Late Bora Laskin


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians lost one of their greatest champions of equity and fairness. I rise in this House today to pay tribute to the Right Hon. Bora Laskin, the 14th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
Any attempt to categorize the man is predestined to fall short of doing him justice. His public persona is well known: he was a brilliant scholar and academic-a mentor to thousands of young men and women, all of whom recall him with genuine affection. His writings, particularly on property and constitutional law, remain required reading for any serious law student.
I personally did not have the privilege of studying with this great teacher, but I would be remiss if I did not state the very great personal debt I feel to him, intellectually and emotionally. I am a life-long student of the Constitution and sometime teacher, and certainly in latter years, a practitioner of constitutional matters. I want to say that it was with something like a sense of awe that I approached the writings of the man and read his judgments, so much were they imbued with clarity and a sense of equity.
His judgments during his 19 years on the bench demonstrated sensitivity, humanity, thoroughness, intellectual rigour, and an unfailing understanding of the law.

That his majority judgments should have become part of our jurisprudence is entirely normal, Mr. Speaker, but it is remarkable, on the other hand, that his dissenting judgments have also become an important source of reference and inspiration. It is perhaps the distinguishing mark of the great law scholar that Bora Laskin was, that his judgments, whether for or against, were always interesting, never indifferent, always inspired respect and were never disappointing. We are thankful that this exceptional Canadian, even after reaching retirement age, continued to serve his country and his fellow citizens with the integrity, dedication and generosity that was his. [English]
Always sensitive to the needs and conditions of the country, he expressed an important truth when he said: "The law must constantly adapt to the changing reality of Canadian life".
He was regularly honoured with citations, awards, and degrees, but he never sought recognition and never hoped for greatness. His life was a private pursuit of excellence, and no one was more amazed than he by the attention his remarkable success attracted.
Bora Laskin found pleasure not in reviewing his own accomplishments but in the company of his family and his students. His humility was as refreshing as it was genuine.
I recall once asking him which of his many achievements he remembered most fondly. "That is easy," he replied. "When I was young, back in Fort William, I played baseball. I still hold the record for the longest home run hit out of the local ballpark."
Today, as the sympathy of the nation goes out to Mrs. Laskin and her children, we are all conscious that we have lost a remarkable man who gained the respect and admiration of Canadians, and of countless others throughout the world, for his dedication to the rule of law, to civil liberties and social justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, greatness has been compared to a forest giant that, when removed, leaves emptiness around it. Such was the greatness of Bora Laskin. Without being born to privilege or easy accomplishment, his qualities were such that greatness was his inevitable destiny. He walked the path of high achievement without forgetting his roots and with an unswerving commitment to the rights of the humble and unrepresented.
He was, above all, a great and distinguished Canadian. His outlook was essentially and distinctly Canadian. He read with uncanny certitude the scroll of Canadian destiny. He possessed, in my judgment from afar, a keenly sensitive appreciation of where we had been, where we were, and where this nation must go. He used his talent and his genius, his deep understanding of the broad sweep and play of constitutional forces, to assist the forward movement of this nation.
He remained true to his origins. His parents were Russian Jewish immigrants who settled in western Canada and moved to Thunder Bay. His unswerving commitment to minority rights and his deep sense of tolerance were ingrained by the heritage of which he was so justifiably proud.
The power and insight which were to mark his judgments in the highest Court of Canada were apparent as a student, and later professor, at the University of Toronto where he won a reputation as a strong and able defender of civil liberties.
I can remember in the early 1960s, as a law student at the University of Laval in Quebec City, that the comments, articles, and opinions of Mr. Laskin were held up as examples of excellence which all associated with the law strove to emulate.
In ten turbulent years he placed his stamp on the Supreme Court, which became described as "Laskin's Court". [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, he is referred to, and rightly so, as liberal rather than radical, innovative rather than revolutionary. In fact, he will be remembered as a man of his time, for having wanted to adapt the law to changing circumstances. Bora Laskin was very concerned that Canadians did not understand how the legal system worked and, especially, were not aware of the importance of the role played by the Supreme Court in Canada. Because of this, he made a considerable effort to give the Court's important judgments more publicity and attention. He liked to say that it is necessary to have informed citizens if we are to maintain and observe the law.
His death is a tremendous loss, not only for the judicial and legal world but for all Canadians.
March 27, 1984

O)

His supreme achievement was to shake the Court out of the straight-jacket of orthodoxy in which it had long operated. He brought the Supreme Court to the mainstream of major national issues, cutting the knot of constitutional impasse in order to remove from the political arena the vital issue of Canadian rights. The Court became a deeply human entity whose rulings were to become part of the daily living of every Canadian.
Bora Laskin was an ornament to his profession, his community, and to the nation. He kindled a light that will not soon be extinguished.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, with the death of Bora Laskin we have witnessed the passing of a truly great Canadian, one who was humble in his origins. He was a man who grew up as really an ordinary boy, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has reminded us, who took great pleasure in playing sports and who cited his baseball accomplishments as perhaps the most noteworthy of all.
He was a modest man who achieved great heights in our society. In many aspects of his life, not simply in his contributions to our judicial system, he made a distinguished contribution. He was a teacher of extraordinary ability. During the late 1960s I had the pleasure and honour of sharing with him the responsibilities of a commission at York University which was looking into the then existing difficulties on the campus, including, as they did, the conflicts that were occurring between young people and faculty members. These conflicts were occurring not only in our nation at that time but indeed throughout the industrialized democratic world. During that period I saw Bora Laskin close at hand as a man with a fine mind, a rigorously logical intelligence, but also as a man of broad sympathies and democratic inclinations. During the work he did at that time in the University community he made a great contribution to the intellectual and student life of the University.
He was, as Canadians know, one of the truly great judges of our period. For 19 years he worked particularly on bringing home to Canadians the importance of fundamental human rights. He was a great defender of the Charter of Rights. He was a great believer in improving the rights of women in our society. He was a scholar, making a distinguished contribution to our own tradition of constitutional law. As has been noted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Prime Minister, he really did prepare our Supreme Court for its new role in our society for the decades to come. He went beyond the old rigidities of the law. He saw law as a liberating and changing force in society. More than any other man of his time, he showed leadership to our existing Supreme Court to ensure that it would function in that kind of way in the future.
We regret his passing, Mr. Speaker, as only a nation can regret the passing of one of its distinguished sons or daughters.
The Late Bora Laskin
An extraordinary man has left an extraordinary gap in our nation. We send our profoundest sympathy to Mrs. Laskin and other members of his family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, a great honour I have had in life has been the friendship of the late Chief Justice Bora Laskin and of his beloved Peggy. I knew him first when 1 was a student and he was a pioneer in legal education who, with the late Cecil Wright, established the concept which made the University of Toronto Law School the centre of excellence and a model for most of the law schools founded in Canada since then. In those days all the students at the school, and we were not many, shared a sense that we were part of something special. Indeed, we were. Bora Laskin was our inspiration to legal excellence.
He was also our inspiration to hard work. During my three years at the law school, Professor Laskin's door was never closed, and the worktable beside the door was where he could be found, morning, noon, and night, weekdays and weekends, preparing lectures, preparing opinions, editing law reports and, nevertheless, taking the time and interest to give advice to students about the law, about job prospects, and about personal problems, as if he had no other responsibilities.
His true and highest calling was that of teacher. To his surprise, and to mine, I led his classes in both constitutional law and in property law. That was the basis for continuing contact and friendship that we shared over the years. His later distinction was no surprise to any of the thousands of students like me for whom he was a model. His passing is a grievous loss to Canada.
Bora Laskin was also a member of the Jewish community. His Jewish roots were a clear and constant part of his life. A love of the law and a love of learning are central values to Jewish culture, and every Jew in this country has shared pride and satisfaction that a member of our community was called to the greatest heights of service to Canada. It says much of our beloved Canada that he was so recognized. This is a sad day for all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague, the Solicitor General, I never had the opportunity of being a student of Chief Justice Laskin, except in the broader sense, because I had chosen a rival law school. But I did have the great pleasure of being for six years his colleague on the teaching faculty of the University of Toronto. He was a man who was very kind to young professors, provided of course that you were prepared to accept his own very high standards of dedication and excellence. He was never too busy to give advice. He was a master of detail, but nevertheless, and despite his great legal knowledge, he was also a warmly human person who was always prepared, when he saw an inequity, to respond to the needs of the situation and to be kind, and even indulgent, to the student or person involved.

March 27, 1984
Oral Questions
He was a very great Canadian, and it has been one of the greatest joys for me, being Minister of Justice at this time in our history, that my former colleague was at the same time the Chief Justice of Canada. He was a great scholar, a great person, a very human man. I want to extend my sincere sympathy, and I am sure that of all my colleagues in the House, to his wife and his family.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that we rise and observe a minute's silence in memory of the Late Chief Justice, Bora Laskin.
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Would there be unanimous agreement that the period of questions extend until five minutes past three?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I would like to refer him to yesterday's Hansard where, as reported at page 2422, he said:
If need be, we will make the necessary adjustments.
He was referring to the economic situation. He went on to
say:
In the meantime I see no reason to change the basic policy that we have been following.
If that statement means anything, Mr. Speaker, it means that the Government is not powerless to affect our economic situation, as it has been claiming now for some months, and that it could make adjustments.
Unemployment is up for the fourth month in a row. There has been an increase in the average time that the unemployed are unemployed in excess of 14 weeks. The number of people working full-time is 352,000 below the pre-recession peak, and 68,000 below the number when the Liberals returned to govern in 1980. The number of young people without jobs is 346,000 below that peak, and there are 288,000 more youth unemployed than when the Government came to power.
In view of those facts, why not make the adjustments now? If you can make adjustments to the economy as you implied yesterday, why not do it now? Why wait? Why are you still requiring the unemployed to suffer, if you can take action that might prevent that?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is not the Government that has claimed nothing could be done about the economy. These are statements the Member made when he was Minister of Finance. I have already quoted some of those statements of his which are in Hansard.
Second, I would like to invite the Hon. Member to address the Chair when asking questions, and respect the rules of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: Poor baby.


An Hon. Member:: Come on.


Marc Lalonde: Third, I want to tell my friend that the forecast I made at the time of the Budget-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Tell the Speaker.


Marc Lalonde: -of growth this year of 4.9 per cent is still valid. When I prepared the Budget of February 15 I bore in mind the figures that the Hon. Member mentioned. The Budget of April 15, 1983, and the Budget of February 15, 1984, were aimed at addressing the economic problems of the country. I am confident that the measures I announced in the Budget of February are those which are required and are adequate for the time being.
As I have indicated, however, we are monitoring the situation and, as Minister of Finance, I am concerned with trying to make sure that every step is taken to ensure that the Canadian economy will experience the best possible rate of growth and we will be able to address, in the most effective way, the economic problems that we face in our country.


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister confirmed again today that he is monitoring the situation. Yesterday he said:
If need be, we will make the necessary adjustments.
Do we not need adjustments when there are 1,476,000 unemployed? Do we not need adjustments when the interest rate has just gone up, when the dollar is sinking, and when inflation has started up again? For two months in a row we have had renewed inflation. How long do the unemployed and everyone else in the country who is suffering from your economic chaos have to suffer before you make those adjustments? Why not make the adjustments now?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In the interest of everyone, I am sure the Hon. Member for St. John's West will realize questions should be addressed to the Chair.


John Carnell Crosbie: Through you, Mr. Speaker. I repeat the question.
March 27, 1984


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the main thing that is sinking these days is the credibility of the Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I would like to repeat to the Hon. Member that in the Budget which I put forward last February I introduced measures to deal with the economic problems the country is facing. I indicated that there would be no magic solutions and it would take time to reduce unemployment.
However, the Canadian economy experienced a strong rate of growth last year. It will experience a strong rate of growth this year. It is through the application of consistent, responsible economic policies that we will ensure this country will know the growth it deserves-not by the kind of rhetoric in which the Hon. Member is indulging.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister that he was the one who said, on the day after he tabled his Budget, that he was happy that his new Budget was not having any effect on the Canadian economy. The Minister said that.


INTEREST RATE INCREASES-BUDGET STATEMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in his reply to questions the Minister made light of the interest rate increase of one-half of one per cent which has just occurred. Why did the Minister, in his Budget of February 15, The Canadian Economy in Recovery, say:
Further progress in reducing interest rates and the growth of costs is essential if the business sector is to restore its financial strength and become a sustaining force in the recovery.
Why did the Minister say that on February 15 if he now believes that interest rate increases are nothing to be feared at all and he is not worried about them? Why this inconsistency? Why is the Minister now contradicting his Budget? Which Minister has the Toni? Which Minister is the phoney?


Mr. McDermid:: Obviously there is no Toni there. [Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am used to the Hon. Member, and I am not going to get upset about his lighthearted approach to serious matters. However, I may remind him that the Government's position has been to favour the lowest possible interest rates, that a decrease in interest rates would be a very welcome development, and if it were up to us, we would be delighted to take measures that would bring about an additional decrease in interest rates.
Unfortunately, Canada does not live under a glass bell, isolated from the rest of the world. We are part of the world economy, and we are also very much affected by events in the United States. If there is a rise in interest rates in the United States, clearly we would not be able to keep our rates at levels
Oral Questions
lower than those in the United States over a prolonged period of time.
I would remind my hon. friend that the banks' prime rate today is at the same level as in the United States-not higher and not lower-while several years ago, we had differences of up to 4 and 5 per cent between our rates and those in the United States. I want my hon. friend to understand that we are doing everything we can to ensure that interest rates in Canada will be as low as possible. I realize that if it were feasible, it would be preferable to have lower rates than the levels we have at the present time. I wish we did, but we must be realistic and understand that if interest rates rise in the United States, we will not be able to dissociate ourselves entirely from what is happening over there.


SIZE OF GOVERN MENT'S BORROWINGS
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister of Finance that we are living in an international world and we have to be conscious of what is going on outside the country. The policies he has been following over the past few years have gotten us into this position. I would like to draw to his attention another reason for the current weakness in the Canadian dollar. It is the growing awareness of Canada's reliance on international borrowing.
I have the Morgan Guarantee Report which shows that last year Canada was No. 3 in the world in the size of international borrowings, and the second largest borrower in the world the year before. I should remind the Minister that that equals the total of the two largest problem borrowers, Brazil and Mexico. The reason why we are doing this is that we are being pushed out into the world by the high international borrowing.
How much longer can Canada continue to borrow amounts of this magnitude in foreign markets-far in excess of other industrialized countries like France, the U.K. and Italy- before we have a serious balance of payments problem, a much more serious problem with the Canadian dollar, and the consequent increase in interest rates that that will bring?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have another rather incredible question from the Tory benches. One day they complain that the world has lost confidence in Canada, and the next day they come and say: "Look at that. We are large borrowers around the world. The world has confidence in Canada and is ready to lend us money".
The industrial history of this country has been built on foreign borrowings. We need a lot of investment from abroad. We need a lot of borrowing from abroad because we do not have enough resources in this country to ensure the full potential that this country has.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 27, 1984
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: You better go to Brazil.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is what the Brazilians used to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister of Finance has the floor.


Marc Lalonde: Not only can the Tories not look forward, they cannot even look backward to learn the history of this country. I invite them to look back and see how this country was built. It was built by a large influx of money from abroad, either in the form of borrowing, investment, or both.
As far as the specific point raised by the Hon. Member is concerned about what will happen, I must remind him that in the last two years we have had the largest trade surplus in our history and our current accounts are on a positive, not negative basis. We have had a surplus on our current account basis.
The story is to keep on being as effective as we have been in terms of competing in the world markets, exporting as we have been doing, and ensuring that we remain in a positive situation on our national accounts basis.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I shudder for this country when I see the Minister of Finance keeping his head in the sand as he did in that particular response. Surely he understands that the bankers of this world had confidence in Brazil and Mexico, yet look at the situation in those countries today.


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: The weak dollar is clearly the reason why interest rates are rising today. High interest rates will bury some small businessmen and farmers who are only now struggling to get out of the mud in which the Government put them in 1981 and 1982. Will the Minister reassure these small businessmen and farmers, who create about 75 per cent of jobs today, that some of the alternatives he was talking about yesterday will be brought forward and directed to the problems that they are facing, so that they will not begin to lay off people and increase the level of unemployment?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend would care to refer to some statements by a number of economists who have pointed out that an increase in interest rates like the one we experienced in the last few days will not necessarily lead to a slow-down in economic growth. As my hon. friend is aware, many other factors play a role in decisions regarding economic growth.
I may also remind him, for instance, that as far as small businesses are concerned, the Government announced a number of measures in its Budget last April, adding further measures in the Budget brought down in February of this year. These measures are more specifically concerned with substantially simplifying taxation for small businesses. We are going to cut three-quarters of the small businesses tax legislation, and we shall be giving small businesses a tax advantage of
$150 million, as a result of the measures 1 announced in the Budget.
I believe these measures are an indication of our firm belief in the importance of small and medium-sized businesses in this country as far as job creation is concerned, and of our willingness to take steps to ensure that this sector will experience enough growth to create the jobs we need in this country.


MONITORING OF INTEREST RATES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He just said that there is a great need for foreign investment in Canada. I remind the Minister of Finance that he gave corporations in Canada almost $3 billion in blank cheque giveaways in his last Budget and that the same corporations invested about $2 billion outside Canada last year. If he did something about that he would have less need to be concerned about more foreign investment.
Since he said in response to a question from the NDP yesterday that he was monitoring the interest rate situation and would be prepared to take action at some point, at what point will the Government take action? Will it be when interest rates reach 12 per cent, 14 per cent, 16 per cent, or when?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party has expressed interest in the question of foreign investment. He is concerned about money going out, for instance, and I must remind him that he should also look at money coming in. I want to tell him that in 1983 this country had a net capital inflow. When the money that goes out is compared to the money that comes in, it can be seen that we had a net capital inflow of $5.5 billion last year. We had a net inflow into this country of $5.5 billion in foreign investment in 1983. My friend should look at both sides of the picture and realize that Canada has been a net beneficiary of foreign investment in 1983.
With respect to the specific question which he raised, let me repeat what I stated yesterday, that we are always monitoring the situation and carefully looking at the evolution of the economy, but there was no reason to make any change to the provisions I had put forward in my Budget of February 15. I still believe that the measures that were contained in that Budget are those required in the current circumstances.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the Minister of Finance that that simply will not do. It is not just the members on this side of the House who want an answer as to when the Government will be prepared to take action, it is the home owner who must renew his or her mortgage next month, and the business person or farmer who is desperately trying to stay afloat right now.
* ; [DOT]


March 27, 1984


GOVERNMENT ACTION INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister who made the promise in the House yesterday, and then in the committee, that the Government would be prepared to take action at a certain point. In the name of the farmer and home owner who must know, if they are to have some stability in their lives, when will the Government take some action?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member was not in the House yesterday or in the committee yesterday, because then he would have at least quoted me correctly. I did not say that we would take action. We are already taking action, and we have taken action. We have done this in the Budget which I have put forward, and in the Speech from the Throne. We are continuously taking action.
I said that we are monitoring the situation and, if necessary, adjustments will be made to our policies. At the present time I see no reason to make any adjustment to the proposals I put forward in the February 15 Budget. If my friend wants to take the time and trouble to check what was said, he could at least represent it accurately.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I made the mistake of assuming that the Minister of Finance, as a Liberal, meant action when he said that he would make adjustments. I should have known that action and the Liberal Government are a contradiction in terms.


TIMING OF POSSIBLE POLICY ADJUSTMENTS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I accept what the Minister has now said, that he is really not promising action. If that is the case, will he tell us when he will make his adjustments? The last time we went through this merry-go-round in interest rates they went up to 22 per cent, which was an unmitigated disaster for the economy of Canada and the people of Canada. Is the Minister telling us that he will not make adjustments even if interest rates go back up to 22 per cent? At what level will he act?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, Perhaps if the Hon. Member were in the House more often, he would have less trouble interpreting and understanding the answers we are giving, which are quite straightforward.
I clearly indicated that the Government has taken many measures to address the economic situation in Canada.
These measures were included in the Budget brought down last April and are aimed at assisting all sectors of the Canadian economy, and especially the private sector which needed incentives to provide for the economic recovery we experienced in the past year and are experiencing at the present time.
Oral Questions
These measures have been amplified by additional measures in the Budget brought down on February 15 of this year. In that Budget and in the Speech from the Throne, we announced a series of other measures, including measures to assist young people, for whom we created a special youth fund of $1.3 billion to help create jobs for young people. We also announced measures to assist small businesses, measures that will provide a stimulus of about $150 million for small businesses; measures to help those who are in need, including single Canadians over 65 who, this year, will receive $50 more with their guaranteed income supplement. Those are just a few of the many measures that have been proposed by the Government.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he explain the need for a full page ad in The Calgary Herald promoting himself and his hat, instead of placing a much smaller ad in bold print, if one was needed at all? Can the Minister justify the expenditure of $4,000 promoting his profile? Had he funnelled that money to one farmer and his family, he might have saved them from bankruptcy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can show the Hon. Member the correspondence and I can show him how many years that ad has been carried to support agriculture in one of the greatest provinces in the production of agriculture in Canada, and that is Alberta. We have done that since 1979. It is too bad the Hon. Member does not read The Calgary Herald more often, or he would see the ad more often.


MINISTER'S HAT
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the ad has a rather large picture of the Minister and his hat. Would the Minister of Agriculture announce his leadership intentions now before he spends any more of the taxpayers' money, so that farmers and other Canadians will know? Otherwise we would suggest that the Prime Minister take away his stetson, in its place put a dunce hat, and send him off to the four corners of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member reeks with jealousy, that's for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 27, 1984
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: What a profile.


Eugene Whelan: He only wishes that he could be identified so well with a hat of any kind, or without one as far as that goes. He only wishes to be known so well not only in Canada but all over the world. The green hat was given to me by a group of farmers in western Canada-and to wear also. They told me: "Mr. Whelan, you wear that, because green is a sign of growth, green is a sign of hope, green is a sign of prosperity, green is a sign of money, and green is for the Irish too."


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: And green is the sign of rot.


John Horton McDermid: And green is the sign of old cheese.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES DESCRIPTION ATTRIBUTED TO MINISTER
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. He recently told a television interviewer that we would not catch him not doing his job. We would be grateful to catch him in his seat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Discipline him, Pierre.


Pat Carney: The Minister recently told the CBC program entitled The Journal that the energy ministry was in a turmoil when he took it over a year and a half ago. Turmoil was his description, Mr. Speaker.
We are aware of the turmoil created by the National Energy Program, the suspension of drilling, the loss of jobs, and the collapse of the market in that area, but we have never had the Minister acknowledge that these policies of the Liberal Government created turmoil. Could the Minister please elaborate on the nature and the degree of the turmoil he found when he took the Department over from his predecessor, the current Minister of Finance?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I can see that Members on the other side are very worried that we are having a good leadership race, and they know now they are going to lose the election. I forgive the hon. lady for her nervousness.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 think the answer was lack of communication, because at that time there had been a difficult agreement
negotiated between the provinces and the federal Government and we had to explain policy. After that we were in Alberta dealing with the provincial Government and the industry, explaining the policy and why we needed self-sufficiency, security of supply, and Canadianization. They understood that our policy was so good-


John Carnell Crosbie: Why didn't Lalonde do that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -and now, after the many months the Hon. Member has been my critic, she has not been at all able to come up with anything better than the energy policy that we gave to the Canadian people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPORT PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I can only assure him that we expect to relieve him of his duties after the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: The Minister also said in The Journal interview:
Tell me where there is a problem in energy today.
I ask the Minister whether he considers no problem his failure to deal with the natural gas pricing situation so that we are only exporting 40 per cent of our contracts, his failure to reach an agreement with Newfoundland, and his failure to reduce the financial outflow under the PIP grants which are already $400 million over budget this year. Is the Minister really telling this House that none of these are problems?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that in a few months I will not be Minister of Energy because I will be Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I can assure the Hon. Member that I will have a very good Minister of Energy, because I have a lot of friends on this side who will be happy to serve in that capacity. They all know, as the Opposition knows, that we have made a lot of progress. For example, on the pricing of natural gas the movement made last summer was undertaken in agreement with the industry and the Government of Alberta. That was an agreement with the provincial Government and the industry. I say to the Hon. Member, ask the Hon. Member in front of her who was Prime Minister for seven months. He could not do anything with the Government of Alberta. It needed the Liberal Government to make an agreement with the Government of Alberta.
March 27, 1984


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure he is aware that during February-


An Hon. Member:: Shut up, you yahoos.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: Tell him. He will have a question of privilege.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. I am sure the Minister does have a question of privilege regarding that last comment.
I am sure the Minister is aware that during February there were 212,000 unemployed in British Columbia, 74,000 are between the ages of 15 and 24. I am sure the Minister is also aware that over the next 10 weeks over 100,000 will be hitting the job market in British Columbia.
My question to the Minister results from a weekend survey done by The Vancouver Sun which reveals that B.C.'s ten largest corporations will only hire a couple of hundred students, and B.C.'s largest corporation, MacMillan Bloedel, only plans to hire six summer students. Since Statistics Canada has revealed that already unemployment among young people in B.C. is over 25 per cent, would the Minister tell us what new measures he plans to take during the coming weeks and months to put some of those people back to work in British Columbia?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, first, if my colleague, the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources, keeps on making such extraordinary statements I will have to think seriously about whether or not I will put him in the next Cabinet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I think the hon. gentleman-and I thank him for his question-knows that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, at the time of his Budget indicated that there would be an increase in funding for employment for young people of something like $150 million. The Cabinet has under very active consideration how to use that money, perhaps for some new programs, or in relation to a variety of existing programs, which will help respond to the problem that he has cited for us.
Oral Questions


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the Minister continues to wear that tie he will get a job on Saturday Night Live.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ADVICE TO YOUNG UNEMPLOYED
James Ross Fulton: It is now estimated in British Columbia that there will be close to 200,000 young people unemployed and on the street by the middle of the summer. Since big business will not hire them, the Vancouver Sun has learned, and since the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in a recent survey learned that 73 per cent of small businesses in British Columbia will not hire young people this summer, and since the Minister's entire program in British Columbia will only create 11,900 jobs, what is the Minister telling this House, and young British Columbians, they should do? That is 188,000 young people who will be out of work this summer. What should they do?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I believe the short answer to the question of the Hon. Member is that they should look very seriously at using the programs of Summer Canada. Its funding has again been increased this year, and may very well be increased once again before the summer months arrive. They should also use the services of the Canada Employment Centres, which are active in British Columbia, in order to assist them in finding work.
All of us realize that the situation is going to be difficult. However, as I hope the Hon. Member recognizes, the Government has already taken considerable steps in terms of funding, something like $1.3 billion of funding this year, in order to create jobs for young people and help them with training, and to provide services which bring young people into contact with jobs. The most important advice I can give to the Hon. Member to pass on to his young constituents is for them make active use of our employment facilities.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
On July 21, 1983, the Minister announced that the Government would take several initiatives to assist Canadian clothing manufacturers who were concerned about the increase in clothing imports. In the same press release, the Minister pointed out that he would be using bilateral agreements with the main suppliers on the subject of proper marketing practice. However, although the press bulletin and policy were well-intentioned, the House is aware that after the first two months

March 27, 1984
Oral Questions
of this year, January and February we saw a substantial increase in import permits, and this while last year's levels were already unacceptable. I would like to know whether or not the Minister intends to implement the policy he announced last year?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in the textile industry is a difficult one at the present time. First of all, we must protect the workers. We have taken steps to protect their jobs. Last week, I met with the Advisory Council representing the industry, and we hope to be making recommendations to the Government within the next few weeks.
* *
*


SPORTS POOL CORPORATION
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. I always thought that Government over there was a Government of compromise. There were three Ministers in that portfolio prior to the present Minister. One is in the other place. He is going to lose a baseball franchise because of the lotteries. The second, who just spoke, was a sports broadcaster. He had a difficult time with his French lesson. The third Minister, from Montreal-Mercier, was a loser as far as sport was concerned. But 1 would like to ask the present Minister, who is at least a golfer, why has he not sat down with his provincial counterparts to reach a compromise as far as the sports lottery is concerned, a sports lottery which is now reaping the Government $35 million annually?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the issue is quite simple. First of all, since the federal Government has nothing to do with lotteries, we could hardly sit down with some people and talk about lotteries. So much for that.
Second, Mr. Speaker, it must be recalled that in 1979 the Government of Mr. Clark simply gave up its rights in the field of lotteries.
Third, it exchanged some $300 million to $400 million for revenues of about $200 million. It is easy to trade in a Cadillac for a Volkswagen!
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, we told everybody involved in lotteries that we have no intention of invading that field and that the athletic events pools we are setting up will be used only to help amateur sports, the Calgary Olympics and medical research. I think that it is clear and that the position of the former Government is quite clear. It was clear as well for all previous Ministers and only the Hon. Member opposite seems to be confused.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING
Steve Eugene Paproski: Is the Minister aware that if he were to sit down with his counterparts he would be able to have at least three or four draws annually for the Calgary Olympics? Since the Minister has not had contact with his provincial counterparts, would he like me to set up a meeting to resolve the whole matter as a conciliator? Vous comprenez, Jacques?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I understand very well. If I would take the Hon. Member as a conciliator, we would lose hundreds of millions of dollars.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat here that we intend to respect the 1979 agreement. But what we did not do, however, was to give away our right to set up sports pools. That is why the House of Commons adopted a law and we have every intention of getting into sports pools.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he flown the coup again? I will, then, direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. When will the Minister give direction to his Department to allow bands to transfer funds within their budgets from one category to another? When is he going to do this? He has gone across the country saying he is for Indian self-government. When is he going to allow this to happen?


Mr. Nielsen:: Here is your chance!


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Yukon says this is my chance. I would only comment, Mr. Prime Minister, in view of some of the answers given by some of my colleagues on this side, there is going to be a rich opportunity for the backbench when I am in charge.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Line up, boys!


John Carr Munro: I would say this, Mr. Speaker, if the Government can expect the support, which we hope we
March 27, 1984

will get from the Official Opposition and the Hon. Member when the Government comes in with legislation setting up Indian self-government, that will be one of the inevitable results of that type of legislation. It can only be through the legislative route that that type of measure, that very beneficial measure, indeed, which the Hon. Member is talking about, can be accomplished. I hope I would have his support.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ALLOW TRANSFERS
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is going across the country talking about Indian self-government. Two years ago the Department of Indian Affairs imposed regulations on bands across the country which would not allow them to transfer funds from one category to another. I have three bands in my riding, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member ask his question?


Jack Wendele Shields: I have three bands in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to ask the Minister if he would allow them to transfer funds from category to category within their budgets, not calling on the Department of Indian Affairs for any more money, instead of forcing the bands and their councillors to go on welfare, shutting down their offices, because they cannot transfer those funds.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is talking about one band I have in mind, it is not so much a question of being able to transfer funds. The Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, is fully aware of what I am talking about. There may be just complete insufficiency of funds, period, for reasons I do not believe we need go into at the present moment. If it means transferring funds between parliamentary Votes, the Hon. Member has been a part of the Standing Committee and he knows I cannot legally do that.
There may be other restrictions under the Financial Administration Act which we can only overcome by passing the legislation setting up Indian self-government, and making provision in the legislation for the type of flexibility about which the Hon. Member is talking. That is why I am going across the country, along with a lot of the Indian leadership, advocating this. That is why I believe most members of the Official Opposition and the NDP supported the recommendations of the standing committee to establish a new financial relationship between the Indian people and the Government to accomplish that very thing, which can only be accomplished on a wide scale by legislation.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the situation in Cyprus. The Government has given a clear statement condemning the unilateral declaration of independence on the part of Turkish Cypriot authorities. The Government has been very firm in this. Will the Government show our concern with the ongoing situation, and show our concern and support for the legal Government of the Republic of Cyprus, by strengthening our representation in Nicosia, specifically by raising our representation there to the level of a high commission, and having a High Commissioner in the capital at Nicosia in place of the representation we have now, which is at the level of honorary consul?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have, as the Hon. Member mentions, supported the Government of Cyprus and we have opposed the unilateral declaration on the part of the Turkish Cypriots. In addition, we have been supporting the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who is presently involved in an important process to bring the two parties together in the hope that some negotiated settlement can be brought about I do not think in the present circumstances we would materially affect the situation by changing the level of our representation in Nicosia.


COMMITMENT TO GOVERNMENT OF CYPRUS
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is no doubt aware that the situation is of concern to all Canadians, particularly to our Greek Canadian friends who have just celebrated Greek National Day and the liberation of their country from foreign occupation. The situation in Cyprus is fragile, to say the least. Will the Minister tell us what measures in addition he might be prepared to undertake to show our concern and ongoing support for the legal Government and what diplomatic measures through the United Nations, as already mentioned, which might be taken with our ally, the United States, a major backer financially of the Turkish Government? What measures might be taken by way of economic or other sanctions that would show our very strong commitment to the legal Government of the Republic of Cyprus.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks us to give a demonstration of our commitment to the situation in Cyprus. I do not think any country has demonstrated a greater commitment than Canada. As the

March 27, 1984
Oral Questions
Hon. Member knows, we have maintained a peace force in Cyprus for almost 20 years. We will be asked once more by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to maintain a Canadian contingent of the United Nations Peace Force in Cyprus. We have done that in the expectation that at some point the parties will come together and resolve the problem so that our presence will no longer be necessary.
I must say at times I wonder how long we will have to remain in Cyprus in order to induce the contending parties to use the method of negotiation so that we can, at the appropriate time, withdraw our forces. I do not think it was ever intended that a peacekeeping force should remain in a situation for that length of time. 1 think that explanation is a pretty firm indication of the long-standing commitment that we have shown to Cyprus.


AGRICULTURE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the Minister indicate the results of his inquiry with the Canadian Dairy Council with respect to the illegally imported French butter which was used by the Department of External Affairs, at up to $10 a pound? Does he agree with the External Affairs chef that French butter is better than the best of Canadian butter?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should not have had to ask the last part of his question. He knows there is no better butter than our butter, the butter that we have in Canada. It is utter nonsense to suggest that somebody else has better butter than we have.
The price was never $10 per pound. The butter was brought into Canada illegally. It was brought to our attention in November or December of last year. We asked the RCMP to make an inquiry. We do not know how it came into Canada without a permit. Any butter that comes into Canada must come in under a permit under the Export and Import Permits Act, and be subject to our inspection.
This butter was not inspected by our people. We do not understand why anybody would want to bring it in. It was only used for a short time in the External Affairs restaurant, not in the cafeteria where the ordinary people are.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: They use Canadian butter. The chef in that cafeteria says it is the best butter in the world.
We know that the chefs who compete in international competitions that we sponsor world-wide, and who win world championships and gold medals, use Canadian butter in Europe and wherever else they compete.
Butter on sale in Ottawa this week is $1.79 a pound.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne, Member for the electoral district of Langelier, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) raised a point of order, complaining of an expression used by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) when answering a question in the House. I have carefully reviewed Hansard and I find that the Minister used the words "a very nice example of wilful distortion". However, I also find that the Hon. Member, when asking her question, said: "Why does the Minister blatantly misrepresent the facts"?
I find it difficult to make a distinction between "wilful distortion" and "blatant misrepresentation". If one is out of order, then I suggest the other is as well. It seems to me that the Hon. Member and the Minister have in the cut and thrust made something close to an equal trade. These kinds of exchanges have become a regular feature of our Question Period, regretfully in my opinion. Questions and answers become mini debates in which political accusations fly back and forth all the time. I would add that it would greatly assist the Chair if Hon. Members were to avoid the kinds of expressions to which I have referred.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, just so that I may understand your ruling, is it now the position of the Chair that the attribution of a wilful desire to mislead is no longer a breach of the privileges of the House?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has made it quite clear, and I believe this has been a traditional position of the Chair, that the circumstances have to be taken into account. Unparliamentary terms are to be judged in the light of what they do to the House and what they do to the level and tone of debate. The Chair is simply pointing out that when a question begins with an accusation and, in the cut and thrust across both sides of the House, words are used, it is very difficult to draw the
March 27, 1984

line between one expression and another. This is by no means intending that out of a blue sky people can cast aspersions on Hon. Members in the way in which the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) is concerned. The Chair would obviously be very much concerned if that were to develop. The Chair is expressing a reservation concerning the language that has been used, not only in the answers, but in the questions in recent Question Periods in the House.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that in our exchanges we keep not only the decorum of this place, but we respect the rules of this House and its traditions. Indeed, as you indicated, I had used unparliamentary language. I am very happy to withdraw the word "wilful". If I may use the expression, I hope that my colleague will do the equally gentlemanly thing.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I will do the ladylike thing by withdrawing the word "blatant" from my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair expresses its appreciation to both the hon. lady and the hon. gentleman for their actions in these circumstances. If other Hon. Members of either sex could be guided accordingly in the future, it would assist the tone of the debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not know whether or not you recall the exchange between myself and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier), Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that he intentionally wanted to mislead the House regarding the amount of money that could possibly be made in lotteries when they are making $35 million a year right now and are going to lose that-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is, of course, entitled to debate the matter and may no doubt make some valid points in debate. I invite him to take advantage of a statement under Standing Order 21 or of some other opportunity to make his point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by citizens of the riding of Grey-Simcoe who are deeply concerned and wish to see that everything possible is being done to maintain a viable automotive industry as well as other related industries such as rubber, glass, plastics, textiles, steel, aluminum, machinery and electri-
Business of the House
cal products. The petitioners are therefore asking the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) to act on the recommendations of the task force which was given the responsibility of doing an in-depth study on the industry as a whole. Concurrence in the recommendations by the Minister would be of immeasurable help and assistance to create the necessary positive economic climate for the betterment of these industries.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 500 residents of my constituency. Those residents of the riding of Beaches in the Province of Ontario and other concerned citizens, 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 the citizens of Canada oppose the arms race and any escalation of the arms race and that Canadians believe the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada makes this country an accomplice in the arms race.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demonstrate its opposition to the arms race by declaring Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that, despite consultations among representatives of the Parties, it has been impossible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 80 or Standing Order 81 with regard to the allocation of time to the second reading stage of Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority. Accordingly, at the next sitting of the House I shall propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 82 to allocate one sitting day to the said stage of the said Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Closure!
*


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House concerning a change in the order of business for the rest of this week. Contrary to the indication given last week, tomorrow will not be an allotted day, but instead Friday of this week will be the first designated day of the current supply period. For tomorrow and Thursday, the order of the day will be the consideration of Bill C-21 to provide borrowing authority.

March 27, 1984
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 357, 401, 490 and 728.


ARTISTS' STUDIOS ACQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. St. Germain: Does the Department of External Affairs and/or the Canada Council maintain artists' studios at the (a) Cite Internationale des Arts in Paris (b) Institute of Art and Urban Resources in New York and, if so (i) how many (ii) at what total cost?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canada Council as follows: (a) (i) Three, (ii) Those studios were acquired by the Department of External Affairs in 1964 for a total cost of $48,000. The maintenance costs of these studios are paid by the artists, (b) (i) Two studios are leased by Canada Council, (ii) SU.S. 7,000 per year.


SALE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Howie: Did the Government attempt to sell nuclear power technology to China and, if so, was there any indication of success with respect to potential sales of the Candu reactor or any other power technology?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. The Canadian Government has authorized AECL to pursue prospects for sale to the People's Republic of China of nuclear power reactors and related nuclear facilities and technologies subject to Canadian non-proliferation policy requirements. It is our understanding that marketing efforts have been undertaken.
While China's hydro power and coal reserves are extensive, it is interested in nuclear energy to serve the energy deficient industrialized and populous eastern and southern regions of the country. China's long-term nuclear program is still at the drafting stage but tentative plans have been drawn for a first phase to be completed by the early 1990's. To complete this first tranche, which will include two 900MWe at the Guangdong site, two 900MWe units at Huadong, a 300 MWe plant at Qinshan and two 250MWe heat and power plants at Jinsham, the PRC has selected the light water reactor technology. We are assured that research and development on other reactor types such as the heavy water reactor (like Candu) will be continued, leaving open the possibility of their introduction in the future.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-EXPENDITURE FOR HOSPITALITY
Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983, what total amount was spent for entertainment outside Canada by the Department of External Affairs?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Expenditures during 1982-83 for hospitality outside Canada amounted to $8,292,898.


SUPPLY REVOLVING FUND-ADVERTISING MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Mr. Blenkarn: With respect to the Supply Revolving Fund, in the fiscal year (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84 (c) 1984-85, what was the forecast or actual total expenditures and revenues for the Advertising Management Service and was this ever shown as a separate item in the Main Estimates and, if so, is it so indicated now and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: In 1982-83, the actual total expenditures and revenues for Advertising Management Services were $60,404 million and $60,147 million respectively. In 1983-84, the forecast total expenditures and revenues are $51,310 million and $52.0 million respectively. In 1984-85, the forecast total expenditures and revenues are $54,914 million and $55.0 million respectively. Advertising Management Services was shown as a separate item in the Main Estimates in 1982-83 and 198384. The Advertising Management Services is not shown as a separate activity in 1984-85 because it is a sub-activity of the Printing and Communications activity. In 1983, the Treasury Board approved the Operational Plan Framework for Supply Administration which effectively reduced the number of activities from thirteen to seven. All departments and agencies are required to submit Operational Plan Frameworks in accordance with the requirements of the Policy Expenditure Management System. This framework including a program activity structure must be approved by Treasury Board. The relationship between the old activity structure and the new is depicted on page 3.55 Supply and Services, Canada, 1984-85, Part III of the Main Estimates Expenditure Plan.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 27, 1984



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; and the amendment of Mr. Darling (p. 2292); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 2299).
Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astounded by the introduction today of the motion to impose closure yet again on another borrowing Bill. I do not know how many times in this Parliament the Government opposite has cut off debate and prevented the representatives of the taxpayers of Canada from doing their duty. In this case, Sir, it is clear that the duty of Members of Parliament is not to allow the Government to borrow yet more funds without a proper explanation and without a firm commitment on the part of the Government to mend its ways and stop this wanton spending and fiscal incontinence.
It was my intent this afternoon to use the one or two minutes remaining to address quite properly the subamendment which is supposed to be before us this afternoon. This subamendment would change the word "fiscal" in the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling) to the word "calendar". In my opinion, Sir, the wording of the amendment might be in error. Whether or not the substitution of the word "calendar" for the word "fiscal" would make it any better, I do not know. If it were possible to move an amendment to the subamendment, it would be my humble opinion that we should delete after "government's needs" the words "to the end of the current fiscal year". The amendment would then incorporate the principle without tying us up regarding to which particular fiscal period it applies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I inquire from the Hon. Member if he has made a formal motion or was it a rhetorical motion?


Dave Nickerson: Sir, it is my understanding of the rules that an amendment has been made to the motion on second reading and a subamendment has been made to that amendment, and therefore it is impossible for me to amend it yet further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I appreciate the Hon. Member's comments.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), I am absolutely appalled. I am not amazed and not in the least bit surprised but I am appalled at the lack of any type of fortitude in those across the aisle. They have no shame and there are no limits to the depths to which they will sink.
Borrowing Authority Act
Since I first came to the House, and other than a short stint in 1979, the Government has ruled by fiat and by closure. It gives it fancy names like time allocation, but it is a simple matter of closure. It is a matter of closing off the rights and the will of Members on this side of the House who wish to bring the concerns of Canadians before the House especially for something as important as the financing of the country.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: Guillotine.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: That is right, it is the guillotine. I rise to support the amendment to Bill C-21 proposed by my hon. colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). When I last spoke on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that the Government does not need even half of the money it is going to the trough for; it has $5 billion in reserve and that is enough money to take us to next November. It should not get one cent more than $20 billion and it knows that, so it has imposed closure. The amount is still astronomical and is an irresponsible demand on Canadian taxpayers-a demand made without accountability. There has not been one word about how the money is going to be spent.
Today's deficit symbolizes all that the Government has accomplished over the past 16 years-nothing. The size of the deficit is linked directly to the poor performance of all the major economic indicators and the list is a discouraging one.
The over-all performance of the Canadian economy in recent years-despite what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had the audacity to say today-has been so far below its potential as to be staggering and idiotic. It will remain so over the next few years unless there is a fast change of government.
In January of this year the Conference Board of Canada forecast a gloomy picture for the next two years. That is why it is so disturbing that the Minister of Finance continues to rise in the House to try to tell Canadians something that is absolutely not true. The forecast is for four quarters of negative growth in 1985 and a negative rate of job creation in the last half of this year, leaving us with double-digit unemployment for some time to come. The figures could be a lot worse if one could interpret exactly what the Minister said in his Budget. That was gobbledegook, but the effect is that we will still have over one million people unemployed by 1987. The Conference Board forecasts a rise of at least two more percentage points in interest rates by next year with no hint of a decline, and weak or negative capital investment.
There is only one reason for all this, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the federal deficit is seen as remaining in the $27 billion range. Despite all this the Government makes no effort whatsoever to address the problem, as the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) pointed out to the Minister of Finance just a few moments ago.
How can the Government promise Canadians a modest recovery when Canadian manufacturers are operating at 72 per cent of capacity, when over 10,000 Canadian businesses

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
declared bankruptcy last year and when a record number of farms-488, I believe-declared bankruptcy last year? All of these businesses and farms could have been bailed out with less money than it cost to purchase and maintain de Havilland and Canadair. What lunacy, Mr. Speaker! What is being practised on that side of the House?
The rate of bankruptcies among Canadian businesses is up 82 per cent since the last PC Government when a sensible Budget was brought in by the then Minister of Finance. Farm bankruptcies have increased four-fold while we argue in the House about a green hat. Is this what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had in mind on February 10, 1980 when he said that Fiberals would "manage the economy in such a way that interest rates would in fact come down . . . because the economy would be administered in a sounder way"? I do not know where he is taking his soundings but I do not like the depth of our debt. If eight borrowing Bills worth $102 billion in one Parliament is sound economic management, Mr. Speaker, then we need no further evidence that the Prime Minister has no interest in the economic well-being of Canadians.
The extent of Liberal fiscal policy has been reduced to the economics of supplementary borrowing Bills and, again, closure. Canadian hearts must bleed when people pick up the newspaper and see that Parliament is being eroded. It is being strangled. The Liberals do not even put up any speakers. I have been sitting here all day and one Member on the Government side has spoken but has not defended the huge amounts of money being borrowed.
The Liberal Government will be judged harshly, as it should be judged, in the next election. The Government must explain to Canadians why our over-all economic performance since 1974 has been ranked by Euromoney as thirty-seventh in the world, just behind Guatemala and Norway. Can that be called a wonderful record? Yet the Minister of Finance claims that we do not have the resources. That is ludicrous; not only do we have the greatest natural resources in the world, we have the greatest resource of any country-our people.
In the past decade we ranked sixty-second in terms of economic growth; twenty-sixth in terms of export-led growth; twenty-fifth in terms of inflation; thirtieth in terms of currency strength; and twentieth in terms of balance of payments growth. Yet the Minister of Finance had the audacity to tell Canadians that we are prosperous. It is a cruel joke, a hoax, Mr. Speaker. When you are down that far, Mr. Speaker, the only place to go is up. That will not be with the rogues opposite, Mr. Speaker, but with the Progressive Conservatives after the next election.
The Government is looking for $30 billion more. What is really at issue is the total lack of concern for the enormity of the problem that we face. It is this uncaring attitude that has eroded investor confidence in the country. Since the last election $17.6 billion in direct investment has been scared out of the country. The Finance Minister talks about $5 billion. I do not like the odds, Mr. Speaker; they are better than three to one.
I might mention that when Mr. Turner was Minister of Finance inflation increased by 5.5 per cent; the dollar fell by only about two cents; the money supply grew at an annual rate of 16.2 per cent; interest rates doubled; economic growth fell from 7.5 per cent to 1.2 per cent; government spending doubled and the deficit increased from $702 million to $5.5 billion. A lot of people are putting their faith in this "Man from Glad" who was the patriarch of deficit financing. Canadians had better not look to him for their salvation.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) was Minister of Finance, inflation rose from 8.5 per cent to 9.3 per cent; the dollar fell by 6.5 cents; the money supply grew at an annual rate of 13 per cent; interest rates rose from 7.5 per cent to 11.25 per cent; economic growth fell from 3.6 per cent to 1.1 per cent on an annual basis and government spending increased by 8 per cent per year. That Minister planned to raise the deficit from $10.8 billion to $12.5 billion in the year the Government was defeated. He is the other movie star hero opposite whom the other half of Members on the government benches are supporting. The only movie he ever made that characterized him was the one made about the Challenger Jet by Canadair when he, as Minister of Finance, put the first $50 million of taxpayers' money into a hairbrained scheme on which we now owe over $2 billion. There is no reason to believe that either of these potential leaders-oh heaven save us, Canada!-will do anything different.
There is no way to justify a borrowing Bill of the magnitude of Bill C-21 because most of the money requested will be left for the new leader to dispose of. After an election it will be the same old bunch. We have very little idea of how the present group plans to spend, other than wastefully. We know that this is the most profligate, spending Government in the history of Canada and we do not know how the next leader plans to use this money.
My colleague's amendment would restrict the amount being asked for. I support it and I support any move that would limit the size of the latest, gluttonous grab by the Government for a record amount of supplementary funds. I should like second reading to be denied the Bill in its present state but now, to add insult to injury, comes the greatest calamity that can befall Canadians on a fiscal Bill, and that is closure. I urge Members with any intestinal fortitude at all to oppose the Bill.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). He has described the outrage that Canadians are bound to feel regarding Bill C-21 which will escalate the borrowing authority of the Government of Canada to over $100 billion in this Parliament. We are informed that the gag will be imposed and that Parliament will be prevented from engaging in the legitimate debate it has a right to expect. The taxpayers will be prevented from hearing the legitimate arguments being put forward. That causes all Canadians a great deal of concern because the Government is playing around with the future of Canadians who cannot speak out because of their age but who are going to be saddled with the horrendous debts being piled on their
March 27, 1984

backs by this Government in an almost obscene effort to try to buy the Canadian taxpayer and voter with his own money. This is happening at a rate which is shocking to the sensibilities of every taxpayer and every businessman in this country.
It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the leadership candidates for the Party which is now the Government of Canada talking about a $30 billion deficit as if it were something Canadians should expect; that is the way you run a country. Well, the way you run a country is to try to bring the expenses of the nation in line with the taxes being paid by the people of the nation. You cannot keep piling on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians, many of them too young even to understand what is happening to them, a debt which is growing at a rate almost unparalleled in the history of any developed nation in the world. We have seen this nation go from a people who were frugal in their appreciation of how their tax dollars should be spent and were respectful of Members of Parliament who had some appreciation of the fact that the tax dollars paid into the Treasury of Canada were tax dollars which Canadian citizens expect Members of Parliament to guard and spend wisely and frugally, to a Government which has become representative of the free-spending drunken sailors who do not really care where the money comes from and who just throw it around at an unprecedented rate, mainly at their friends, no one else but their friends.
Many years ago the then Member for Prince Albert, the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, used to say, in the early era of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that the "Just Society" was just for Grits. All you have to do is to look at the catalogue of appointees to the various boards and commissions to recognize the accuracy of that remark. It is nothing short of a total scandal, almost a total dictatorship, when you have a Government which uses the devices of Parliament to gag Members of Parliament from legitimate debate in relation to the moneys being borrowed to finance the over-expenditure on Government services; to finance the waste and extravagance of a Government, which has been too long in office and has not respect for the taxpayers of this country or for anyone but itself and its friends; and to see to it that its friends are looked after over and over and over again.
If you are a good friend, you go from one job to another job to another job to another job. There are always good jobs for Grits. We have, for instance, the present Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. Since he became a Liberal in 1968 he has been able to bounce from one position to the next position to the next position to the next position. He even got an appointment just short of his birthday, which would have prevented him from taking the position he presently holds. We have another gentleman from Nova Scotia who has gone from one appointment to the next appointment to the next appointment. I do not know whether there are fewer Grits in the country; I think there are-


Mr. Turner:: You want to go to the Senate, Bob?
Borrowing Authority Act


Robert Carman Coates: -but what I would say, from what I can see, is that they seem to be running out of Liberals whom they want to appoint because they are shifting present Liberal appointees from one position to the next position to the next position. You would think that when you shuffle the deck you would be able to find some new people.
My friend, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner), just now asked me if I wanted to go to the Senate. I want to go to the Senate with him. I think the two of us should go to the Senate. However, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the amount of borrowing. I would think that Canadians who look at what they are paying in taxes now and look at the horrendous amount in tax dollars which go to service the debt we now have, must be really alarmed as they listen to Liberal leadership candidates who seem to feel that the deficit is one of the minor problems facing the country. They must be alarmed when they look at the Budget, which was brought down a month and a half ago which told us one story, and then, within a month and a half, see unemployment figures escalating, inflation escalating and an attack on our dollar. How much can you believe these people? Who can you believe over there? Can you believe anyone?
You certainly have to come to the conclusion that what they told us a month or so ago is certainly not the reality today. When we compare ourselves with the U.S., with a country as rich in resources as Canada, a country as rich in potential entrepreneurship as we have in Canada, why are we in such a terrible economic mess as compared even with the U.S., and certainly much more so with other countries in the world?
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I support the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) and I regret very much that the Government has taken the decision to impose closure on this particular piece of legislation.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, if we consider the amendment proposed by the Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) concerning the Government's borrowing authority, and if we consider more specifically the question being asked by the Hon. Member, namely, why the Government is asking for an extra borrowing authority, in other words, an amount in addition to the sums of money required until the end of the fiscal year, clearly, the Government of Canada, owing to the vast number of responsibilities that have been vested in the Government over the past few decades by successive governments, I should say by successive Parliaments which passed a host of bills, a process to which Members of the party in power or the Parties in power in Parliament at the time and Members of the Opposition have contributed, clearly the Government's role, which is daily becoming increasingly important in the lives of Canadians, demands that this Government meet some very impressive obligations.

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
Over the last few years, I believe we have experienced very dramatically how instability can become a part of the lives of all Canadians, of our economic life, and how it can do so without warning and very quickly, depending on what is happening among our neighbours to the South. In this respect, the House is well aware of the various obligations the Government has to Canadians, obligations both in the human and the economic sphere, and that whether it is helping the unemployed through unemployment insurance, manpower training, technological and resource assistance, economic development through various initiatives or incentives given to companies and Canadian investors, the Canadian Government must respond, and respond immediately, to the needs of Canadians according to the state of the economy in this country.
As I said earlier, during the last few years we have realized that instability can occur, and with that in mind, a contingency fund has always been agreed to by the Party that happens to be in power. I am referring to a contingency fund to be added to the Government of Canada's borrowing authority. Why, Mr. Speaker? To having to go back to the House in the course of the year and ask for another borrowing authority in addition to the one already adopted; and quite simply because every time the subject is before the House, we get a very long debate that is always the same-practically the same speeches by the same Members-and what it all boils down to is that the Government is being given the same borrowing authority once again.
By adding a contingency fund, the Government can more readily intervene to help those Canadians who need assistance most, because most of the time, the contingency fund is there to give a "leg up" to Canadians who need short-term help, just when the economy requires Government intervention. The point is to try to respond to those needs as quickly as possible. That is why there is reason to question the grounds for the amendment proposed by the Opposition.
The Opposition's role, and no one will deny this, is to challenge whatever the Government does, and in this connection, I think it is a good thing and a very salutary custom to ask, when additional amounts are being requested and contingency fund is required, why the Government finds it necessary to do so and why it is asking for these additional funds. However, that does not mean Opposition Members should always hand out the same old arguments, the same phrases about "blank cheques", and the rest, the same terms which I have been hearing in the House for four years, year-in-year-out, and always for the purpose of making Canadians believe the Canadian Government is taking their money to send it God knows where! When the Government of Canada borrows money, first of all, it borrows from Canadians, to meet their needs. Most of this money goes back to Canadians. If it goes to people other than Canadians, it is to pay for services being offered to Canadians. In fact, the Government of Canada is, in
so doing, acting according to the mandate it has been given by the House of Commons through the legislation passed by the House and, to go back even further, in accordance with major policies formulated by governments in the course of this century and especially during the last years and decades.
Mr. Speaker, if it is not so, it is because men and women were elected in this country who, more than anything else, wanted all Canadians to have a standard of living and a quality of life that is the best in the world at the present time.
There are Canadians who were elected to this Assembly and who wanted to ensure that in Canada, everyone would have shelter, food, health care, and an education, and an opportunity to live in safety without risk of war or suffering from any discrimination that would prevent a person from achieving his personal development. This has been possible by the will of those who were elected by Canadians to come and represent them here in Parliament, because over the years, they have listened to their constituents, to the people who elected them. Each time I rise during this debate on the borrowing authority legislation, Mr. Speaker, I keep wondering why we should be having this debate at all because every expenditure incurred by the Government is subject to the control mechanisms operating within the Canadian Parliament, whether we are speaking about the work of Parliamentary committees or sub-committees, the questions which Ministers have to answer in the House or the control mechanisms established by the Auditor General of Canada. Why should we waste hours upon hours each time discussing whether or not the Canadian Government should be allowed to borrow? This debate, if it were carried out constructively, could be extremely interesting, but Opposition Members always make it an unproductive exercise. They keep insisting on certain points which throw some kind of gloom over the fact that the Government is borrowing money. There is nothing gloomy about it. The Canadian Government understands its role and the responsibilities ascribed to it through the centuries by previous Parliaments, and the Canadian Government is meeting these needs. When the revenue intake from taxes is adequate, the Government does not have to borrow, but when tax revenues run short, the Government borrows, but it must be said that it then borrows mostly from Canadians and very little on the foreign markets. The Government borrows from the Canadian people. This is therefore a banking operating which does not add to the national debt, because when Canadians owe money to other Canadians, it is not a national debt; it is an operational deficit based on the fact that the Government decides on one of the options it has to obtain funds and invest them in the nation, in the country, in people, in human development, and it does so by borrowing money from Canadians. When Members opposite try to suggest that this money is being squandered, they forget that it is used to provide for infrastructures, whether it is in the area of transportation which is the greatest challenge in Canada, or education, or health care. For instance, This year,
March 27, 1984

transfer payments to the Provinces by the Canadian Government will come up to over two-thirds of what the Government of Canada will borrow during the year. Do the Members opposite consider that transferring money to Conservative or NDP Governments in the Provinces amounts to squandering? They could have a point, but we have signed agreements to do so. If we had been brighter, perhaps we would have arranged to provide such payments to Liberal Governments only. However, as this Government respects the choices made by Canadians and the fact that they have put other parties in office in various Provinces, transfer payments are still made as provided under the Federal-Provincial agreements. If Opposition Members do not agree with this, let them say so and let them convince the people in their Provinces that they must not put in office governments which do not know how to spent these funds since these parties seem to disapprove of these transfer payments.
Just to show how inconsistent they are, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members keep asking the same question: Why? What is wonderful in Canada is that the answer to this question is this: because Canadians, and especially those who represent them in the House of Commons, all these Members who have been sent to this House all through the years and the Ministers of this Government, realize that the first duty of a Government is to answer the needs of the people instead of taking a holier-than-thou attitude and trying to establish, somewhat like what is happening now in Quebec, a super-government with superpowers. Its first duty is to serve the needs of the people who have worked hard through the years to build a wonderful country with one of the most peaceful, wealthy and loving populations in the world.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words on this borrowing Bill. The Government has put this Bill forward in an attempt to borrow almost $30 billion for the operation of the Government for the next few years. When considering this Bill and its amendments, possibly we should be looking at the option of cutting back the amount of government spending that has been taking place. The record of the present Government would not make anyone proud. We must recognize of course that it did not begin the deficit. That honour belongs to the administration of my predecessor from Prince Albert, Mr. Diefenbaker, who began the huge deficit budgets and started the snowball down the hill. It has been growing ever since.
Let us look at the record of the present Government. The Gross National Product in Canada is approximately $430 billion. The deficit for 1983-84 was $31.45 billion. The current accumulated deficit, most of which can be attributed to the present Government, is approximately $120 billion. This year, it projects a deficit of $29 billion. It is asking us for borrowing authority for $30 billion, which is more than its projected deficit. The Government has been telling us every day in the
Borrowing Authority Act
standing committees that it will probably save something from the Estimates which it has put forward.
The Government is paying interest rates of approximately 11 per cent on most of this accumulated deficit. That is the average of all the unmatured, marketable bonds and Treasury bills that are outstanding. It amounts to approximately $17 billion a year in interest, not including Crown corporation debts. This means that more than 25 cents of every dollar that Canadian citizens pay in taxes go to pay for the deficit the Government has accumulated over the years. It is asking us to authorize an increase in that deficit, and at the rate we are going it will double in the next ten years.
The total liabilities of the Government are approximately $223 billion, including Crown corporations. One could add all of the committed funds which the Government has generously offered and which could be called bailouts. Although Chrysler was able to pull out of its difficulties, there are corporations like Massey-Ferguson, Dome Petroleum and Maislin that have been aided by what have been called bailouts. These may cost the Government at some time in the future-


Mr. Peterson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. People on this side of the House share the Hon. Member's concern about the deficit and the cost of servicing the debt. I would like the Hon. Member to check to see if his research notes do not come from either James Laxer or Tory research notes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is hardly a point of order; that is a debating point. I invite the Hon. Member to make a contribution to the debate whenever he wishes, but that was definitely not a point of order.


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since that was a false point of order, I wonder if the time could be added to my colleague's allotted time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will of course exercise its usual discretion in that matter.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the needs of the Government and its request. Our amendment suggests that it cut $10 billion from its request. If it did so, we would support it in its requirements even though we think it should not have accumulated such a deficit over the years.
We can see that the Government has not been a very good manager, but we should also consider the Official Opposition. We cannot judge recent Conservative Governments except to examine the Diefenbaker Government which began this deficit spending. However, there are other examples, such as the three year-old Conservative Government in Saskatchewan which took over a surplus of $140 million. In three years, deficit budgeting has managed to put that province into a deficit position of $850 million. That amounts to approximately $11,000 an hour or $275,000 a day that the people of Saskatchewan are paying in interest for the privilege of having a Progressive Conservative Government in Saskatchewan. In its first few months of office, that Conservative Government

March 27, 1984
Adjournment Motion
placed a greater burden on the people of Saskatchewan in the form of a deficit that is larger than had been accumulated in that province in the previous 55 years. That is what we can expect from a Progressive Conservative administration. It is the same kind of deficit financing that we can expect from the present Government.
If we are to consider the Liberal administration and a possible Conservative administration, we should also consider a New Democratic Party administration as well. There was a New Democratic Government in Saskatchewan for 30 out of the last 40 years. In that time it did not accumulate any deficit. If there was a deficit in one year, it was paid off in the next year, so that there was no accumulated deficit in those 30 years. That Government produced the best social service programs in the country and was able to pay for them as a result of its planning. It never planned any social services until it was ready and willing to pay for them. As a result of this careful administration in planning its expenditures, it provided Saskatchewan with 30 years of a government and social structure that was the best in Canada, probably the best in North America and one of the best in the world. This was accomplished in Saskatchewan without creating a deficit, and it represents the kind of planning that is necessary to make expenditures that are worthwhile and meaningful for the people of Canada.
When considering the Government's request for further funding, we should look no further than its record. In a matter of 16 short years the Government has put us in a position where it will probably take future governments another 15 years to get out of it. We should be doing that kind of planning now and not increasing our deficit at this time.



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 Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)- Human Rights-Appeal in sexual harassment case, (b) Funding of appeal; the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-The Senate-Appointment of eight new Senators, (b) Request that Prime Minister delay making further appointments; the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revel-stoke (Mr. Parker)-Mines and Mining-Western Canadian coal production, (b) Importation of United States coal.



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; and the amendment of Mr. Darling (p. 2292); and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Deans (p. 2299).
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to join my colleagues in denunciation of the Government which introduced closure on this Bill. This is a most blatant Bill. This is a record breaking borrowing Bill. It is larger than any other borrowing Bill brought before the Parliament of Canada. It stands in the amount of $29.55 billion. I just heard the Hon. Member for Lac St. Jean (Mr. Gimai'el), in a most fallacious argument, ask why we have speeches in opposition to this borrowing Bill at all because the same responses and the same comments are being made. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask Members opposite, is there no man or woman of conscience and integrity on that side of the House? I suggest to you that any open-minded government would be coming before this House and giving an explanation as to why it needs the dollars the Government proposes to spend.
This same borrowing Bill includes a $4 billion contingency fund. The Hon. Member for Lac St. Jean says, "Why, we are only borrowing from Canadians. It does not become a real debt. It is not part of our deficit. It might not have to be paid off. The money is being borrowed from Canadians". I suggest that when a Government comes before this House and borrows more money than do all Canadians all across this land save in one year, then it is forcing interest rates up and driving up inflation. What is bound to follow is the kind of action this Government is now taking.
However, I want to make a comment in support of the amendment introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), the only kind of comment that is an appropriate response to the borrowing Bill now introduced. The issue is clear and so is that amendment. The Government has come to Parliament in search of borrowing authority in the amount of $29.55 billion. This amount is not only the largest borrowing authority request in Canadian history, it goes beyond the needs of the present Government. My colleague has responded that we should throw the matter back. Let us not give this Bill second reading. Let us reconsider the Bill in a credible and conscientious manner. His response is made on the basis of principle. I wonder on what basis the Government has introduced this Bill.
Observers of the Thirty-second Parliament will wonder if borrowing Bills represent the sum total of this Government's program. We have had eight similar borrowing Bills in lesser amounts since the 1980 election. The slippery slopes start early. After February 1980, within three months of that date,
March 27, 1984

the Government came to the House clamouring and asking for $12 billion in borrowing authority for that year. That was followed by a request for $14 billion, then an additional $6.6 billion, then $7 billion, and so it went until we have now reached the $29.55 billion plateau. The Government has had a total, since February, 1980, of over $102 billion. This Government is marked by its ability to spend dollars and to give money away in special programs, such as the Special Employment Initiatives Program. Why should we trust a very partisan, selected means of allocation?
The effect of runaway spending and continued borrowing has led to the disaster which this country is now facing. Canada's net debt has doubled. Our gross national debt has climbed from $103 billion in the 1979-80 fiscal year to an estimated $190 billion in this fiscal year. My constituents in St. Catharines know full well what huge overdrafts and liabilities mean. Unless restraint is practised in Government as well as at home, it is only a question of time until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
There is no disputing the fact that mounting fiscal problems face this Government. We have heard over and over again the aggressive tactics of National Revenue. Yet here we have the Government asking Parliament for borrowing authority in excess of its current needs. If Parliament approves the request, we will indeed be on the road to disaster, economic fiscal disaster. The Government will not be able to ignore Parliament for the months to come. It will have to answer to the people of Canada sooner or later. The fat bank account will lead to even less regard for the taxpayers' dollar. In an election year we can count on reckless expenditures if that opportunity arises. You can bet your hat that that $4 billion contingency fund will be spent within the next few months.
Interest rates will again be pushed up by these heavy borrowings if the federal Government borrows the entire $29.55 billion, and it will. The credit market will be crowded out, leaving no room for legitimate expenses and investment. Heavy demand and a slight supply means higher mortgage rates and interest rates for every-day common living. I have said before the inflation is bound to follow. It will be pushed up by higher interest rates. Finally, the Canadian dollar will continue to plummet in relation to the American dollar. This will be the inevitable result of a Bill of this kind.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once challenged unemployed workers to get off their backsides and find a job. We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, urge the Government to get off its rear end and start trimming the deficit we are facing. In this time of so-called economic recovery, there can be no excuse for the record levels of borrowing and expenditure. Canadians themselves are trying to make up for lost ground, but their own Government is throwing up road blocks. Come October 1, the Government, which cannot find a dollar to cut in its expenditures, will be asking Canadians to hand over an additional $2.1 billion in taxes.
In the 1985-86 fiscal year, the additional taxes will amount to the almost $4 billion that we are talking about, for a total of $6 billion in less than two years. This is clearly outrageous.
Borrowing Authority Act
The Canadian taxpayer is faced with a situation of give, give and pay. It is the taxpayer who is expected to do the belt-tightening, but there is no evidence of that on the part of this Government. With one voice the taxpayers say, "Cut the deficit and let us get on with the economic recovery that we have been told we might have".
In the City of St. Catharines the average taxpayer is currently paying $1,000 a year on his or her portion of the service charges on the national debt. The Government is putting forward an outlandish request to borrow an additional $29.55 billion. It is clearly telling the taxpayers in my home town of St. Catharines that $1,000 is not enough. More will be needed because the Government wants to borrow more so it can spend more. Taxpayers in St. Catharines are not different from taxpayers anywhere else in Canada. They work hard, they earn their money, and $1,000 means something to them.
I recognize that my time is drawing to a close, Mr. Speaker.
I could go through a long list of useless expenditures which this Government is making, but time will not permit. Our Party is simply urging the Government to hold the line on that $1,000 per taxpayer which we in St. Catharines will have to pay. The adoption of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), would be a positive first step in that regard. I urge Hon. Members opposite to take a second look at what they are doing to this country. Stop it now! Concern yourselves with the deficit which our young people, the generation after them and the generation after, will have to face.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be taking part in the debate this afternoon, because I think the Opposition would have everyone believe that Bill C-21 is the mechanism through which the Government administers its deficit programs.
Mr. Speaker, we must not confuse borrowing authority, which is the subject of Bill C-21, and the appropriations or budgets for each Department which the Government must put before the House every year, sometimes two or three times a year, because sometimes there are supplementary estimates, and that is when the House of Commons authorizes the expenditures the Government has to make. Therefore, when the House is considering a borrowing authority Bill, it should not necessarily concentrate on the value, the merit, or the lack of merit of the Government's expenditures or determine whether the House of Commons should approve the deficit in this debate. The Bill before the House, Mr. Speaker, merely says, when there is a deficit which the House of Commons will already have approved or not, how the Government is to meet its responsibilities. The Bill authorizes the Government to borrow $29,550 billion, because that is the amount required to cover the Budget deficit, and we have added to that a contingency fund of approximately $4 billion to guard against any rapid imbalance in the negotiations or management operations

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
of the Government, including debt management as well as management of foreign exchange.
In some cases, the Government of Canada, in others, the Bank of Canada, must borrow abroad or pay back loans abroad, not only because the loan is due or because it makes sense from the point of view of debt management, but also because sometimes this is a way to control or manage the value of the Canadian dollar. Our policy is that the Canadian dollar should be allowed to float, in terms of its value, on international markets. But we also have a policy according to which any upward or downward movements of the dollar should be as orderly as possible. Now, the Government's policy of managing upward and downward movements of the Canadian dollar does not mean that we are setting the value of the Canadian dollar at a level determined by any fiscal policy, but just that we want to make sure that over a period of one or two weeks, there is no undue pressure on the Canadian dollar. On the other hand, when the value of the Canadian dollar depreciates on the market, it may be important to sell Canadian dollars on the market to ensure that there will not be too much pressure over too short a period. This is to prevent any imbalance.
So, the additional borrowing authority of about $4 billion which the Government is seeking through this Bill is not for money that the Government might decide to spend on its own as it sees fit, because any public expenditure must be approved by the House of Commons. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, anyone who claims that the $4 billion is a slush fund for the election or money to be spent as and when the Government sees fit is distorting the situation, misleading the public and twisting the debate. There is no way the $4 billion can be spent unless it has been authorized by the House of Commons.
Now then, Mr. Speaker, why is the federal Government running a deficit? Well, Mr. Speaker, the federal Government is running a deficit mostly because, up until less than a year ago, we went through a recession. First of all, there was the impact of the federal Government's efforts to stimulate the economy during the second half of the seventies. At that time, a whole series of incentive measures were announced for the private sector, particularly the investment tax credit introduced in the budgets of 1975 and improved in the following budgets. Then the personal tax exemptions were indexed so that Canadian taxpayers would have more money to spend, with the result that, as parliamentarians, we had to ask Parliament to raise taxes. If we had decided to leave personal exemptions as they were instead of taking action, in 1973 or 1974 as I recall, then in fact the taxes levied by the Government would have risen automatically with inflation. Some people said that we were wrong to do that, the Government should not benefit from inflated dollars.
But the result was that the deficits grew heavier than expected. Even so, the federal Government cannot decide what the deficit will be only on the basis of expenditures and revenues. It is easy enough for a provincial Government to
claim that it will balance its budget if there is a strong economic recovery after a recession. But the federal Government cannot be satisfied with simply balancing its books, because it does have responsibilities with respect to the macroeconomy. It is up to the federal Government to see to it that the whole Canadian economy is either boosted or cooled down through tax policies, depending on the economic situation.
During a recession, the federal Government must get the economy moving through higher expenditures, so we end up with a deficit. In times of excessive growth rates, the Government may very well slown down the economic activities, therefore it will cut its expenditures or perhaps raise taxes. In other words, the role of the federal Government is more than a book-balancing act.

Hon. Members of the Conservative Opposition particularly- the New Democratic Party is a little more confused on this than it used to be-are trying to suggest that one could balance the books at the federal level as you do in a business or as is done in the provincial Government. Conservative Members ignore totally, Mr. Speaker, that the federal Government has a responsibility in the management of the macroeconomy and that the buck stops here. We are the ones who can use the federal Budget and federal expenditure to stimulate the economy and to make sure that we maintain the safety nets, the stabilizers we have in place in the economy, when we are in a period of recession.
The Conservatives have been so impotent as a federal Party over the years that they neglect to see the importance of the federal Government in the economy. It is difficult for them to come up with any federal policy on anything. They forget that the federal Government is an important institution in this country. It is important that the people look up to this Parliament and say, "Will you please make sure you manage the economy and your expenditures in a way which will protect people who depend on the safety nets in a period of recession".
Those Hon. Members are so confused, Mr. Speaker, and internally divided among themselves, that they lose sight of the fact that there is an important job to be done here. It is not only a question of balancing the books. The federal Parliament has the responsibility to use fiscal policy to affect the economy and, Mr. Speaker, the moneys which this Bill would authorize the Government to borrow are moneys which will be approved by Parliament. The reserve that they are talking about will have to be approved by Parliament if it is to be spent. This reserve is to ensure that there is no disruption in the money markets. It is to make sure that if the Bank of Canada felt that the Government should pay foreign debts it could borrow in Canada to pay for reasons of foreign exchange management. This is what the Government is looking for in Bill C-21. All the Opposition Members are trying to do is to confuse the public. They are so confused themselves that when they speak, they confuse the public. They want the public to think that we will be authorizing this kind of expenditure, and that is not the case at all.
March 27, 1984


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard from the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). It was an unbelievable attempt to explain away the futile and miserable expenses and losses of this Government. He tried to suggest that the Government is borrowing this money somehow to manage the Canadian dollar. It is managing it all right. It is dropping right out of the sky, going down continually. I therefore hope it is borrowing it for a more productive purpose than that of managing the Canadian dollar.
It would be explainable to the House of Commons if the Government were borrowing the money to invest in some business arrangement, to provide some incentive to Canadians or a tax-bearing account or business. Instead, most of this money has been frittered away on expenditures that cannot be justified, and on wastage. The Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) had the list of all the waste that has gone on with this Government. Members of the Opposition offered the Government an opportunity to set up a parliamentary committee to assist them in finding ways to slow down the spend, spend, spend of the federal Government with absolutely no control so that we are now running deficits of S30 billion.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: The provincial governments are spending it.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: The Member opposite talks about provincial governments. The federal Government is finding it so difficult to finance its mismanagement that it is attempting to push on to the provinces part of the borrowing. It thinks they have room. Is that the way to manage a national economy? I doubt it. That is why the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) makes so much sense.
Why would Members of Parliament be asked to justify that type of borrowing when there is no way the federal Government can explain over $10 billion of its expenditures? If it came before the House and gave the reasons why it required this kind of expenditure, and if they were reasonable, I am sure Members on all sides would approve it. However, the Government has not done that. It has not attempted to come forward with the reasons why it needs borrowing authority for $29.5 billion.
Members have often spoken in this House and to the Canadian people about the kind of burden this will place on Canadian society. This Bill alone means $800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. At the same time we find in the Estimates an estimate for the propping up of Canadair. It is a tremendous amount of money. It lost $1.4 billion last year and $330 million this year. If that were the case in the private sector, the board of directors would be questioned about that amount of loss. The chairman of the board would be asked to justify the management of the company which lost that money. What has the Government done? Instead of requiring Canadair to come before the Minister and telling them that they have not managed the company very well and that they must be replaced, that has not been done. I do not think they even
Borrowing Authority Act
had their fingers rapped. They replaced everyone on the board of directors, including the chairman, a former Liberal who sat in this House.
How can we as Members of Parliament say to the people of this country that we are going to approve this kind of borrowing authority? In 1968, not too long ago, government spending was only $12.3 billion. Today, the Estimates, including the Supplementary Estimates, show the amount to be close to $100 billion. One out of every $5 will be spent on financing the deficit, which has accumulated to $180 billion, compared to $17 billion in 1968, just a few years ago. One out of three dollars of revenue collected by the Government goes to financing this kind of deficit.
In the Budget, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) brought down a short while ago, he projected that if we do not throw this Government out, which happily we will do soon, deficits of $25 billion plus will continue for the next four years. If that is allowed, by 1988 the net deficit in this country will have risen to $261 billion. So many dollars will be taken out of the Canadian economy by the Government that there will be very little room for the private sector to borrow money to set up revenue-producing industries and create jobs in the private sector. The Government feels it has a monopoly on this, but it is not doing very well when we have a 11.3 per cent unemployment in this country today.
What is happening? We had a Bill before the House just lately which will transfer more of its expenditures and a larger tax base to the provincial governments as far as borrowing is concerned. It will shift the burden of the cost of social services, medicare and education to the provinces. Not only is the Government asking to borrow more money to spend, it is shifting the burden to the provinces, which, it feels, have more room to borrow. This is an ongoing example of borrow-spend, borrow-spend. It goes on and on. Looking at the massive Estimates for this fiscal year, it is astonishing to note the growth of Government spending.
I entirely support the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka which states that this House should not grant a borrowing authority of that magnitude when the Government cannot justify its expenses. That is objectionable in principle, and this House, therefore, declines to do that.
I guess that the impact of the excellent speeches by Members of this Party is such that the Government can no longer take it. The Minister stood in his place after Question Period today and said we have to halt this debate. The government Members cannot handle the pressure anymore. It is getting to them. They are having trouble explaining this deficit, therefore they intend to cut off all debate. Members of Parliament will not be allowed to bring forward objections to this kind of borrowing, objections to unjustilied spending and constant waste by this Government. Members of Parliament will not be allowed to attempt to straighten out the Budget. Therefore, we have had notice of the motion that will allow the Government to move closure on this debate in the very near future.

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
[DOT]	(1630)
It is a very difficult situation for a Member whose riding contains hundreds of families that own small businesses or farms and are finding themselves pushed to the brink of bankruptcy at this time. My constituents come to their Member of Parliament and say: "Why has the economy progressed in such a fashion that even though I am managing my business in a proper fashion and have been doing so for 10, 15 or 30 years, 1 now find myself in this kind of difficulty?" The only answer I can give to them is that they have a national Government that does not know how to manage the funds of the taxpayers of the country.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we had the unaccustomed pleasure of hearing two government back-benchers speak at this stage of the debate. The only time they dared appear is after the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) had served notice of limitation of time of debate. Therefore, they could safely enter the debate because their interventions of whatever nature would not interfere with the flow of the business of the House.
The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) attempted to justify the Liberal Party, as he has attempted to justify it in the past, by indicating that anything that the Liberal Party or administration does, as long as it will maintain the Liberals in power, is good for the Liberal Party.
[DOT]	(1630)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) on a point of order.


Mr. Gimaiel:: Mr. Speaker, I never said what the Hon. Member has just said. 1 never said anything about the Liberal Party being prepared to do anything to cling to power. If the Hon. Member is quoting me, I would urge him to be accurate, because the people of his riding would like to keep fond memories of him.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is so unfamiliar with the Standing Orders that he cannot tell the difference between a point of order and a point of debate. I am prepared to debate with the Hon. Member at any time, but when it comes to procedure he ought to restrict his points of order to that subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask Hon. Members to cooperate. When the Chair gives the floor to a Member to make a speech-the Standing Orders are clear and Hon. Members were so advised many times-the Hon. Member who has the floor must not be interrupted. In any case, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean is again raising a point of order.


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the fact that I have no objection against my colleagues quoting me in the House. However, they should repeat what I said, not something I did not say, especially when it is the last speech of the Member involved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member wanted to clarify his remarks, and that is quite acceptable. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to say to the Chair that those are points of procedure, not simply points of debate. So, Mr. Speaker, they are asking-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry, but the Hon. Member for Edmonton West has just said something about the Chair which may or may not be acceptable. However, the Standing Orders are clear on that point. If a Member is not quoted correctly-that is in the Standing Orders and I will be pleased to find the exact reference-that Member may rise on a point of order to set the record straight. Therefore, I have nothing more to say. The point raised by the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean was quite in order and I would ask the Hon. Member for Edmonton West to continue his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I do not want to insist, Mr. Speaker, but if you care to check Hansard and reflect upon what I said to you, I think you will agree with me.
But then, on the other hand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There is another point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Dubois:: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to see that a parliamentarian with as much experience as the Hon. Member has does not show respect for the Chair, and I would suggest that you ask the Hon. Member for Edmonton West to withdraw his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! If the Hon. Members will bear with me, I do not think it will be necessary to go that far. However, I would like to quote the relevant Standing Order to which I referred a moment ago, namely Standing Order 41(1) on page 33, which provides the following:
No Member, unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order, may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, and the Member is not to introduce any new matter, but then no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.
As I understand it, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel) wanted to clarify an interpretation which was different from what he claims having said earlier in his speech. The matter is therefore settled and I invite the Hon. Member for Edmonton West to resume his comments.
March 27, 1984


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, while I may accept your ruling,
1 do not have to agree with it. With regards to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, which I quoted, they are to be found in a speech he made in this House several months ago.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Which you have not read!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have read it many times and it was also in the newspapers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! Would the House allow the Hon. Member for Edmonton West to express his views?
The Hon. Member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. Crows on the fence do not scare me.
We now have before us an amendment moved by the New Democratic Party which would somehow limit the effect of the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) providing that there be no need to ask the House to approve an amount of $29.5 billion during this fiscal year, while the NDP would want it to be the calendar year. 1 quite agree with the purpose of their amendment. As the Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has said, the Government simply thought it proper to ask the House for the authority to borrow $29.5 billion, and the House should be grateful enough to accept this request. After all, he says, the Government is anxious to ensure the well-being of the country and this request is quite consistent. We are not spending this money! We are just dumping bucketsful of it into bottomless pits such as Canadair and de Havilland, and then asking the House and the Canadian taxpayers to give the Government everything it needs during an election year to continue its squandering.

The Auditor General, newspaper editorialists, business commentators and even some leadership candidates do not agree that the Government should have the right to spend money as it sees fit and that the Canadian taxpayer should have nothing to say about it, should not be worried and should have confidence in what the administration does and intends to do. On the other hand, one of the leadership candidates has said that the Government has to put order into the fiscal management of the affairs of the country.
One of the big problems with the Government has been the breakdown in responsibility, the overlapping and granting of credits to Crown corporations without end. There is no better time to bring the Government to account for its debts than during borrowing authority debates. The Government has shoved us into debt in excess of $160 billion this year, and the deficit is going to be $31 billion or more. This is predicated upon a certain amount of recovery in the country. During the last two or three weeks the indicators from the money market have been a fall in the stock-market, with an increase in
Borrowing Authority Act
interest rates, an increase in unemployment, and an increase in the rate of inflation. All these factors call for the greatest caution, at the very least.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) disdains any suggestion that we might be in difficulty. Any Minister of the Government who conducts himself in such a fashion deliberately misleads the public, as was done in 1979-80 when the Government was in opposition and during the election campaign of 1980. Over the next two years it let the Canadian public have it. We saw interest rates rise to unprecedented levels. We saw inflation rise as we have rarely seen it in this country. For those on the Government side who are new here, I would point out that during the last year of the Korean war, inflation was 13.5 per cent, although that lasted for only a short time. That is higher than it was 18 months ago, but that does not mean it has not started an unfortunate climb again. For the Government to ask for a borrowing authority of $29.5 billion in these circumstances is ludicrous.
I do not know if you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that some four or five weeks ago the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), at my suggestion, asked the Minister of Finance about a bond issue of $650 million, a good portion of which was new money. Most of it was long-term bonds with a coupon rate of
12.5	per cent; the shorter term rates were a little lower. The market reaction was that a portion of those bonds was sold at par and the balance at a discount. The market reaction was that on Government of Canada bonds in excess of ten years,
12.5	per cent was not enough, considering the performance of the Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the Chair did allow him extra time in view of earlier interruptions. His time has now expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to continue his remarks?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we agree, provided that the Hon. Member does not take more than two minutes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In summary, I should like to ask the House to support the amendment of the New Democratic Party and then to line up behind the amendment of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn). That would bring back some reality and responsibility to the House and would mean having a Parliament, rather than a rubber stamp-et je les compte, les "rubber stamps" sur les banquettes ministerielles. We do not have to do it and we should not do it.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter the debate with regard to the borrowing authority. Today the Government is obviously asking for authority to borrow a very considerable amount. We must consider what the Government's priorities are, and this

March 27, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
raises some very serious questions about the attitude that Parliament should take to granting further borrowing authority. I think specifically of the Petroleum Incentives Program on which the Government has spent something like $1.6 billion. These grants have gone to the petroleum industry, but this money has created very few jobs at a time when there are
1.5	million people unemployed in the country. Taking into account those who have given up looking for work, who are discouraged because there is no work to be found, the real figure is more in the order of two million people. Yet this is when the Government asks for additional borrowing authority, when it has spent $1.6 billion on incentive grants to the petroleum industry.
Those priorities are totally inappropriate in the present economic circumstances; they are insensitive to the human needs that exist in the community. If the Government were compassionate, it would borrow money to put people back to work rather than continue to funnel it to the petroleum industry.
It would not be so bad, Mr. Speaker, if there was only one example of the misdirection of scarce public funds. But look at the job-creation funds which went primarily into Liberal ridings. This use of public funds undermines the confidence of people in their Government. There is no way that any citizen of this country can have confidence in any Government which borrows money and then spends it in Government ridings rather than in opposition ridings. The unemployed of this country live in both Liberal and opposition ridings, and it is crucial that the Government comport itself in a way which will maintain public confidence. The funnelling of public money into Liberal ridings is surely the best way to undermine that confidence and encourage Parliament to reject requests from the Government for further borrowings.
Not only has this Government spent money unwisely, Mr. Speaker, but it has failed to collect taxes. The figures for 1980 indicate that there is something like $22 billion in deferred corporate taxes. Yet the Government comes before this House asking to borrow something like $29.5 billion. We all know that over the last 20 years the burden of taxation has shifted quite sharply from the corporate sector to the individual taxpayer. In light of the fact that corporations are paying a smaller and smaller portion of the costs of Government, that individuals are being asked to pay a larger and larger share, and the Government is asking for authority to borrow almost $30 billion, how can it justify the continued deferral of some $22 billion in corporate taxes? Perhaps it is time that the Government, rather than doing this, came forward with legislation to ensure that these corporations pay the money they owe and start paying a fair share of the costs of running the Government in this country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Which company does not pay its tax?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member a few examples. I have a list here of 15 of the largest Canadian industrial corporations which did not pay-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why don't you go to a Justice of the Peace and file an Information?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is legal because Tories pass crooked laws. Now, get off it.


Cyril Keeper: Fifteen of the largest Canadian industrial corporations did not pay-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why don't you go and lay a charge before a Justice of the Peace?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: It is perfectly legal; you guys were the crooks.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, it is quite understandable that when we raise the question of fair taxation for corporations, the Tories start shouting and defending the corporate sector in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we must be getting under the Tories' skin when they start shouting and squealing so loudly. The 15 largest Canadian industrial corporations which did not pay corporate tax in 1981 and 1982 are the General Motors Corporation of Canada Limited, Alcan Aluminium Limited, Canadian National Railway Company, Hudson's Bay Company-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How many people do they employ?


Cyril Keeper: Here they are shouting again, Mr. Speaker. The Tories are seeking to defend-


Jack Wendele Shields: Let's put them into bankruptcy and put those people out of work.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, they seek to defend the corporate sector. I am not surprised that when I raise the question of fair taxation for corporations, the Tories squeal. Just because a company employs people does not mean it does not have the responsibility to pay a fair share of the cost of public services in this country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Close them down.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The Tories say they want to close them down.


Jack Wendele Shields: Pass another NEP.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if this shouting from the Tory benches is not an endorsation of the trend which has been taking place over the past 20 years of shifting the burden of taxation in this country from corporations to ordinary
March 27, 1984

individuals. It is very clear that the Conservative Party continues to serve as the mouthpiece for large corporations.
One of the reasons the Government is before us today asking for such a large amount of money is that we still lack a fair taxation system in this country. I am thinking of the Budget in which the Government gave some $600 per year to pensioners at the same time it gave a gift of $5,000 or more a year in write-offs to taxpayers who earn something like $90,000 a year. That is clearly inequitable and it continues the trend toward an unfair distribution of taxation in this country.
The sad thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the leaders of both the Conservative and Liberal Parties come from the corporate community. From their public statements it would appear that they intend to continue to leave the burden of taxation on the backs of ordinary Canadians and allow corporations a free ride.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, in the few
minutes I have left, I would like to introduce some coherence in the incoherent comments made by my hon. friends opposite. Mr. Speaker, all this in spite of the fact that, if I recall correctly, the Budget was quite clear and indicated quite logically and precisely why the Government needed the amount indicated in Bill C-21.
Mr. Speaker, the Members of the Opposition are criticizing the deficit, but what are they themselves proposing? They want to reduce the deficit, but how are they going to do that, Mr. Speaker! The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said he would reduce the deficit by increasing the Defence Budget. The Leader of the Official Opposition said he was going to reduce the deficit by increasing supplementary transfer payments to the provinces.


An Hon. Member:: He does not know what he is talking about!


Pierre Deniger: The Leader of the Official Opposition said he was going to reduce the deficit by reducing taxes for those who are well off. Mr. Speaker, that makes no sense at all, and when we asked the Members opposite about this, what did they say? They said nothing, because they cannot find anything intelligent to say about such proposals.
The Opposition is very clever, in fact it excels in giving us targets and objectives.


Yvon Pinard: What about the means?


Pierre Deniger: What about the means Mr. Speaker, what about that?
My hon. friend who sits on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, is very quick with his comments. However, although he thinks of himself as a champion of sorts, the Opposition Member has no means to propose either, because I know perfectly well he agrees with the former
Volunteer Firemen
Minister of Finance of his Party, and that if he did announce the kind of draconian measures he was considering, the Canadian people would never elect him and his Party in the next election. And I am just quoting-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

['Before proceeding to the adjournment debate I should like to advise all Hon. Members that they are invited to pay their respects to the late Bora Laskin at 9 a.m. tomorrow at the Supreme Court building.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 69 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer firemen who receive no allowance from a government, municipality or other public authority, to deduct from their income, expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties as volunteer firemen.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank Members opposite for allowing me to go ahead, particularly the Hon. Member who will probably have his turn tomorrow.
My motion is not new to the House. I proposed it on May 8, 1980. As you have just read the motion, Mr. Speaker, I will not reread it. However, it was debated on July 16, 1982. As there was no opportunity to debate it a second time in the House, it died in the last session and was reintroduced in December, 1983, at the start of this session.
I will be very brief in my remarks as I have already spoken on this subject. Many of the firemen from South West Nova and other areas have a great interest in this motion. I should like to explain why. The present Income Tax Act provides for exempt expense allowances for volunteer firemen up to the amount of $500 per year. The exemption applies only to allowances received by volunteer firemen from a government, municipality or other public authority.
In many cases, Mr. Speaker, volunteer firemen receive no allowance and, at the same time, incur personal expenses in the course of carrying out their duties as volunteer firemen. These duties include the protection of lives, homes and businesses in many communities across Canada. These expenses are incurred because they do not know when a fire is going to take place. The volunteer firemen may be at a social event or
2490

March 27, 1984
Volunteer Firemen
at work and they must go immediately to answer the call of a fire. They may be dressed in their good clothes or sports clothes, which may be damaged in the course of fighting the fire. There is no deduction given under the Income Tax Act for those expenses.
In the past I have asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to consider giving a special status to volunteer firemen who serve their community year in and year out, receive no allowance and therefore do not receive the benefit of the $500 deduction under the Income Tax Act. In my view it would show the appreciation Canadians have for volunteer firemen.
The Minister has asked how this provision would be implemented. It could be implemented by a clerk of any municipality, on the authority of a fire chief, stating that a given firemen has served 100 per cent or 80 per cent of the time throughout that year. In the latter case he would get 80 per cent of the income tax deduction provided for under the present Act.
I do not plan to speak further, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the past on this motion. I know there are many interested people who would like to see this particular motion passed in the House. I will allow it to be debated by others here today.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to speak on this subject, not only as a private Member, but as a representative of all the Conservative Members of the Official Opposition. We have continually supported the idea of this motion in principle. We intend to do that today. We hope we will not face the same kind of filibuster or talking out that this particular piece of legislation in the form of a Private Member's Bill or motion has received in the past. I would like to give two examples of what I hope will not happen today to kill this piece of work which has been done by the Member who is interested in this subject and who has spoken very well of the concern she has for volunteer firemen.
I would like to refer to Hansard of July 16, 1982, at page 19431. At that time the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) first moved this motion with exactly the same wording. At that time we spoke in support of it. As we approached the end of the designated hour, something which had happened before happened again. The Liberal Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) proceeded to talk the motion out. It was brought to the attention of the House but we did not wish to talk it out. However, the time passed and the motion died.
In 1983, as indicated on page 22009 of Hansard the same Liberal Member for Mississauga North, who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, followed the same procedure. We spoke in support of the deduction for volunteer firemen, but the Member for Mississauga North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, stood up to talk it out again. Even after the late Member for Nepean-Carleton, Mr. Baker, asked that it not be talked out, the Member for Mississauga North continued on. He said:
On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the representatives of the other two Parties for making their position so clear and for their willingness to move
ahead on this. However, I suggest it is probably much better to simply pass along our enthusiasm to the Minister of Finance and leave it at that.
At that point the time ran out and again the motion died. You do not have to give me the fast sign on this because we have an hour set aside for debate on this motion. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, we are not going to use the designated time we have.
I would like to reiterate that there is a need for consideration to be given to a deduction for volunteer firemen. I am sure members of the New Democratic Party are of the same opinion. We are not looking forward to the same thing taking place as occurred in 1982 and in 1983. I am sure that the Member who brought this motion forward hopes that the same procedure is not followed today.
As a reeve of a municipality in the northern part of Peterborough County that had a volunteer fire fighting organization and as a warden of the 18 municipalities of Peterborough County, I can say that this proposal is long overdue. I hope that when I sit down no one else will stand up at ten minutes after five and that this motion can be sent to committee. Witnesses can be called, if necessary, and the concerns of the Government can be expressed as well as those of the Opposition, both NDP and Conservative.
We can do some fine tuning to the intent of this resolution, but let us not see a reoccurrence of 1982 and 1983 when we heard platitudes from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance when government Members were really talking out the motion.
I congratulate the Hon. Member who brought in this motion and offer our support from this side for its speedy passage. As private Members I believe we can work rapidly on this and refer it to committee. I would be very pleased to second the motion, if it is so put, that the subject matter be referred immediately to the Finance Committee for consideration and adoption by the Government with the support of both opposition Parties.


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP I want to address this very important issue of the income tax deductions for volunteer firemen. Like the previous speaker, I come from a constituency where the role of the volunteer firemen is extremely important because of their contribution to our community. Other members of my Party have also spoken on this matter and have urged that the Government take action to ensure that volunteer firemen are able to make deductions from their income tax for the kinds of expenses that they have incurred.
I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), has addressed this issue and stressed the importance of this type of measure being put in place. He spoke to an earlier motion put by the same Member who raised this concern today. I want to emphasize that our Party has been supportive of this measure.
March 27, 1984

The last time this issue was discussed I deliberately refrained from making comments so as to allow for a vote to be taken in the allotted one hour that we had. It was the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) who jeopardized the motion at that time.
Since we have more time today, I want to point out some of the concerns that 1 believe should be taken into account when addressing this measure. I am sure that other Members have also written to the Minister of Finance prior to his Budget proposals to ask him to include this particular measure in the Budget. However, neither the Budget proposals of February or those of April contained any provisions concerning what we had been asking for at that time.
Let me compare the motion which is before us now with the similar motion that was brought forward on December 12, 1983. The motion on December 12, 1983, read:
That in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer firemen who receive no allowance from a government, municipality, or other public authority, to deduct from their income expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties as volunteer firemen.
Of course, there are a number of similarities with the proposal that had been introduced in the previous session by the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDer-mid). There is the request that a greater degree of deductibility be allowed for expenses incurred by volunteer firemen during the course of their duties. The difference between the two proposals is that the one made by the Member for Brampton-Georgetown suggested a limit of some $1,000 per firemen per year while this motion has no specific limit. We applaud that measure.
I do have some concern with regard to what might be explicitly meant by the word "allowance". As the House knows, some volunteer firemen in some areas receive a small stipend to alleviate the costs somewhat. I hope this matter might be considered in a fair and just manner if it is referred to the committee.
For the benefit of the House, I should mention some of the expenses that volunteer firemen incur during the course of their duties. I have talked to some fire chiefs in my area. My office recently had a conversation with Mr. David Seeley who has just taken over the new fire chief position in Dauphin. He noted that, from his perspective, volunteer firemen are a different breed of people. They give of their time and their talents and of course they even risk their lives. He suggested that it was the least the Government could do to ensure that they did not also have to give continually of their own money as well.
We are aware that the present $500 that could be given to a volunteer fireman can help somewhat, but let me talk about some of the expenses they incur. For example, in the case of a large constituency such as mine, in which there are 34 municipalities, seven Indian reserves and 12 northern community councils, there is the gas that is required for private vehicles to go to and from fires. The cost of gasoline has gone up and those volunteer firemen pay for it out of their own pockets. As
Volunteer Firemen
well, there is the maintenance of these vehicles and the fact that they require various warning lights. These vehicles must be plugged in during the winter, especially in the more northern rural constituencies, so that they are ready to be driven to a fire when the fireman receives a phone call.
In addition, volunteers require protective equipment, such as clothing, helmets and boots. Many of them have to incur also the cost of time lost as a result of not having shown up for work. There are various courses that firemen take. I know that volunteers from my constituency try to upgrade themselves by taking various fire-fighting and first aid courses. They must incur the expense of the travel time that is necessary to take these courses which are held in larger centres. Many of them also want to be constantly informed about some of the latest technologies in fire-fighting and therefore will subscribe to the appropriate magazines. All of these are costs incurred by volunteer firemen.
Let me give one illustration of what it costs a fireman when he must lose time from work, since it is an incident that happened just last week. There was a fire at the Dauphin elementary school that started on Monday night. The volunteer firefighters were at the scene that night, on Tuesday, and were still there on Wednesday morning. As David Seely said, these volunteer firemen in our area are a rare breed. They offer their own talents, time and energy to contribute to this type of volunteer activity.
This does not take place in only one community in my riding. I could mention every part of my riding and show the contribution that volunteer firemen are making there. It does not matter whether you go to a place like Swan River, Roblin, Grandview, Gilbert Plains, Winnipegosis, St. Rose, Ethelbert, McCreary or Minitonas. The reason I am mentioning some of these place names is to give you some idea, Mr. Speaker, of the impact which these volunteer firemen have. I am just talking about locations, but other things could be said in their favour.
How much more time do I have, Mr. Speaker? I understand we are allowed 20 minutes. Do we have until six o'clock, Mr. Speaker? Could I have a little guidance on the matter? I do not think I should cut my speech short if there is more time.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Is the Hon. Member putting a question to the Chair?


Laverne Lewycky: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The debate is allowed to proceed for a full hour, 60 minutes. We will normally adjourn under the Standing Order at six o'clock.


Laverne Lewycky: Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Speaker.
What about the smaller communities up north, such as, for instance, Mafeking? There are great distances between these various towns. We have little towns, for example, like Inglis, Camperville, Amaranth, Benito, Bowsman, Fork River, I am trying to emphasize the importance of a constituency such as

March 27, 1984
Volunteer Firemen
mine. It really does make a difference if you add up the costs. What about the southern part of my constituency? There we find places such as Glenalla, Ochre River, Plumas, or I could mention my home town of Pine River where I was brought up. Then there is Rorkton and Meadow Portage. 1 could go on endlessly listing some other places where there are fire chiefs. I have mentioned only the towns that have volunteer firemen, but there are other people associated with them as well. I think it is important we recognize that. The ordinary person does not participate in these types of duties.
If one looks at the record of some of these fire-fighters one finds that they have been involved for a long period of time. If you are involved in any kind of social work, Mr. Speaker, you would know that individuals experience burn-out. When one is involved in social work dealing with people problems for a period of two, three, or four years, it is possible to burn out. Just consider the types of stress and frustration some of these individuals go through. Consider the amount of time they devote to this service.
I have just examined records of the fire chiefs in Dauphin and I find the situation amazing. Just let me cite the record of the previous fire chief, David Seeley. He retired this year. He retired after being fire chief for 28 years. Here is a man who has served almost a whole generation by offering fire protection to his neighbourhood. He served as fire chief for the last eight of the 28 years. People in urban centres have fire-fighting equipment. Perhaps some people wonder if there really is a necessity for this type of fire protection in rural areas. If you look at the number of calls firemen in Dauphin have to make in the course of a year, you will find that an average of 60 fires a year occur, many of them in rural areas. Firefighters have to go a fair distance from where the fire truck is located.
More and more people are recognizing the value of this kind of volunteer activity. The number of people participating in this kind of force is growing. In small communities such as mine where there may have been 18 firefighters several years ago, now there are 30. This is a great help.
I just wanted to bring some of these matters to the attention of the House. This measure is very important and it should be passed on. The Hon. Member ought to be commended for raising the matter. I hope the motion is referred to the committee. Fortunately, the Hon. Member for Mississauga North is not in the House so he will not talk it out.
Let me come back to the allowance. The exemption should be made for all types of volunteer firemen even if they are paid only a small pittance. Revenue Canada is sure to collect it anyway. There is no problem there. But the amount of expense firefighters have in the pursuit of protecting citizens at large is great. The savings given by the firefighters to their areas are substantial.
In conclusion, let me illustrate. I will take my home town of Dauphin which has a small population of 10,000. In 1983, for the 30 volunteer firemen who are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the total amount of allowance given was $46,000. If you were to translate that amount into paying firefighters a salary for an entire year, you might be able to pay two
firefighters on a full-time basis working a 40 hour week. This indicates the fantastic economic saving that occurs from having these firemen in your community. Other community organizations are involved. There are the Kinsmen groups who contribute by way of having all types of equipment donated to the fire-fighting association. Other groups might get different kinds of equipment such as that which cuts through metal. There are special kinds of shears to cut through automobiles. Then another implement is the jaws of life. I know that one organization in Dauphin has purchased one of these for our fire department. All these contributions by other associations contribute to the entire effort.
It is for these reasons that I feel we should support this measure. I trust government Members will not talk out this motion as they did the last time. I hope this matter goes to committee, which will make sure that the volunteer firemen in our communities receive not only recognition but the assistance they need to carry out this very important activity.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this Private Member's motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Southwest Nova (Miss Campbell). I shall be very brief.
We should have respect for this institution. More important, there should be respect for the Members who, after all, in the final analysis, make the rules. Private Members' hour should have meaning, especially on motions that have the support of all three Parties. This motion is supported by all three Parties of this House. It is a motion, as I know from my research, which is not objected to by the Department of Finance. It would cause no problem in the central agencies. It would do an enormously good turn in providing a small measure of recognition for the tremendous job of voluntary service to the community carried out by volunteer fire departments all across Canada.
Some people think this is a motion, Mr. Speaker, which is only going to assist a few fire departments here and there in Canada. In my own riding, a district encompassing some 90,000 people, with 350 miles to 400 miles of coast line, with several hundred small communities, there are only three municipalities big enough or financed well enough to have paid fire departments. All the rest of the communities, Mr. Speaker, depend for their very life and limb upon the good citizenship, the spirit of voluntarism and the compassion of those men who have agreed to serve in voluntary departments.
I can think of Stephenville Crossing, Cormack, Cow Head, Deer Lake, Pasadena, Massey Drive, Gillams, Parson's Pond, St. Pauls, Rocky Harbour, Port au Choix, Irishtown, Mount Moriah, only to name a few, Mr. Speaker. All of the citizens of those communities can go to bed at night and rest easy knowing their children are safe because there is a dedicated group of people who ask for no pay, no thanks and no revenues. They merely want to serve their communities. All this motion asks, Mr. Speaker, is that the volunteer firemen in those small communities, who have built their fire department
March 27, 1984

with their own hands and raised the money to buy their own fire truck, be recognized. All the motion asks is that when a voluntary fireman is out fighting a fire, receiving not a penny, Mr. Speaker, nothing but thanks from those he helps, if he is to do damage to his own person or his own clothing, he can receive a tax break in replacing those things damaged during the course of a fire. That is all this motion asks. Surely to God it is not too much to expect that in Private Members' hour in this House, which in the final analysis decides the law, all Parties can agree to having a vote.
I can spend a lot more time speaking on this Bill, but I will not do so because I do not want to be accused of being one of those who, for silly, bureaucratic, old, archaic, institutionalized, nonsensical reasons, talks this Bill out. Let us get on with it.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleague from Nova Scotia, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) in supporting this particular motion which was laid before the Chamber. Like the previous speaker, I believe this particular motion is a tax policy issue. In looking at the tax policies, some people would perhaps question whether or not we should use the income tax system to provide such benefits to volunteer firemen. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions of Section 6(1 )(b) and Section 8 of the Income Tax Act ought to be looked at quite seriously.
We ought to concede to the request made by the Hon. Member for South West Nova. As a result, I want to lend my support, Mr. Speaker, to this particular motion and say, yes, it is an exceptional benefit being proposed for firemen, but firemen, Mr. Speaker, across this country, particularly volunteer firemen, provide a great service to the Canadian people. I wish to join with others on this side of the House who support not only the pith and substance of the motion, but, indeed, the effects it will have on the people it is supposed to serve, namely, the volunteer firemen of Canada.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) for introducing this motion. As the House has heard, it is supported by the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), myself, and the Hon. Member for Dauphin-Swan River (Mr. Lewycky). There will be only two speakers, as I understand, from the Conservative Party in support of this Bill because we all know the Liberals are trying to talk it out. There have been three Liberal speakers already. We will be very interested to see how many more Liberal speakers there will be before the clock runs out at six o'clock. If Hon. Members opposite have the interest of the volunteer firemen at heart, they will let this motion pass and go to committee. It has been talked out before. We heard all about it from the Hon. Member for Peterborough.
I support the volunteer firemen, not just in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, but right across the country. I believe that if we prevented this motion from being referred to committee tonight-and I am sure if that happens it will be
Volunteer Firemen
because of the Liberal Party-we will be doing a great disservice to the smaller communities which are scattered throughout this large country of ours. I suggest that the Members opposite think about this. They have had three speakers until now. We are cutting it off at two speakers. With these remarks, and to keep it short, I will sit down. I certainly hope this Bill will get into committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing another Hon. Member, the Chair would like to draw to the attention of all Hon. Members Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citation 435. I raise this matter advisedly, having listened attentively, as I always do, to comments of Hon. Members from all sides of the House. I quote Citation 435(1):
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
I leave that to the reflection of Hon. Members, having taken good note of the comments made in their speeches. The matter before the House can be disposed of in two ways: by accepting the motion or by rejecting the motion outright or, if it is the intention of Hon. Members to do so, by sending this motion- to a committee of the House to have it redrafted, because in its present form the Chair could not accept a motion to the effect that the subject matter of the motion be referred to the committee. I leave that to the reflection of Hon. Members for the time being.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, with the concurrence of the Chair and all Parties in the House, I would like to submit to the Chair a motion that the contents of the recommended-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is not in order for the Hon. Member on a point of order to make a motion or recommendation at this time because he has already spoken, unless, of course, he were given unanimous consent to do so.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. We will now proceed with debate.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The point raised by yourself, Mr. Speaker, was the very point I was going to mention. I was also going to point out that the motion we are debating here reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act-
The fastest way in which this change could be brought into effect would be if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) would consider this as a change to be brought in in his Budget, and I presume there will be a Budget fairly soon in the fall. That is the fastest way in which it could be accomplished.
I have just one or two points to make, Mr. Speaker, having to do with the importance of this particular resolution brought forward by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell).

March 27, 1984
Volunteer Firemen
Some provincial governments have reduced substantially the amount of money available from municipalities over the past few years. One is Newfoundland. Therefore, local governments cannot afford to give the benefits that richer or medium-sized community town councils can give. We see this incredible inequity with volunteer fire brigades. One volunteer fire brigade might be given a $500 allowance, which is taken care of under the Income Tax Act, Section 61(b)(8) and, overriding that, Section 81 (b) where they can take advantage of it. In a small rural community that has had its grants in lieu of taxes, its share of provincial revenues, cut over the five or six years by the incredibly stupid Newfoundland Government, they cannot give that same allowance to be used as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.
I just concluded a conversation with the Deputy Mayor of the Town of Gander. He made that very point. He knew this would be coming up before the House. He asked me to support this measure on behalf of volunteer firemen, not only in the Gander area but all around the coastline. He made the very important point that we do not pay enough attention to the volunteers, in this case the volunteer firemen.
I wanted to make note briefly of what the motion says and to say that the fastest way for it to be accomplished is to convince the Minister of Finance to bring in the necessary change from $300 to $500. The extreme inequity of the system and discrimination for the rural areas of this country, such as in my riding of Gander-Twillingate, should be unacceptable because provincial governments discriminate so much against the municipalities. A recent Newfoundland budget cut this back even further. Because they do that, I feel that this House of Commons should at least recognize the value of volunteer fire brigades and try to make up for the errors of Tory provincial governments which could not care less about the people.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene briefly in the debate in support of the resolution proposed by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). As has already been indicated, the disposition of the House is to support voluntary fire departments across the country and those who serve in them. It is well recognized that those involved in volunteer fire departments are under financial disability in providing services. There is no question that their treatment under the Income Tax Act has been less than fair. There does not seem to be a disposition to deal directly with the motion presented by my colleague from South West Nova. In the interest of advancing the cause of volunteer firemen across the country and in the interest of adopting a sensible approach to the problem of taxation in relation to them, as suggested by the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), the motion ought to be reviewed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and given full consideration. Therefore I move:
That the contents of the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for South West Nova be presented for consideration to the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons for consideration by that standing committee.
The motion can be seconded by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) or possibly the Hon. Member for South West Nova.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I may quote myself and re-quote Beauchesne, as I did earlier, I draw the attention of the Hon. Members to Beauchesne, Citation 435(1), which reads: "It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee." The Hon. Member formulated his motion in the terms "I move that the contents of the motion", which is the same as that the subject matter of a motion "be sent to the appropriate committee for consideration". That type of motion is definitely out of order and, I regret to say, unacceptable. In support of that, I have quoted Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Possibly you could clarify this for the House. A few minutes ago I understood you to say that there are two things that could be done. We could stop debate and the motion would be referred to the Minister of Finance recommending that he consider it, or we could debate it until six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I draw the attention of Hon. Members to the wording "that in the opinion of this House the Government should consider the advisability". If the House were to accept this, it would be an invitation to the Government to consider the contents of the motion and nothing else.
What the House has to do is either to accept the motion as it has been put or to reject it outright. The amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Halifax West is out of order. As a matter of parliamentary practice, you do not refer the subject matter of a motion of this nature to a committee. The subject matter is the motion itself. It has to be disposed of here and now. It cannot be disposed of in another place such as a committee of the House. I hope my comments help Hon. Members to appreciate the conundrum we are in.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker do I understand it correctly that if there was unanimous consent to this motion at this time, this motion would be given to the Minister of Finance for his consideration?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion reads: "the Government should consider". If the House were to accept the motion, it would then be up to the Government to take whatever action it sees fit. That is all it says.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. This is why I rose on a previous occasion. I was going to make the same point as Your Honour. It is quite unfortunate to find, if one examines Beauchesne or Erskine May, that when the words, "In the opinion of the House the Government should consider the advisability of amending" a certtain Act, are used in a motion, whether the motion is or is not talked out, is or is not voted on, it takes no effect as a government motion.
The House is saying that a particular change should take effect. "To consider the advisability" is a very well known term. It has been used for centuries under the British parlia-
March 27, 1984

mentary system. It is simply to bring the subject to the fore for discussion. The Government then takes the subject matter of that discussion under advisability.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I remind Hon. Members that the power to initiate an expenditure of money comes under the royal prerogative. That is why the motion is worded in the fashion it is. It is the only possibility Hon. Members have of debating that type of an initiative. It does not incur an outright expenditure of money on the part of the Government which comes under the royal prerogative. The motion simply asks the Government to consider doing just that. That is why it must be left in the hands of the Government. It is for the House to accept or reject the motion or to send it on to the Government, if I may use that expression.


Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time available to me let me say first that I feel almost nervous about being in what may appear to be opposition to the volunteer sector of Canada and the volunteer firemen in particular. I am certainly well aware of the role that they play since I am from northwestern Ontario. I do have a great deal of respect for the special breed of people who will volunteer their time and I have a great deal of respect for the service that they perform throughout the country.
The difficulty I have with the proposal which is before the House is simply that, in my view, we are approaching income tax changes in an ad hoc way and too freely. While it is very popular and easy to support the idea of assisting volunteer firemen and helping with the admittedly extraordinary expenses they might accrue, where do we stop? In northern Ontario, we have a group of people who are very much involved in search and rescue operations. That group performs its duties in many part of Canada and, in a way, performs the selfsame kind of service. Is the proposal then to be that we have now examined the issue of the volunteer firemen and we will give something to them that we do not give to other volunteers?
What about our good friends in the St. John Ambulance Association who perform yeomen service year in and year out across Canada? Do we then tell them that they have extraordinary expenses because they have to drive to and from the places where they will be performing their services? Perhaps they too should be included in this Bill and given some special assistance since they are not covered by that exception which already exists for municipalities and organized situations. I understand that the Hon. Member is trying to give to the volunteer firemen in unorganized areas the same kind of tax breaks as are allowed to those who volunteer on behalf of municipalities, federal installations and things of that nature.
The list then gets longer because there is also a very worth-while group of volunteers who assist with hospital work. We do not think about hospital work as being an avenue to personal danger to one's health, but I know of people who, while doing volunteer work in a hospital, have contracted something which they would not have contracted had they
Volunteer Firemen
been doing something else rather than volunteering their time. Those people too have incurred extraordinary expenses.
While this group may be a bit different from the volunteer firemen, what about the ski patrols who also perform such services? The Hon. Members opposite are laughing. However, the ski patrol does perform a valuable service even in the face of certain dangers at times, and its members too are volunteers who contribute to the public good.
I suppose what I am trying to indicate, Mr. Speaker, is that all of us may have the greatest sympathy for and can relate very easily to the volunteer firemen and very quickly agree that they do perform a service. However, should we then give them special consideration which we do not give to others? As I have tried to indicate, the list could go on and become much larger. After we get away from the volunteer sector, we could then turn to those people who incur certain expenses in connection with the earning of their livelihood, some of whom admittedly do receive some tax breaks. This presents all kinds of problems. Does one need a personal automobile to go to and from work if work is 150 miles away? In some cases yes, in some cases no.
While I would say that the intent of the Hon. Member's motion is certainly commendable and that we certainly do support the volunteer sector in its many forms across this great land of ours, I personally find it difficult to continue with the practice of approaching special taxation measures in the ad hoc way that has already created so many problems. I think of our hon. friends opposite who have had many things to say about Revenue Canada, and not many of them have been complimentary of late. However, those Members who are quick to say that they will look after the volunteer firemen might be the same Members who would then have a quarrel with the Department later on because it was doing something special for certain groups.
I do support the intent of the Hon. Member and commend her for bringing the matter before the House. 1 do believe that her idea is very serious and it is very tempting to help the volunteer firemen. However, I would first want to see us in a position of having examined the entire matter, not in isolation but in the context of the many tax changes that are required in the country.


Mr. Alain Garant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, whenever the House is called upon to deal with motions such as this one calling for tax exemptions in favour of one group or another, the temptation is always very strong to be nice and say yes. It could always be argued that the exemptions sought are very modest and would make a group of Canadians very happy.
However, unless we are ready to say yes also to all other motions of this type and to face the ensuing financial consequences of our action on the federal budget and the Canadian economy as a whole, we must really stop and see what would be their impact on our taxation system.

March 27, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Requests for special tax exemptions must be considered in the light of certain fundamental criteria under which our tax system operates. One of these criteria is that personal tax exemptions should not be granted because any kind of deductions from individual income tax will result in a loss of revenue for the government, which must be compensated by tax increases for other individuals.
We are not dealing here merely with exempting a class of individuals of certain expenses, but with shifting part of their tax burden to other classes of individuals, and such a tax shift could not be justified.
From this point of view, Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) violates therefore a basic tenet of a fair income tax policy.
* *


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before proceeding to the adjournment debate I should like to advise all Hon. Members that they are invited to pay their respects to the late Bora Laskin at 9 a.m. tomorrow at the Supreme Court building.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I asked several questions on sexual harassment to three Ministers. First, I put a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais), because the Robichaud incident occurred in that Department. Then I asked a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), because it was he who advised to appeal the decision when Mrs. Robichaud won her case before the tribunal of the Human Rights Commission. Finally, I put a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) because his Department is funding the appeal and it was also his Department that issued the Government guidelines on sexual harassment. I raised the first question recently on the adjournment motion. The Minister of National Defence himself did not seem to know anything about the Robichaud case. His Parliamentary Secretary avoided answering by making a distinction between military and civil proceedings related to sexual harassment. Military or civil proceedings are not the
issue here, but in either instance something has to be done to protect women. But instead of supporting the woman who had filed a complaint, the Minister or of National Defence raised objections and, when the woman won her case, he even decided to appeal.

This is an extremely flagrant case. It took a complainant a number of years, going through the ministry and finally winning at the Human Rights Commission. The result was that the Government conducted an appeal.
My question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) concerned the funding and the guidelines on sexual harassment, but the Minister went off on the question of the right to an appeal. Of course, Mr. Speaker, I grant that either side has the right to appeal. The question is whether the appeal is justified, whether there is good reason for it and if public funds should be spent to undo what the Human Rights Commission has already accepted.
The President of the Treasury Board also used the flimsy excuse that the case occurred before the issuance of guidelines, as if that would change things. We are worried that the guidelines are window-dressing. If there were some spirit behind the guidelines they would be acted upon promptly and there would be no appeal. There is no reason to argue, from a failure to institute guidelines earlier, that one should therefore not take sexual harassment seriously and appeal a case that occurs.
Treasury Board guidelines are clear on what personal harassment is and what the Government's responsibility is. On paper that is good; personal harassment of any kind is considered a serious offence subject to the full range of disciplinary sanctions up to and including discharge and would be treated accordingly by management. Further, management has a continuing responsibility to stop any harassment that occurs in the workplace whether there has been a complaint or not. If a manager is aware of harassment of an employee and does not take appropriate corrective action, disciplinary sanctions may be imposed on the manager as well as the offender.
That is well and good, Mr. Speaker. However, in making the appeal the President of the Treasury Board used the argument, quite unjustifiably, that the Government has been implicated in the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal and therefore had to appeal. If they would apply the logic of their own guidelines they would see the Government has implicated itself. An employer is responsible for having conditions of work which exclude sexual harassment. So the Government must be involved, and the Human Rights Commission acted quite properly in criticizing the Government for its failure to provide decent working conditions for the woman complainant in this case.
Let me quote from a letter from John Baglow, president of the concerned Local of the Public Service Alliance of Canada in arguing against the appeal and asking for its retraction:
March 27, 1984

This employee has already had to endure savage harassment by her supervisor for a period of years, and now faces court action brought against her by a Department clearly committed to upholding the right of male employees to exact sexual perks from their subordinates.
He asks the Minister to stop this:
1 appeal to you ... to intervene personally to put an end to DNDs campaign of intimidation-
That is very strong language and, I regret to say, it is justified.
Finally, let me comment on the decision of the Department of Justice to appeal the case. I am reminded of the Department's past decisions to appeal equality cases when women win them. The Lavell case is a shameful example involving rights for native women. When the woman finally won at the federal court of appeal, it was the Department of Justice which appealed that decision requiring the woman to go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We see that practice continuing. A woman wins a case at a lower level and the Department of Justice goes for an appeal. This indicates that equal rights for women is window dressing, public relations, and when we get down to the crunch of a real case, the Government does not take its own commitment seriously.


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to pay my respect to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and congratulate her on her aggressive action in pursuit of justice on behalf of women, particularly in the area of sexual harassment. In this particular case, however, I think her timing is rather poor. Neither the Minister nor I are in a position to go into the details of the case because appeals are pending before the court. Her colleague, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), had an exchange with the Minister on the subject two weeks ago. At that time the Minister clarified the situation by stating that the Department is appealing the liability issue. This is the only area being appealed.
Under these conditions I can only add that the answers provided by the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) are worth repeating. In recent years this Government has legislated far reaching and comprehensive legislation which protect the rights of all Canadians. To name a few, the access to information legislation, the Privacy Act and the Human Rights Commission, not to mention the Charter of Rights-all benefit Canadians.
Situations arising from practical implementation of these measures must be dealt with at all levels, especially in the first stage, very carefully. As they are brought before the courts precedents are set which will govern future applications. The onus is therefore on all parties to pursue these matters with the utmost care. When it is judged that appeals are required, they must be pursued.
If one were to summarize the intent in theirs answers, both Ministers sought to make sure that it was understood that
Adjournment Debate
neutrality and fairness must be guaranteed. This is the only response I am in a position to make at this time.


THE SENATE-APPOINTMENT OF EIGHT NEW SENATORS. (B) REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER DELAY MAKING FURTHER APPOINTMENTS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on January 18, 1984 I questioned the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about his attitude and actions with respect to Senate reform. I specifically asked the Prime Minister how he considered that his appointment of eight new Senators contributed to the process of Senate reform. Instead of providing me with an explanation of the reasons for those appointments to the Senate, he assumed the position, as he often does, that the best defense is a good offence. He simply went on the attack claiming that over a period of time the Opposition Parties had blocked any attempt at Senate reform, sometimes in conjunction with the elected representatives in the provinces of Canada.
That was not a fair approach to the very serious matter of Senate reform, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister knows, as well as all Members of the House of Commons, that the process of Senate reform started with the institution of the Senate in 1867, and has continued since. There were a number of reforms over this period which I will not detail. However, 1 will indicate that in 1978 the Government of Canada, under the current Prime Minister, proposed Bill C-60. This Bill established very far reaching reforms to the Senate and provided for a House of the federation of a quite different kind than the existing Senate. That Bill was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada said that Bill C-60 was beyond the power of the Parliament of Canada. The Prime Minister used that as an excuse for taking the action that he did. He said he appointed eight Senators because there was no hope of Senate reform.
That attitude was not consistent with the facts. In December of 1982, just prior to the Christmas recess of that year, the Prime Minister, along will all Members of the House of Commons, had given unanimous approval to the establishment of a Special Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider Senate reform in order to strengthen the role of the Senate in representing the regions of Canada and to enhance the authority of all Parliament to speak and act on behalf of Canadians. That was the mandate given to that Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons which I will refer to as the Senate Reform Committee in my remarks.
Proof positive that the Prime Minister paid attention to the existence of the Senate Reform Committee and the ongoing work of the committee was the fact that on December 7, 1983 in the Speech from The Throne, when the words of the Governor General of Canada were delivered in Parliament, it was said that the Government will continue to take an active interest in the work of the Senate-House Committee on senate reform. Mr. Speaker, that sets the stage. We had a Senate Reform Committee appointed in December 1982. We had the

March 27, 1984
Adjournment Debate
Speech from The Throne confirming the existence of that committee and the fact that the Government was looking forward to the recommendations of that committee. That was all contained in the Speech from The Throne on December 7, 1983. Shortly thereafter the Prime Minister proceeded to make a number of appointments to the Senate.
1 would like to set the stage for the consideration of some of those appointments, Mr. Speaker. First and foremost there are 104 seats in the Senate of Canada. They are divided among the provinces with approximately 24 seats allocated to the Maritime Provinces, 24 to the Province of Quebec, 24 to the Province of Ontario and 24 to the Western Provinces of Canada; with six seats allocated to the Province of Newfoundland and a seat each to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The Senate Reform Committee found out in its travels across Canada, in its broad range of interviews with a number of persons and organizations, that people did not think this representation was adequate, that the Senate was not properly representing the regions of Canada and that in the interest of the Canadian federation the Senate ought to be expanded. More importantly, the views of many were that the Senate ought to be elected.
In January of 1984, having received a short extension, the Senate Reform Committee filed its report recommending an increase in the Senate seats to 144 to represent the regions of Canada. Under that distribution, western Canadian provinces would get almost twice as many seats in the Senate, Quebec and Ontario would remain the same and other provinces and territories would receive additional seats.
In addition to the increase in the number of seats to 144, the proposal was that the Senate would be elected. However, it was recognized and realized that those kinds of changes would take a long time to accomplish and would indeed require a constitutional amendment. As a necessary interim measure, the committee suggested that vacant seats in the Senate be filled along sensible lines, as recommended by the committee.
There were 21 vacancies at the time. The Senate Reform Committee said specifically that the present composition of the Senate does not represent the social and cultural structure of Canada adequately and that this is unacceptable. It said that in filling the present vacancies, priorities should be given to correcting this deficiency through the appointment of women, members of aboriginal groups and members of cultural minorities.
The Senate Committee report, which was an all-party committee, also unanimously agreed that the imbalance between political parties should be remedied in the making of these appointments.
What did the Prime Minister do? He completely destroyed any hope or possibility of Senate reform. In the course of making appointments, he appointed political partisans of the worst kinds, including Senator Pitfield, Senator Kirby, Senator Grafstein, Senator Cools and Senator Marsden. This was all at
a fantastic cost to the people of Canada. Those Senate appointments will continue until the years 2010, 2012, 2016, 2018 and so on, at a cost of millions of dollars to the people of Canada. That is not the spirit of Senate reform. The Prime Minister, in making these appointments, has destroyed the force of the report and destroyed Senate reform for this decade and decades to come.
[ Translation]


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak after the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), and first of all, I must say I find it regrettable that he referred to Senators from the other place by name, because according to Parliamentary practice, it is customary not to name Members of Parliament individually, so as not to interfere unduly in the affairs of the other House. I regret the Hon. Member did so, and I would certainly not want our listeners, the people of Canada, to get the impression that a climate of suspicion or fear is being entertained by both Houses which would undermine the credibility of these institutions. Especially since-

The question that the Hon. Member has raised is important and fundamental. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that before we could change anything on the status, role and composition of the Senate, we would have to take into consideration Section 42 of the new Constitution Act of 1982 which states in part:
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
This is done in accordance with Section 38 or the amending formula that provides very specifically that before we could change anything there, there should be resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons and a resolution of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces.

It is quite clear from the letter and the intent of the Constitution that after patriation, we can no longer alter powers, nature, composition and the manner in which the provinces are represented, unless resolutions are passed by both Houses and at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of Canada formally signify their approval. Unfortunately, as we saw at the Constitutional Conference on March 8 and 9, the Government of Canada cannot introduce formal proposals for Constitutional amendments, without obtaining the agreement of at least seven provinces.
In the present case, the Hon. Member mentioned various possibilities, including that of not appointing Senators to fill vacant seats. That was the purpose of the question the Hon. Member put on January 18, 1984. Mr. Speaker, I think the
March 27, 1984

Government, and more specifically, the Governor General in Council, would not be acting responsibly if over an undetermined period of time, a substantial number of seats were allowed to become vacant, so that eventually, we might have a situation where more than 50 per cent of the seats in the Senate would remain vacant until the required consensus was achieved to get the agreement of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, so as to proceed with the proposed Constitutional amendments.
Consequently, the point raised by the Hon. Member is important. I agree that various parties and various Canadian minorities must be able to find their way to the Senate. I do not agree that the Hon. Member's proposal will help us succeed in bringing this about, and I think he should devote his energies to persuading the provincial governments, and especially those that belong to his Party, to agree to the formula proposed by the Special Committee last December.


MINES AND MINING-WESTERN CANADIAN COAL PRODUCTION. (B) IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES COAL
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: On March 13,
I asked a question of the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Rompkey) regarding the sale of western Canada coal to central Canada markets. I would like to outline for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Gimai'el) the nature of the campaign initiated by the United Mine Workers and supported by myself and a growing number of municipal jurisdictions.
We have a campaign to promote the Canadian use of western Canadian coal. The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the Northeast Coal project, alternatively known as Tumbler Ridge or Quintette coal. This project involved the development of new coal fields in northeastern B.C., at Tumbler Ridge as well as the building of the infrastructure required to move that coal to the port of Prince Rupert. The project was co-sponsored by the federal government and the Government of the Province of British Columbia at a cost of approximately $2.5 billion. The viability of the project was supposedly assured by the signing of long-term contracts with Japanese buyers. The Bennett Government and the federal Government poured money into establishing rail lines, port facilities, and building a town at Tumbler Ridge. The project is now operational but the market for coal has been severely reduced. The Japanese have experienced a decline in their coal requirements and have requested renegotiation of the longterm contracts seeking both price reductions and quantity reductions. The federal Government and the B.C. Government find themselves in a bind. They have invested $2.5 billion in building the northeast coal project and are now being forced in essence through price concessions to subsidize Japanese use of Canadian coal in order to keep the much ballyhooed northeast mega project alive.
Adjournment Debate
Meanwhile, longtime coal producing areas of the country, like the Elk Valley in my riding are experiencing numerous layoffs. Twelve hundred and fifty miners in Sparwood have recently been through a two-week shutdown. Fording coal, owned by Canadian Pacific, recently announced a five-week summer shutdown which will throw 1,348 workers temporarily out of work. At the same time Quintette Mines in northeastern British Columbia is advertising in the St. John's, Newfoundland, Evening Telegram for workers.
As a New Democrat I have no philosophical difficulty with the concept of Government participation in the economic development of this country. I do feel though, that this Government has over-emphasized capital intensive mega projects in its approach to economic development. The counter-productivity of this approach was very much in evidence in this situation when Quintette was built. The banks hold the morta-gage. The interest payments have to be made. Quintette will stay in production if only to save the face of the B.C. Government and the Government of my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Mines. This I accept as a political reality, even though it defies all economic good sense.
What I am urging is that the federal Government support southeastern British Columbia coal to the same extent as it has supported the development of northeastern coal. I will provide a suggestion as to a cheap and easy initial step for the federal Government. 1 propose that a joint federal-provincial task force involving both coal producing and consuming provinces be created to study the use of Canadian coal and specifically to study: (a) the relative direct cost of Canadian and American coal to consumers; (b) difference in transportation costs; (c) direct and indirect costs to the economy of high levels of acid rain; (d) the cost and benefits to the entire Canadian economy of a joint federal and producing province and consuming province funded transportation subsidy to encourage the use of Canadian coal; and further, be it resolved that this task force hold public hearings and issue a public report.
Western Canada produces approximately 40 million tonnes of various types of coal per year, of which approximately 15 million tonnes are exported, 4.5 million tonnes are delivered to central Canadian markets and the remaining 21.5 million tonnes are consumed by the producing western provinces. In 1982, Canada imported into central Canadian markets 16,515,114 tonnes of coal from American suppliers. Of this amount, 4,446,044 tonnes were metallurgical coal and the remaining 12,069,070 were thermal coal. The average price to import this coal was $55.66 per tonne for thermal coal, for a total of $671,764,436, and $70.78 per tonne for metallurgical coal for a total of $314,690,994. The total cost to Canada to import coal in 1982 was nearly $1 billion; $1 billion per year lost to Canada's balance of payments. As matters stand, Canada exports the same amount of coal to other countries as it imports from the United States, thus making Canada nothing more than a brokerage house for American coal.

March 27, 1984
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) concerning the coal industry and the role played by the Canadian Government in developing this industry in recent years. I can also easily understand why he wants to uphold the interests of his constituents and to extend the market for Western coal, especially in Canada, and I must say by the way that it is a very high grade of coal having a very low sulphur content which puts it among the less polluting in the world.
In any case, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the Canadian Government has been actively involved in this industry for several years. When the Government did become involved in the coal industry in Eastern Canada, for instance, on Cape Breton Island, it did so at the request of the Provinces, mainly the producing Province, and also because of its desire to keep this very important energy source fully developed and readily available for all Canadians.
Obviously, as the Hon. Member said earlier, the Canadian Government also became very directly involved in the development of the Western coal industry both in providing export assistance and in the development of new markets. The efforts made by the Canadian Government in Korea and the Far Eastern countries to explore new markets specifically for Western coal are extremely important.
In addition, in spite of the Hon. Member and his party, the Canadian Government provided a new transportation policy for Western Canada last year, after a very animated debate in this House. The party of the Hon. Member is the one which
objected most strongly to this new policy which aimed at double-tracking East-West railway lines to increase the traffic in both directions and also at opening new markets for Western Canadian products.
I was glad to hear him say today that Ontario, or Central Canada as it is known in the West, would be a major market for Western Canadian coal. It is true also that traditionally Ontario Hydro bought in the United States at a lower cost the coal it needs and which is more polluting than the Western Canadian variety. It is a fact. It is also true that through its double-tracking policy and the new Crow rate, the Government of Canada last year found a way to change such traditions and to contribute to the industrial development of the West and to the sale of Western Canadian resources to Central Canada, the most populated area of our country. Unfortunately, his party opposed these initiatives and filibustered the bill for several weeks in every way possible, without considering that although transportation costs could be a little bit higher, the economic benefits would be tremendous. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it should be emphasized that because the Government of Canada did what it had to do, the sales of Western Canadian coal have increased. My last point and the one I want to conclude on is that the Government of Canada sold 17 million tons of coal for which it received $1.23 billion on behalf of Canada and all Canadians. That was 400 tons more than what we had imported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please! The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.30 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 28, 1984