1984-03-28

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

[Stage Direction]
stature internationally. This reputation, now firmly anchored in our international relations, goes back to the origins of our diplomatic policies.
At this point, I would like to elaborate on the role played by the first Canadian Ambassador to Mexico. Through his efforts, the links between our two countries were further developed during his mandate. He did the same during subsequent postings to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti and finally Denmark.

Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I always thought that the Government was one of compromise rather than a Government of arrogance or deceit. Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister concerning the lotteries, and the 1971 agreement by which the provinces are giving the federal Government $35 million without doing anything. All of a sudden the Minister is saying, "You could have made $100 million or $200 million".
There is a French expression which says that it is better to have $35 million in the hand than $100 million in the bush. The Government does not have that. It is spending from $12 million to $15 million to set up a network to get into this new lottery business, and the Minister stands there and says that he does not have time to meet with his counterparts in the provinces, the people whom he could sit down with, and delete some of this expense that he will go into.
1 am very disappointed. Not only that, they will lose a baseball franchise in British Columbia. Just wait until those British Columbians get hold of some of you people. Just wait and see.


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


FOREIGN SERVICE
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, every day hundreds of individuals in Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions are called upon to defend and protect Canada's interests abroad. They have earned an excellent reputation for Canada on every continent. Through their intelligence and sense of duty, the members of our diplomatic community have madea tremendous contribution towards the development of Canada's
This Canadian Ambassador distinguished himself by his patriotism, dedication and national pride. 1 am happy to announce that he was a Manitoban of metis descent, a great Canadian who served his country loyally and with great dedication until his retirement in 1968. I would therefore ask the House to pay tribute to Ambassador Hector Allard-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that a war veteran was jailed in Alberta recently for not understanding speed limits in metric and exceeding the limit.
Shortly after, an Ottawa man won a case he took to court after receiving a $205 speeding ticket and six demerit points while exceeding the limit in miles per hour as controlled by the federal Government on the Western Parkway.
The National Capital Act governs speed limits on federally maintained roads. The sign reads "60". This man probably knew that he was breaking the law in being legally over the speed limit. But because of the ambiguity of the signs, and using that as a loophole in the law to plead his case, he won.
Where is the so-called consistency and standardization assured us by the Government in its weights and measures policy? This is hardly an example of uniformity. Are there two laws in this country, one for a former war veteran who goes to jail under provincial metric law forced on a province by the federal Government, and another for one who, after being caught under its own federal law using imperial, goes free? Where is the just society?

March 28, 1984


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday's Hansard shows that the Hon. Member for Kind-ersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), while posing a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), said twice; "The Minister has not spent several hours in the Standing Committee on Transport since he has become Minister."
This kind of statement cannot go unchallenged, especially when the Hon. Member who made such a false statement is on the Transport Committee. He knows that the Minister of Transport has already appeared before the Transport Committee four times-August 23, September 7, February 7, and March 22. He has never refused to come to the Transport Committee when asked.
He also knows that the Minister, as soon as he was appointed to his new portfolio, flew to Quebec City to join the committee when it was holding hearings on Bill C-155. On the same day the Minister held an informal meeting with the members of the Transport Committee, offering his co-operation in solving transportation problems for the good of the country. The Hon. Member for Kindersley-Lloydminster should do the honourable thing, and either withdraw his false statements or make a new statement setting the record straight.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, 130 workers from Victoria Plywood face a bleak future since the indefinite closure of the mill last December. In the meantime, the mill owner, Pacific Forest Products, is exporting logs, but plywood workers cannot get details of these exports.
Officials from the Department of External Affairs, which issues the export permits, refused to release this information. They claimed the details of the export permits were confidential, that to release these details would undermine Pacific Forest Products' competitive position. Now they are reviewing the situation.
Canadian workers have to compete with workers throughout the world. One factor that should give them a competitive edge is our forest resource. By exporting unprocessed logs we destroy this edge for our workers. We are exporting jobs.
The Government should be more concerned to protect Canadian jobs than to preserve company profits for companies like Pacific Forest Products.
I call on the Government to take the following steps. First, provide full access to all details of log export permits. Second,
take action to prohibit the export of unprocessed logs. Third, develop a Ministry of Forestry which could develop aggressive marketing to expand sales of processed forest products into North Africa-


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


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Minister of the Environment and Ministers from nine European countries made a commitment last week, at an international conference on acid rain, to reduce sulphur emissions above their territories by 30 per cent between now and 1993. They will also reduce the amount of nitrogen but did not specify by what percentage. The House is aware that these two chemicals are the main cause of air pollution.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians and especially on behalf of Quebecers, I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Canadian Government on hosting this Canada-Europe conference on acid rain. Representatives of the ten countries discussed the urgency of preventing serious damage by acid rain to our natural environment, especially forests and bodies of water.
This first international attempt to reduce air pollution was called a historic moment by the Environment Ministers who met in Ottawa last Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I wish to offer my sincere thanks to the Canadian Government for having shown once again its commitment to improving our quality of life.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am deeply concerned, and I am sure all Canadians are concerned as well, to see that the Department of External Affairs has been buying French butter at $10 a pound for one of its so-called posh restaurants in the External Affairs Building. This is indeed a slap in the face to our dairy industry.
To make matters worse, it has been found that this butter was imported illegally into Canada, at a time when butter production in Canada is at an all-time high and has been selling at discount prices in supermarkets in an effort to cut down the surplus.
March 28, 1984

It is indeed a shocking state of affairs that a Government Department would be party to such an illegal act. It is odious and offensive, to say the least.
Canada produces the best butter in the world, and it is an affront to our dairy producers by those responsible, to have their product downgraded in this manner. The bad publicity engendered by this act will have repercussions on our export markets.
How does this action square with the Government's decree to buy Canadian in its efforts to stimulate our over-all economy? How does this action square with the Government's efforts to maintain employment in the agriculture section which is already hard pressed? Not very well, to say the least, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I call upon the Government to take immediate action to reprimand those responsible, and to make sure that such an occurrence will never take place again.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nation-wide concern caused by the irresponsible remarks of the Secretary of State, will the Prime Minister reassure millions of Canadians that the political aspirations or ambitions of the Liberal Party will not in any way interfere with the visits, as scheduled, of Her Majesty the Queen and His Holiness the Pope for later this year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that question from another source might not surprise me, but this one does. The Leader of the Opposition has been clamouring for an election. He said we must have an election as soon as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I guess they are getting cold feet over there because we have such a lot of good leadership candidates. I think it is obvious that, unless there is a dissolution before the middle of June, I will be in no position to declare when the election campaign will be. The Leader of the Liberal Party and then, hopefully, the Liberal Prime Minister, will decide when to advise His Excellency about dissolution.
I have a solution, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nystrom:: Run again, Pierre.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If there should be an election during the Queen's visit or the Pope's visit I see no reason why the then Liberal Leader or the Opposition Leader should get involved. There would be two former Prime Ministers, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead and myself, who could do well in escorting the Queen around.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE VISITS WILL NOT BE CANCELLED
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is quite right when he says that we have been asking for an election as soon as possible, that is, while he was there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now, it gets better and better every day-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -as one putative successor after another repudiates and contradicts what this distinguished Prime Minister has tried to do for 20 years. That is what is happening in the Liberal Party.
The Prime Minister will acknowledge that his attempt at humour did nothing to dispel the grave concerns of millions of Canadians that the Liberal Party is contemplating using these two very important visits for political advantage. I want his assurance, and I hope he can give it to me, that these visits of Her Majesty the Queen and the Pope will go forward as scheduled, that they will not be abruptly cancelled to serve the partisan ends of the Liberal Party, to the dismay of millions of Canadians. Can he give that assurance right now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the preamble was not imbued with any more logic than the question itself. If the Hon. Member is also a putative successor to the job of Prime Minister, I do not see why he is distressed that I am being repudiated by other successors, because he has been repudiating my policies for a long while. Certainly a long while ago he wanted to have an election so he would be able to repudiate my policies and actions.
The logic of asking me to give a guarantee of what might happen after my writ has ceased to run some time in June is certainly unconstitutional. How can I possibly decide when there should be an election or not if it is called after I have ceased being Prime Minister? I would like the Leader of the Opposition to think about that.


INQUIRY WHETHER ASSURANCES SOUGHT BY ORGANIZERS OF VISITS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister indicate if he has received requests for such reassurances from the organizers at the Palace or at the Vatican, and from those charged with this

March 28, 1984
Oral Questions
responsibility here in Canada? Can he say whether the Government of Canada has received requests for such assurances and, if so, what response has been given?
The ham-handed, insensitive statements of the Secretary of State have caused grave concern and alarm across the country that the Liberal Party is trying to use this for partisan ends. I ask the Prime Minister to repudiate that, along with the Secretary of State.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such representations made to me or to my office, but I will naturally inquire. I am a thousand per cent certain that the Palace would not make such a request of me because their knowledge of the Constitution seems to be better than that of the Leader of the Opposition. They know that a sitting Prime Minister cannot undertake to set a date for an election which might hypothetically be called after he has departed the job of Prime Minister. As far as the Vatican is concerned, I would venture to say they would have the same knowledge of the Constitution. I cannot give the guarantee. If I were asked, I could not answer anything differently to either the Vatican or the Palace, and I am sure they will not ask.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Income Tax Act is arguably the most complex Act that Parliament has passed. One of the main criticisms which the task force has heard from accountants and lawyers is that the auditors for Revenue Canada are ill-equipped to do their job because they have not been properly trained. Indeed, many times they demonstrate their incompetence. I wish to read to the Minister from a letter I received from a senior auditor of Revenue Canada. He told me this:
The total time allocated for training is hopelessly meagre. It is less than 10 per cent of what the major accounting firms consider necessary to keep their staffs current.
Does the Minister accept the criticism that there is a lack of training in the Department? Does he accept the criticism that there ought to be more chartered accountants to deal with these matters? Does he accept the criticism that the most senior auditors deal with the big firms, and the most inexperienced deal with the small business people? Does the Minister have some concern with respect to those matters?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in concluding, the Hon. Member asked whether I was concerned about this criticism. Of course I am concerned, very much so. However, I may remind the Hon. Member that one of our primary concerns is to focus special attention on the
training given our staff, not only auditors but all personnel in the Department.


ANSWERS GIVEN TO TELEPHONED INQUIRIES
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that millions of taxpayers are now filing their returns. He also knows that many taxpayers do not have accountants. What they do is telephone their district tax office. One of the legitimate criticisms is that the people answering the phones do not know what they are talking about. They are giving bad advice to the taxpayers. It was reported in The Toronto Star yesterday that 40 per cent of the answers given were proven to be incorrect. Does the Minister understand that the people answering the phones and giving advice to taxpayers are, by and large, incompetent as a result of a lack of training, and what exactly is he going to do about it?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Hon. Member's conclusion that the people answering the telephone are incompetent. I do not think the Hon. Member has his facts straight.
I think he should bear in mind that when questions are asked, the person answering them must know all the facts. It is extremely difficult in most cases, in specific cases or circumstances, to know all the facts.
We are concerned in my Department about this result. In any case, the Hon. Member was able to read the comments of the Director or Supervisor of this particular group. However, I want to give the Hon. Member, the House and Canadian taxpayers the assurance that the group that answers telephone requests is regularly tested by the supervisors. They also analyze the kind of questions they are asked, and regularly improve their ability to answer taxpayers' questions satisfactorily.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and deals with an issue which is on the minds of tens of thousands of Canadians, and that is the renegotiation of an existing mortgage, or the negotiation of a new mortgage for a first-time home buyer. The people of Canada heard earlier this week that the Mortgage Bankers Association of the United States is now predicting mortgage rates in the 14 per cent to 15 per cent range, and Canadians know that the Minister of Finance feels that Canadian rates must track or be greater than American
March 28, 1984

mortgage rates. If the Minister were to be negotiating a mortgage today, would he take out a mortgage at a floating interest rate, would he negotiate a short-term mortgage, or would he negotiate a very long-term mortgage knowing his own position on this particular topic?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the bank rates and prime rates in Canada and the United States must be very, very closely related. As far as mortgage rates and other rates are concerned, the Hon. Member knows that there have been larger differences in those in the past. As a matter of fact, interest rates on consumer loans in Canada were lower than they were in the United States over an extended period of months last year.
There is no guarantee or assurance that higher mortgage rates in the United States will necessarily mean higher mortgage rates in Canada. We will have to see the evolution of the situation. In addition, my friend is asking me at best about the speculation of a particular organization in the United States as to what will happen to mortgage rates. I invite the Hon. Member to show a little patience. He may be disappointed, and things may turn out better than he thinks they will.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is speculative to a certain extent, but it is related to the kind of issue which every Canadian who sits down to negotiate a new mortgage, or renegotiate an existing mortgage, must face these days. It is a real issue facing most Canadian citizens today.
I would like to repeat my question to the Minister since he is responsible for government policy and since people look to him for some guidance about what to expect in the future. If the Minister were to sit down and negotiate or renegotiate a mortgage today, would he negotiate a floating interest rate, a very short-term, or a very long-term mortgage contract? Can he give Canadian citizens some indication of what he would do?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, it is a well-known rule of the House that speculative questions are out of order. Obviously the answers to such questions would be out of order as well.


EFFECT OF MORTGAGE RATES ON CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Construction Association said today that unstable interest rates will mean a terrible year for the construction industry. This means that it will be a terrible year for those Canadians negotiating a mortgage, for the construction industry, and for the manufacturing industry which serves that critical industry during a recovery. Is the Minister prepared to allow interest rates to be maintained at present levels, or increased, and watch the Canadian construction industry, that portion of the Canadian manufacturing industry that is
Oral Questions
associated with the construction industry, and Canadian home owners, knocked to their knees as a result of his high interest rate policy?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be happy to answer this question. I had some meetings with the Association of Canadian Industries a few weeks ago and also with the construction industry, and the Hon. Member ought to know that the latest figures on residential construction, particularly in Canada, are very encouraging for the first three months of this year. It seems the rate of construction in 1984 will be higher than it was in 1983.
I would like to draw the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that the construction industry referred to unstable interest rates. There is no reason to believe that the movements of the past few weeks will lead to further substantial movements in interest rates in the weeks and months to come.
As I said before, I am sure my hon. friend would not have seen fit to rejoice and say our problems are solved, if interest rates had gone down by one-half of one per cent. Similarly, an increase of one-half of one per cent should not be a reason for him to declare bankruptcy, go around in sack cloth and ashes and imagine that our economy is going to stop growing-on the contrary! I would invite him to look at the figures for the Gross National Product in January 1983, which indicated for that month an increase of 1.3 per cent, in real terms, which is exceptionally high.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Three months ago I began sending him documented revenue cases ranging from harassment and discrimination to outright blackmail by his Department. At one time I was in contact with the Minister's office on a daily basis compiling all of these documented cases. I am still waiting for an answer which, after up to three months, is not forthcoming. In fact not one of my requests or letters regarding these cases has been answered by the Minister.
I want to ask the Minister if he can justify not responding for up to three months to these very important cases? Can he justify the dozens and dozens-nearly 100 cases where innocent citizens have been allowed to suffer mentally and financially? Finally, can he justify his Department allowing small businesses to continue to go bankrupt as a result of his inefficiency?

March 28, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Shortly before Christmas, Mr. Speaker, I asked all district office heads to get in touch with each Member of the House to tell him or her that each district office has a special service staffed by officials whose responsibility is to answer specific questions from Members to whom taxpayers voice their criticisms or send requests for information.
I know that most Members on this side of the House responded positively to the invitation of district office officials and that those Members have been dealing directly with district offices to solve the problems of their constituents.
The Hon. Member would rather take the long way around- he is saying no. If he is lazy, he ought to admit it openly instead of trying to blame others! He is doing it the hard way, but he should understand that we receive hundreds of letters every day which we must forward to district offices for review of specific cases. Under those circumstances, it takes a lot longer to get an answer.
Again I extend the same invitation to him. If he wants to act effectively and assume his responsibilities, let him go to his district office and defend the interests of his constituents instead of shirking his responsibilities by writing letters.


SEIZURE OF COMPANY'S FILES
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, that answer is simply not good enough. Butler Manufacturing Company (Canada) Ltd. is a company which was forced to spend over $60,000 defending a non-action which is directly the responsibility of the Minister. That is why his answer is not good enough. This company was subjected to search and seizure by his Department, over 200 files were taken by force, and then were returned without any penalty. Before they were returned, however, the company had to sign a document agreeing "- that it will undertake no claim, action, demand, or proceeding of any sort against the Minister of National Revenue or his agents, or servants in respect to the search and seizure action".
Can the Minister justify this type of action? Does he not believe that it is extortion? Does he not believe that it is blackmail on the part of the Government? What is he, or the Government, going to do to stop this type of blackmail by this ridiculous Liberal administration?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the second question of the Hon. Member is more irresponsible than his first.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Never.


Pierre Bussières: He knows very well that I cannot comment on specific cases. In all likelihood, he would be the first one to rake me over the coals if I were to do that.
I have just told him that my invitation stands. If indeed he wants to fulfill his duties and prove that the interests of his constituents come first-and that does not seem to be the case-he should stop writing letters and washing his hands off the whole issue, he should go to the district office and explain his concerns and those of his constituents to our officials. He might be surprised to find out that the efficiency of Revenue Canada officials stands out in sharp contrast to his own inefficiency.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has been permitted a supplementary at some length, and was allowed to cite from a document. I believe he has had ample opportunity to put his case. The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).


AUTHORITY FOR USE OF THIRD PARTY DEMANDS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Revenue. Bearing in mind that there has been a wild increase in third party demands, why is it that persons under the age of 30 are showing up in banks with briefcases full of stamped but uncompleted third party demands, asking who has that particular account at that particular bank, and then issuing a third party demand? I should like to know who is the authority when there is simply a stamped signature? Where is the authority for that kind of demand on a person's account?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have already had an opportunity to explain to the Hon. Member the procedures to be followed by taxpayers who owe money to the Department.
I also told him on several occasions that any taxpayer who receives a notice of assessment from the Department is welcome to explain to us the particular circumstances or personal hardships he is experiencing and that we are prepared to make arrangements with any taxpayer. When the Department has to take more drastic action, it is usually as a result of the taxpayer being grossly negligent in at least making an attempt to come and explain his predicament to the Department.


OFFICIALS' CONDUCT WHEN FILLING IN THIRD PARTY DEMANDS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister suggests that he has had an opportunity to explain how we should make the approach. He is literally asking every
March 28, 1984

Member of Parliament to plug into this pyramid of Swiss cheese wherever it might be encountered in Canada. We have a Department without ministerial responsibility, Mr. Speaker. Therefore I ask this Minister, who has no point at the top of his pyramid and asks why everybody is plugging in everywhere, and tell us how he can justify someone standing in a bank, in full view of the public, filling in third party demands? In small towns, neighbours can watch who is getting a third party demand.
I can hear the Minister shaking his head. Does he not have any respect at all for the individual citizen's right to privacy? As Minister, will he not take a sensitive approach to make sure that individual Canadians have not only the force of law but the respect of the law?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member and all Canadian taxpayers that we do have a lot of respect for both the law and the taxpayer and that any action we might take is in keeping with utmost fairness and justice for everyone.
*	* V


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter that is literally a question of life and death for several people, and therefore I am addressing it to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister, his secretary and staff know well, Raul Rivadeneira, who committed suicide the night before last in Toronto, had been arrested, tortured, and mutilated by the fascist Government of Chile. He escaped to Canada in 1980, leaving his wife and infant son in Chile. He immediately applied for refugee status here, and was refused.
Later, in front of the Minister's representative at the Immigration Appeal Board when he was directed to recall his experience of torture, he collapsed in a seizure and required hospitalization. A United Church of Canada representative wrote to the Minister asking that Rivadeneira receive an entry permit on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to save him the pain of reliving the torture. This was refused. Now, just hours before a new hearing-


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Member to ask his question.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to explain that the suicide occurred within hours of his being required to relive that torture. Will the Minister, for the sake of Rivadeneira's widow and orphan son, now acknowledge that he was indeed a refugee within the meaning of our law, and that he had a genuine, well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Chile?
Oral Questions


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my department is well aware of the case to which the Hon. Member is referring and of course regrets the decision of this Chilean to take his own life.
I must advise the Hon. Member, however, that following his arrival in Vancouver in 1980, this man was allowed to return to Chile for a short while before applying for refugee status. In short, he had arrived in Canada before 1980 and had later on been allowed to return to Chile. Unfortunately, he became ill before his application was considered, and the same happened to the examining official.
Concerning this man's widow and child who are still living in Chile, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will look into their situation. We certainly regret the unfortunate passing of this man who, not having exhausted all possible recourse, decided to put an end to his life on earth. We will do our utmost to help his widow and child if they meet the criteria of the Immigration Act.


PLIGHT OF WIDOW AND CHILD
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his understanding answer, up to a point, and I would ask him whether the regret which is felt by the Department would extend now to the widow and child who have been seeking to enter Canada? They would have been able to enter Canada if Mr. Rivadeneira had been recognized as a refugee. They still wish to be admitted into Canada, and are being persecuted now by the police in Chile.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Based on the evidence on file, we could not definitely conclude that this man, who had been allowed to go back to Chile and then return to Canada, had been tortured in his country of origin. My hon. friend is certainly aware of the fact that the provisions of the Immigration Act which apply to people seeking refugee status do not apply automatically. As I said, I will ask my officials to see what can be done for this man's widow. Yet, I cannot promise him anything, for the legislation is there and must be enforced. There was no way he could have been automatically granted refugee status. The evidence on file did not support his claim that he had been tortured. But, as I said, we will look into the situation of his widow and child.

March 28, 1984
Oral Questions


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the distinguished Minister of Transport.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: Recently the Northern Transportation Company Limited, a Crown corporation, appeared before the Transport Committee to answer questions regarding its annual report. A member of the Transport Committee asked the President of the company whether NTCL could now be privatized. Unfortunately, the Transport Committee did not receive an adequate answer, one way or the other. Can the Minister inform the House of the Government's intentions regarding the Northern Transportation Company Limited?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe, as most Hon. Members in the Chamber know, the Northern Transportation Company has provided a very valuable service as a Crown corporation for the past 40 years in supplying a number of communities in the Western Arctic and the Keewatin District. However, after a very careful review and discussion with the Board, the Government now feels that the objectives no longer require Crown ownership. Therefore, we will take immediate steps to privatize Northern Transportation Company Limited, and to that end I have directed the board of directors to undertake to contact potential purchasers of the company. At the same time we will be undertaking evaluation of the company to make sure that we receive full value back for the Crown Treasury.
At such time as a decision or a proposal is made, we will be back to Parliament with a specific proposal, Mr. Speaker.


CON FLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport concerns the privatization of the Northern Transportation Company Limited. Could the Minister inform the House whether his initiatives for the privatization of that Crown corporation came about as a result of the investigations done by the United States military into the use of United States military equipment, and the conflicts of interest which have been discussed in the Transport Committee respecting some of the managers, directors, officers and employees of that company?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is introducing an unnecessary and absolutely irrelevant factor into consideration. The fact of the matter is that the decision was made first on the recommendation of the board of directors, based upon the changed economic circumstances and the various commercial opportunities which could be achieved through a diversification of that company into a number of new areas. It was a conclusion
of the Government that we should not be in the business necessarily of diversifying, but it would be in the long-term interest of northerners, particularly of the native people in the North, who could have the first opportunity to buy this company, thereby using a major new entrepreneurial activity to help in their own economic development in the North.


TAX COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who is the Minister responsible for the Tax Court of Canada. When we hear the litany of bad cases recited by my colleagues, we realize that the only hope for our tax system in Canada is the appeal process. There are now reports of a backlog of thousands of cases, which will delay decisions affecting taxpayers. Will the Minister advise the House exactly how many cases there are pending before the Tax Court of Canada? Reports indicate more than 2,000. And will he tell the House what action he is prepared to take to eliminate this backlog so that justice can be done for these taxpayers who are awaiting court decisions?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we have already taken action to deal with that backlog. The Hon. Member may recall that last year the House passed amendments to supply the new Tax Court with an additional number of positions which will enable those cases to be dealt with more expeditiously. I might add that the new Chief Judge of that Court has been attempting to organize the business of the Court in such a fashion that the backlog will be cleared up as expeditiously as possible.
I do not have the figures with me today, Mr. Speaker, as to the backlog. It is substantial, as the Hon. Member says. We put the figures before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last week. The Hon. Member could find them in the records of that committee.


DELAY IN HEARING APPEALS
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I do have some figures concerning the Tax Court of Canada. There are over 2,100 cases, I am told, by the court officers. There are 735 new tax appeal cases already this year. Now there are reports that it will take at least a year to have a tax appeal case heard, longer in some centres. Would the Minister tell the House whether he thinks that is an appropriate length of time for the hearing of an appeal, bearing in mind that each one of these taxpayers has paid an amount of money in taxes and is waiting for a decision in order to determine whether he or she is entitled to a return of those funds? Surely, even if we cannot do anything about Revenue Canada, we can do something about the Tax Court of Canada, in order to provide justice for our taxpayers.
March 28, 1984


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's question as a representation that we should add further positions to the Tax Court of Canada. I will promise him to give due consideration to that proposal. I trust we will have the support of his Party if we bring forward such legislation.


CANADA COUNCIL
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. It is now clear to everyone that the Government's new Financial Administration Act will violate the political independence of the Canada Council, indeed, of all federal cultural agencies. That is why, on Monday, the Canada Council, in an historic and significant statement, asked the Government to exclude it from the legislation. Is the Minister willing to take a stand and support the Council in its fight to make sure that its political independence is maintained and that it is not caught by increased political activity on the part of the Government, in connection with its responsibilities?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it extremely clear that the political independence of the Council is indeed maintained. Obviously, the Council would like to continue in the present state of affairs. However, I believe this Parliament has been besieged from time to time with a number of reports from various responsible people, including parliamentarians, indicating they thought that an increase in accountability of all Crown corporations, of all people who receive funds from parliamentary appropriations, should take place.
The inclusion of the Canada Council and other cultural agencies in the Crown Corporations Act was designed to allow the Hon. Member and other parliamentarians to ask meaningful questions of the Council regarding how it is spending its funds. It is clear to me that in this system there ought not to be any group of people receiving funds from Parliament who are not accountable for the way those funds are spent. The specific exclusions included in the Crown Corporations Act indicate clearly that the Government has no intention whatsoever of being involved in the day-to-day operations of the Council, or of indicating to the Council how its funds should be spent.
However, that does not mean that the Council ought not be accountable to Members of Parliament during the course of the study of appropriations as to how it is spending its money. I believe that will be good for the Council. On the other hand, I can understand that some of the bureaucrats of the Council would like very much to maintain the privileged position that they now have of not having to answer to anyone in the system on how they spend their funds.
Oral Questions
Once again, if the Hon. Member refers to the Crown Corporations legislation he will see there is an exemption on substance indicating that the artistic judgment of the Council is to be maintained, that the peer judgment system is to be maintained, and that grants are to be made on the basis of independent peer judgments made by juries appointed by the Council. He will also notice that there is a second exemption included for the Council in that Crown corporations legislation. That is to the effect that any directive to the Council has to be tabled in the House of Commons and referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee before that direction becomes effective. In that sense there are two guarantees of the independence of the Canada Council.


COUNCIL'S INDEPENDENCE
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the reason the Minister is excited about the matter is because he knows he speaks with a forked tongue on it. The reality is that the Canada Council has been fully accountable to this Parliament through that Minister, and has been fully accountable to the Auditor General and therefore does not need this legislating. The Clark Government excluded the Canada Council specifically because it wanted to defend a principle. That principle is that the Canada Council will not have its political independence violated and be subjected to political control and interference by the Government. That is a principle worth defending.
Why, in its hour of need, has the Minister of Communications not been willing to defend the Canada Council, and the cultural agencies of the country against the political activity of this Government?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member check the record of some of the statements made by Members who sit on his side of the House. The Hon. Member is suggesting that all of the Crown corporations involved in the cultural sector ought not to be accountable for the way they spend their money. I am talking of approximately $1 billion a year in expenditures. They are not accountable now.


David Edward Crombie: They are accountable now. You know it.


Francis Fox: Second, as I indicated to the hon. gentleman, there are two exemptions-


David Edward Crombie: And they are accountable to the Auditor General.


Francis Fox: If the Hon. Member does not want me to answer his question, I will not.


David Edward Crombie: Yes I do.


Francis Fox: If the Hon. Member wants me to answer his question I suggest to him that he read the Crown corporations Bill. I also suggest that he examine the way the Government is handling all of the Crown corporations under its jurisdiction,

March 28, 1984
Oral Questions
and compare that to the way the Government proposes to handle the Crown Corporations active in the cultural field. He will see that only in the cultural field have we made two exemptions. One is a substantive exemption on the nature of the judgments that Canada Council and other corporations of that nature have to make. The second is a procedural exemption. Those exemptions do not apply to any other Crown corporation, and that indicates the very strong resolve of the Government to maintain and enhance the independence of the Council and other cultural agencies.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the matter of tax deductions for our country's volunteer firemen. Does the Minister know that yesterday this House debated a Private Member's Motion which called for an increase to the inadequate $500 maximum deduction presently allowed volunteer firemen for expenses incurred during the performance of their duties? Is he aware that Members in all Parties gave their enthusiastic endorsement to this Motion?
My question to the Minister is quite straight-forward. Will he consider increasing the present level of tax deductibility allowed volunteer firemen for the costs they incur in the performance of their duties?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the first question is yes. To the second, naturally ... I always consider all questions and all representations made to me concerning any future budget.


Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Minister is heeding this representation.


INCREASE SOUGHT
Laverne Lewycky: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister assure the House that in the course of his study he will give the same sort of consideration to any increase in tax deduction applying to all volunteer firemen, whether or not they presently receive a token allowance for services they may have rendered?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that I have knowledge of the discussion in the House. I heard the representations and I will examine them.


CAR IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. For some time now we have been imposing import quotas on foreign-made cars. Considering the soaring sales and profits of North American companies, and the fact that the quotas will expire at the end of this month, I would like to ask the Minister if he intends to increase import quotas to allay the fears of consumers and perhaps restore the competition which prevailed two years ago and which has all but disappeared because of our import quotas?


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear! Good question.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is very important to protect Canadian workers, but we also want Canadian consumers to be able to buy cars at competitive prices.

I think the Hon. Member raises a very serious question which requires a very balanced approach. It is important that there continue to be quotas on the importation of Japanese cars until we are able to see what investments they are prepared to make in our country. They now have a very substantial share of the Canadian auto market, at 21 per cent or 22 per cent. At the same time I would view it in a very serious way if the Canadian industry were to take advantage of the limitations on the flow of cars from other sources as a reason for increasing the prices of domestic automobiles unnecessarily. I have no reason to believe they are doing so. However, it is an important question which I will examine carefully.
V *
*


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, the Minister said that his Budget included a proposal to set aside $1.3 billion for job creation initiatives intended for young Canadians. The Minister is certainly aware that under the Canada Works Program, the budget for summer jobs for students is providing enough funds for only one-third of the projects submitted. In view of that, the Minister will certainly understand the relevance of my question. I would like to ask him whether he intends to double this budget so that at least 66 per cent of the projects submitted may be approved to help young Canadian students.
March 28, 1984


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Hon. Member's Leader has decided to leave after his short five-minute weekly visit to the House. I would have liked him to hear the question asked by the Hon. Member and my reply.
In any case, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that I have added $150 million to the budget allocated to young people under this program. This will bring up to $1.3 billion the amount set aside to provide assistance to unemployed young Canadians. These funds will be distributed by the Cabinet Committee in charge of social affairs, with particular attention being given of course to the recommendations received from the Minister for Youth and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As soon as these decisions are made by the Cabinet Committee, I am certain that the Ministers will inform the Hon. Member and the public.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will admit that it may be somewhat difficult to direct questions to the Minister of Employment in view of his current ambitions. However, I think that the Minister of Finance is familiar with the question I want to ask him today. He certainly knows that the budget available to create jobs for students is definitely inadequate.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is well aware that it is never possible to approve all the applications submitted by those who would like to help to reduce unemployment in Canada.
However, I appreciate his party's and his own belated interest in issues which concern young people considering that the position of the Progressive Conservative Party has always been to cut back on social programs. When they were in power for a short stint in 1980, the first thing they did was to abolish the job creation programs designed to help the unemployed throughout the country, including those intended for unemployed young people. Even today, all we hear them say is that we must reduce our expenditures and the deficit, but at the same time, they rise in the House to ask us to double our funding.


Roch La Salle: Do you want to do anything about it or not? That is the question.


Marc Lalonde: I think that the Hon. Member should recommend to his colleagues that they put a stop to their hypocrisy and make up their minds on this issue.


Roch La Salle: It would be indecent if you were not to do anything!


Marc Lalonde: Either they seriously want to help the unemployed as we do-
Point of Order-Mr. Olivier


Roch La Salle: If you do not want to do anything, it is ridiculous then!


Marc Lalonde: -or else they want to mislead the population as they are trying to do.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF TWO TOGOLESE MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I draw the attention of the House of Commons to the presence in the gallery of two distinguished visitors from Togo, Messrs. Anami Kouma Akokto Ahiango, Minister of External Affairs and Co-operation and Bariy Moussa Barque, Minister of Public Works, Mines, Energy and Water Resources.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mr. Olivier) on a point of order.


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to your attention the following title on page 2472 of Hansard:
Federal Sports Lottery
There is no such thing from a legal point of view and I would like to have a correction made.
In the French text, on page 2472, the title is:
La loterie sportive federate.
There is no such thing. It is:
La corporation des paris sportifs or the
Sport Pool Corporation


Mr. Speaker:: I have taken good note of the Minister's statement.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member realizes that it is not really a point of order. What the Hon. Minister has done is to make a correction to Hansard.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is not a correction.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister has made a statement which will be examined by the Chair and the appropriate note taken.

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation PETITIONS


TABLING OF REPORTS OF CLERK OF PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members to the House on Tuesday, March 27, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Visible Minorities in both official languages, entitled "Equality Now", "L'egalite ?a presse".


PETITION
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as the Member of Parliament for Kootenay West it is my duty and privilege to present a petition signed, among others, by some 20 residents of my constituency from the cities of Trail, Rossland and Nelson, British Columbia.
To the Honourable the House of Commons and Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that we strongly protest the use of federal funds by a federal agency, The National Film Board, to produce a film which glorifies a citizen's open flaunting of the Canadian law on abortion. The petition further suggests that Dr. Morgentaler should not be receiving federal financial aid to promote his efforts to change laws, illegally. Therefore, the petitioners conclude that the five-part docu-drama entitled "Democracy on Trial" should not be completed or released.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)) moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of that stage shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members are aware, under the Financial Administration Act, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained by the Government from Parliament. The Bill now before the House seeks new borrowing authority of $29.5 billion. This amount is equivalent to the $25.5 billion financial requirements set out in the recent Budget, plus a nonlapsing contingent amount of $4 billion.
As Hon. Members are also aware, the amount of borrowing authority granted for the last fiscal year was $26.7 billion, an amount equivalent to the financial requirements forecast in the April, 1983 Budget and slightly below the financial requirements forecast in the latest Budget. The borrowing program for 1983-84 was planned to approximate the size of the financial requirements and thereby use up all the borrowing authority granted for the fiscal year. With the fiscal year 1983-84 now drawing to an end, the Government seeks by the Bill now before us to replenish its borrowing authority for the fiscal year 1984-85.
As I said earlier in our debate, the Government, like any responsible borrower in the private sector, must be in a position to conduct its borrowing operations without timing constraints. It is for that reason that we have moved for time allocation on Bill C-21. The full Estimates of the Government have been provided to the House and the debate on the Budget has been completed. Thus, the essential prerequisites for determining the level of borrowing authority, which are the planned sources of revenues and expenditures of the Government, have now been provided in complete detail. The Opposition has been given full information and has had ample time to study this question. Bill C-21 was tabled on February 17. It has been debated for eight days, two more days than the time allotted to the Budget itself.
I should like to underline again the importance to the Government of having unrestricted access to the capital markets so as to take advantage of market opportunities and to minimize debt charges. Given the size of the financial requirements and the relative size of the Government's debt operations in the capital markets, timing can be of critical importance. The level of outstanding Government debt will increase by an average of about $2 billion every month. In addition, previously issued debt is coming due and must be refinanced. Each new issue is carefully tailored to meet the prevailing market conditions and investor demand. Any disruption in the ongoing borrowing program could lead to unnecessary dislocation and erratic pressures in the capital markets. In turn, this could lead to pressures on interest rates, higher debt charges for the taxpayer and higher borrowing costs for individuals and businesses across Canada.
Even a savings of a small fraction of one per cent involves significant dollar amounts. Given the relative importance of

March 28, 1984

public debt charges in total government expenditures, it is the primary goal of the Government to minimize all such charges. This goal can only be achieved if ample borrowing authority is always available so as to ensure that the large borrowing operations of the Government do not interfere with those of other levels of Government or of the private sector. We have a collective responsibility to see that the goal of minimizing public debt charges is vigorously pursued.
Members may want to recall that the first fiscal quarter, the quarter about to begin, is usually a period of particularly heavy seasonal cash requirements because of tax refunds and several other factors. Such a cash drain must be financed by market borrowings.
I should like to refer now, in a general manner, to some of the comments that have been made in the course of our debate on Bill C-21.
Some comment was offered to the effect that the Government has not made any effort to restrain wasteful expenditures of the type described in the Auditor General's report. This is simply untrue. Since 1975 the federal Government has been committed to restraining the trend growth in spending to no more than the trend growth in our GNP. This commitment does not mean that the growth of expenditures must equal the growth in GNP each and every year. During a cyclical downturn in our economy, expenditures would generally be expected to grow faster than the GNP, since a deterioration in our economic conditions would naturally put upward pressure on government expenditures and economic growth would of course be slower. Similarly, the ratio of government expenditures to our GNP would be expected to decline during the recovery phase of the cycle.
The Government has been successful in meeting its expenditure targets. In the 1975-76 fiscal year, total outlays were 23 per cent of our GNP; by 1980-81 they had fallen to 19 per cent. Slower growth in the GNP, the associated upward pressure on spending from low activity levels, rising public debt charges and limited discretionary measures available to the Government resulted in total outlays rising to an estimated 23 per cent of GNP in the current fiscal year. The ratio of total government outlays to our GNP is projected to decline continuously from 1984-85 onward, being reduced to some 21 per cent by 1987-88.
Government deficits are not an indication of fiscal irresponsibility. A rise in the deficit during a period of cyclical weakness in our economy provides an important, even an essential, cushion to the overall level of activity and helps to reduce individual hardship during a recession. Attempting to offset the automatic effects of recession on the Budget balance would simply make a downturn more severe and individual hardship more difficult to sustain. Indeed, it is appropriate for the Government to undertake discretionary measures to reduce taxes and increased expenditures to offer additional support to the level of economic activity during a period of cyclical weakness, a point that has been stressed throughout our recent debate by Members on this side of the House. From 1975 to 1978 the federal deficit rose significantly in order to stimulate
Time Allocation
our economy; but from 1979 to 1981 there was a steady reduction in our deficit.


Mr. Blenkarn:: When we were in power.


Roy MacLaren: In the absence of the 1981-82 recession, further progress in reducing the deficit would certainly have been made. The fact that the deficit helps stabilize cyclical swings in our economy is consistent with attaining a deficit level in keeping with the long-run needs of our economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but his allotted time has expired. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister speaks glowingly about the efforts of this Government at restraint. The House should know that the administration costs of this Minister's Department have increased 75 per cent since the Estimates filed in March, 1981. The administration costs have gone up from $26 million to $44.5 million. That is what this department will spend in the year ending this March.
The Minister speaks glowingly of the Government's projections and how he is going to handle the deficit. I call the attention of the House to a report by Susan Clark, an economist with Richardson Greenshields, in an article filed by Don McGillvray of Southam News which appears in today's paper. Briefly, Susan Clark estimates that the Ministry of Finance has underestimated deficits in the past six years by an average of 21.5 per cent. That is for current deficits. If they hold true, and there is every reason to believe they will hold true, the deficit this year could well be $35.5 billion. Susan Clark goes on to estimate that on previous years, if you go for a two year projection, the Department of Finance undershoots the mark by 55 per cent, which would indicate that the deficit for the year 1985-86 is likely to break $42 billion. So much for restraint. So much for the Department's estimates. So much for the projections and so much for the Department's credibility-
It is a sad day in the House when we cannot come to grips with the problems of the House by negotiation, and closure has to be imposed. For the past two and a half weeks negotiations with the Government have been entered into by this Party and by the New Democratic Party with respect to how this House of Commons can come to grips with the financial problems of the country, the deficit and the borrowing requirements.
The House will know that this Government will cease to exist very shortly after June 16 next. A new Prime Minister will undoubtedly be sworn in well before the end of June, 1984. There will be a new government in place which may go to the country or which may decide to call Parliament back in the fall and present a new budget, a new economic direction and a new policy on handling the affairs of Canada. In any case, the Budget of February 15 has gone by the boards. It is dead, finished. This Government is gone by the boards, dead, finished on June 16. To proceed with this Bill on that basis is wrong. Our negotiations were on that basis and we thought we

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation
had some agreement on that basis. We were prepared to give the Government enough money to carry through to November. The Government said it needed enough money to carry through for the full calendar year. That is why the amendment of the Elon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is before the House.
We were talking about enough money to carry the Government until, say, the first of 1985. But, all of a sudden, negotiations are cut off. No effort is made to trust the House of Commons. No effort is made to come to grips with the deficit, which may be $35.5 billion or may be $42 billion. Who knows where we are going, because there is no control on spending.


Nelson Andrew Riis: No accountability.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Over this past month we have seen interest rates rise. The Government is prepared to pay 13.6 per cent for 20-year money on its bond issue of April 1, and 12.5 per cent for one-year money.
There is something wrong going on and we as Members of Parliament do not have the right to give a blank cheque. We cannot do that, particularly in view of the fact that this Government will cease to exist come the middle of June. Therefore, it is with sadness that I rise to say that we should not now be talking closure, we should be settling this Bill and getting organized to handle the deficit problem in order to come to grips with economic reality, interest rates and unemployment, the real problems affecting Canadians.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we should give the Government enough borrowing authority to carry on for perhaps the balance of this year. Then a new Government, whether it be Liberal or Progressive Conservative, will be able to present a new program which gets this country on the road again. But this Government refuses to listen. It refuses to face reality.
If you look at today's Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, you will see that not only does the Government demand $29.55 billion, but there is notice of a supplementary borrowing authority Bill as well.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: They never get enough.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not only does it want $29.55 billion, and it wants it through closure, but it wants more in a supplementary Bill. Where is the limit to the Government's appetite?


Roy MacLaren: There is none.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister yells across, "There is none". There is no limit to the Government's appetite, to its abuse of Parliament or to the prerogative of the Crown. The Government stamps on the right to object and the right to free speech. It stamps on the rights and privileges of my children and your children. We cannot go on in this fashion. The same thing will happen here as has happened in other countries in the past. Borrowing will get to the point where we cannot pay the
interest, as is the case in Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. Then what will happen to the value of our currency as the Government prints and prints and prints money, as it defrauds pensioners, savers and retired people of their savings by counterfeiting and destroying the value of our currency?
Sir, we in this House must be responsible and demand accountability from this Government. We cannot go on any longer with a program of borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, deficit on deficit on deficit, ad infinitum. That is a funny word, is it not? Is that not the word of a certain company with an annual meeting tomorrow? Another loser! Sir, this country has had enough of losers. Let us get on and do something with winners. I say to you that this motion should not pass, this Government should be forced to the negotiating table, and we as parliamentarians must cut back on the deficit and the borrowing powers of this Government.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat astounded at how the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) can stand up and talk about how the Government must be responsible and at the same time make such an irresponsible speech. He referred to Argentina and Brazil. He talked about how the Government could not continue to borrow until the day we could no longer pay interest. He somehow tried to compare the situation in Canada with that of Brazil. The fact is that he knows that is not true. He knows our situation is vastly different, because we are not borrowing from foreigners; we are borrowing money from Canadian citizens. The interest payments go to Canadian citizens and they stay in our economy. That is the fundamental difference which he chooses to ignore.
He also referred to the Budget of February 15. He said that on the day after the Liberal leadership convention that Budget will be gone by the board, it will be "dead" to use his words. Of course, he ignores the fact this Budget is built upon the Budget of April, 1983. He ignores the fact that the economy continues on a day-to-day basis, that people continue to spend money. He ignores the fact that this Government has incorporated in a series of budgets a number of progressive measures and investments which are going to benefit Canadians for years and years to come. He forgets programs such as that of the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program, and the special recovery projects which were introduced in the Budget of last April. These policies are designed-


Mr. Hawkes:: To re-elect Liberals.


David Berger: -to invest in Canadian infrastructure and industries of the future, in order to ensure the prosperity of Canadians for years to come. I suggest to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South that our economy, thanks to efforts made by successive Liberal Governments, is adapting to international competition much better than the American economy, which he holds up as such a great example.
Our country, Mr. Speaker, as you are probably aware, has known for the last couple of years a series of record trade

March 28, 1984

surpluses. The United States has recorded substantial trade deficits. Why is that? Even though their economy is expanding fairly rapidly, it is probably due to the fact that a phenomenal portion of their expenditures is on the domestic armaments industry. It does little to add to the international competitiveness of their economy. We in Canada do not have a commitment to arms expenditures which resembles anything like the American commitment. We have chosen to spend money in a manner which I and many Canadians consider to be much more socially productive and which will improve the long-run competitiveness of the Canadian economy.
1 suggest that the Hon. Member read an article which appeared in the May 11, 1982 edition of The New York Times. The article written by Robert Heilbroner is entitled "Deficits and Deficits". He was responding to the idea that a constitutional amendment be adopted in the United States to enforce a balanced federal budget. He suggested that those who advocated such a proposal might also consider making it unconstitutional for businesses to spend more money than they take in.
Mr. Heilbroner points out that if there were a prohibition on so-called business deficits, it would bring an end to much economic expansion. Corporate borrowing and spending is not called a deficit; it is usually called a business investment. If it is advisable for businesses to borrow money and invest in the future of a company, why is not the same true of government? What is wrong with a government borrowing money to invest in the present and the future of the Canadian economy and the Canadian people?
As the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) pointed out, in the recent downturn it was only normal that expenditures of government rise, such as social expenditures, unemployment insurance payments, manpower training and so forth. What would the result be if we cut out those expenditures? Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we remove the safety net, allow people to starve in the streets, do not invest in the future of our people and do not provide Canadians with resources to build their country?
In conclusion I wish to refer to a couple of fundamental aspects of this Bill. As the Minister indicated in his speech on March 7, the Government seeks new borrowing authority of $29.5 billion; $25.5 billion for the financial requirements set out in the current Budget, plus a non-lapsing contingency amount of some $4 billion. I point out to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South that the financial requirement is $1.5 billion less than the estimated requirements for the current fiscal year. This is a substantial decline over the current year. It represents an acceleration in the growth of budgetary revenues and slower growth in expenditures. It reflects the recovery that occurred in 1983.
The contingency has two purposes. One is to accommodate the impact of large unpredictable foreign exchange operations on our financial requirements, and the second is to ensure that Government can continue its regular debt program if the
Time Allocation
House is not in session or, if it has been dissolved, the Government must be able to borrow without time constraints.
It must be able to take advantage of market opportunities so as to minimize overall debt charges. To do otherwise, to follow the course suggested by the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, certainly would be irresponsible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It does not reflect in any way on my colleague. However, it has been the tradition that we alternate political Parties when responding to a motion on time allocation. Traditionally the Chair has not only recognized Members on the Government side and the Opposition. I am curious to know whether that tradition has now been broken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The House being in debate on a new motion, with all due respect to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, possibly he would wait for a while and the Chair could recognize the Member from the other Party so as to have a first round of speakers from each Party.
Is that agreeable?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the suggestion that we carry out the tradition of the House.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the procedure you are outlining in terms of the first round, but I want to be sure that our right of having more speakers in this debate than the New Democratic Party is protected, that we are entitled to representation that is roughly equivalent to our proportion in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair will see that the right of the Official Opposition is protected.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my colleague for recognizing again that we have a tradition in this House that has been in place for many years. That tradition is that in the first round of speakers, each political Party has a representative to state its point of view. I thank the Hon. Member for enabling this to occur.
I speak today with a heavy heart. We have indeed spent a number of days on Bill C-21, an Act to authorize the borrowing of $29.55 billion. Recognizing that that figure includes $4 billion of a non-lapsing contingency fund, I suggest to the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) that by debating such a large borrowing Bill, the largest in Canadian history, spending a few days discussing the merits of the Government's programs and hearing suggestions from Members opposite is a wise use of Parliament's time.
I have sat here for eight days listening to my colleagues suggesting countless examples of how Government spending . has been questionable, inappropriate and misallocated. Time

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation
and again 1 heard my colleagues suggest what the Government ought to be considering in terms of getting our economy back on track. Suggestions were made for kick-starting our recovery back to life, how to improve the forest industry, how to improve construction opportunities, what to do about the failing fisheries industry, how to assist agriculture, and how to provide assistance to small and medium-sized businesses in this country. One could go on and on.
The last number of days in which we have reflected on Bill C-21 have been very useful. When I look down the long list of suggestions and proposals put forward by Hon. Members, I believe that eight days on a borrowing Bill of nearly $30 billion is not an unwise use of the time of this House. I remind the Minister of State for Finance, who is responsible for this Bill, that when you peel away all of the rhetoric around this question, you find that there are basically two reasons why we have a federal Government. The first is to collect taxes through a system that is fair and in a manner that is equitable. The second is to take those taxes which have been collected in a fair and equitable manner and expend them in a wise way. This will result in an improvement in the economic stability of the country and an improvement in the lot of the average Canadian citizen. By and large, Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is the role of the Government.
Just the other day, it was brought to the attention of Hon. Members that Wood Gundy, a very reputable firm, sent out a letter to its clients and prospective clients suggesting that if one's income was at least $40,080 a year, Wood Gundy could arrange one's financial affairs so that one would pay no income tax at all. In other words, Wood Gundy was saying that it could take advantage of the 200 and some loopholes provided in the Canadian tax system and arrange one's finances so that one would have to pay no income tax at all. Of course, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has brought forward a number of budgets in the past session as well as in the present one which include a handful of tax concessions or, as I like to call them, tax loopholes for select groups of Canadian citizens. I believe that you would have to look long and hard, Mr. Speaker, to see how Canada is advantaged by these tax loopholes.
The other day in Toronto, the President of the Bank of Montreal, Mr. Mulholland, made the case that the corporate sector of Canada is awash in tax concessions. In other words, one of the chief executive officers of Canada's banking establishment is saying that we cannot take any more tax concessions from the people of Canada simply because we cannot invest them as wisely as we should.
I have talked about the collection of taxes, which brings me to the question of how these tax moneys are expended. Are they always expended in a wise way? Are they always expended by a Government that has thought through the implications of government expenditures? When looking at the track record of this particular administration, there is absolutely no way that one could make the case that a great deal of thought has
gone into the expenditures we are asked to approve on a regular basis. I will use two or three examples of that that have been brought to our attention as of late, Mr. Speaker.
The other day we were debating the decision of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Smith) to expend a number of dollars south of the border in order to attract Americans to visit Canada on holidays. It seems to be an honourable goal to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to attract visitors to Canada so that our hospitality and tourist industry could be stimulated. On the other hand, we have just found out that, as a result of other legislation, the Government has increased through the tax system the cost of gasoline in the country. When American visitors drive their vehicles into Canada, the avenue of transportation which most would pursue, they find that their travel costs are significantly greater than at home. This would certainly act as a retardant to visiting Canada. As well, taxes are levied on such commodities as alcohol. When someone from the United States come to Canada and wants to have a glass of wine with his dinner or a small cocktail before or after his dinner, he finds that the costs are significantly higher in Canada than they are in the United States.
There is an absence of any overall conceptual planning for the hospitality and tourist industry of Canada. Provincial governments are acting independently and in many cases are imposing room taxes and additional food taxes on our visitors. At first glance, those food taxes may appear to be fair and equitable but, like most taxes, they are not. I refer to the 7 per cent tax on food in the Province of British Columbia, which tends to tax family-oriented restaurants most heavily. In small eating establishments, people must pay a 7 per cent provincial tax on any bill over $7. It does not apply to the Wendy's or McDonald's chains. In other words, the national or international fast-food chains do not pay the 7 per cent food tax.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Don't you know the tax in Ontario applies to hamburgers?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am talking about the tax in British Columbia at the moment. The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is that even a tax that has been instituted by the Province of British Columbia works against the development of a strong and vibrant tourist industry.
In summary, I say that our taxes are being collected unfairly. The tax system is inequitable and is biased in favour of the large corporate sector at the expense of the small and mediumsized businesses. Our tax system is biased in favour of the upper income earner at the expense of the average and low income earners of Canada. There is no rhyme or reason to the expenditures of the Government. There is very little if any planning being done. There is very little strategic thinking about how we can best invest the taxpayers' money to ensure economic returns in the future.
The Government comes before Parliament and asks for authority to borrow $29.55 billion and hears countless hours of suggestions, which the Government simply ignores. It simply turns a deaf ear on the dozens and dozens of positive, creative
March 28, 1984

and innovative suggestions of Hon. Members. The Government is then forced, in its arrogance, to bring in something called time allocation, a fancy term for closure, to muzzle parliamentarians, to close off debate and to close off any further discussion and analysis of the collection and expenditure of $29.55 billion.
We on this side of the House tried to negotiate an arrangement to allow relatively rapid passage of this borrowing request. We tried our best to ask the Government to borrow a certain amount of money until the end of this calendar year. The New Democratic Party put forward an amendment which in effect said to the Government: "Take what money you require up until the end of the year and we will debate the request for any other funds in 1985 as warranted by expenditures and planning." We tried to facilitate the movement of this particular Bill through the House. We tried to make an arrangement that was satisfactory to both sides, but we failed in that endeavour and the Government simply went blithely ahead with its original plan and indicated that it is not interested in hearing the voices of parliamentarians opposite or on its own benches. That is something that we feel very strongly should not have occurred, and for that reason, we will be voting against this motion at the first opportunity.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have enjoyed this debate on Bill C-21, the borrowing authority Bill, which has lasted for several days. At various times I have been more than moderately amused by some of the comments made by Members opposite. I like hearing the ranting and railing about too much government spending and large deficits. I have heard a lot of rhetoric, Sir, and I have seen a lot of posturing. However, it is interesting that what Members opposite do not say is so very revealing.
Members opposite do not say where significant cuts could be made in the Government's overall spending program which amounts to some $94 billion. The critic for the New Democratic Party spoke about suggestions that have been made in the House. We receive suggestions every day about how we as a Government could spend more money. Rarely do Members of Parliament tell us specifically where we could cut spending in very significant ways. I like the company of Members of Parliament, but the conversations that go on in that company are never about cuts but are, rather, about how the Government can do more. How often do we talk about where taxes could be increased and who will be hit hard? Very rarely. However, we are all in favour of tax decreases.
The critic for the New Democratic Party spoke about closing tax loopholes. We would not have to worry about that if we simply used the income tax system as it now exists and obliged Canadians who legitimately owe taxes to pay those taxes. However, if we do that we get a huge howl from opposition Members. They howl that Revenue Canada is somehow undermining democracy by collecting the taxes that are authorized by the House.
Time Allocation
The Opposition says that we have too much spending and deficits which are too large. But where should we cut, Mr. Speaker? Where will the additional money come from? There is a great servant of this House, one whom every Member of Parliament respects, and that is the Auditor General. If we were to take all of his suggestions and carry them out carefully, using a scalpel with the skill of a surgeon rather than using a chopping axe as has been done in some parts of the country, notably British Columbia in its recent budget, and if we were very, very skillful, we would still have to borrow money, perhaps not $29.5 billion, perhaps only $29 billion but we would still have to borrow money. We must borrow because there are some very big needs in the country and they must be met. That is the legitimate reason for borrowing money.
The needs I refer to, Mr. Speaker, are health care, the unemployed, job creation, pensions, economic development, defence, and Indian affairs and northern development. These are expenditures that must be met, but today the revenues coming to the Government of Canada are less than they would be in a booming economy. There has been a recession and only now are we moving into a period of recovery. During that recovery we cannot forget those in our society who have needs.
Where could we get more revenue? Certainly not from the working poor or from the middle class who have been eloquently defended here in recent days. The New Democratic Party would say that we should go after companies and corporations, but not many of them are making huge profits these days. Sometimes we are told that we could collect deferred taxes, but that might result in plant closings, a reduction in research and development or less exploration. Tax increases are not "in". To help the recovery we should probably have more tax decreases than are now allowed by law in accord with the increase in the rate of inflation, a 5 or 6 per cent decrease in taxes this year.
Some Hon. Members have put forward the idea that governments should be run like any Canadian household. I look at a lot of households, Mr. Speaker, and find that they borrow. If a new house is needed, they go out and get a mortgage. If they need a new automobile-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: They pay it back.


B. Keith Penner: The Hon. Member says that they pay it back. That is the kind of empty statement that Hon. Members opposite toss out. When has my hon. friend bought a government bond or any other financial instrument that he has not paid back? They are always paid back. If someone needs an automobile he can get a personal loan. If there is a student in the family going to university or college who needs money for tuition fees, money for books or living away from home, it is not uncommon for the family to borrow. People borrow on the basis of need. I could tell my hon. friends that there are needs in our society and that the role of government is to respond to those needs.

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation
Unemployment insurance is one need that is costing the Government a great deal. Do my friends opposite still argue against unemployment insurance? I remember the 1972 election campaign waged by the Conservative Party which wanted to beat the Liberals on the basis of the new unemployment insurance plan. Do they still talk of doing away with unemployment insurance? Do they put that forward as a way to cut government expenditures? If they do, they should say so. I have heard Hon. Members opposite ridicule government job-creation programs that are giving thousands of Canadians an opportunity to do something useful in their communities. If we do not want to allow the Government to borrow, if we do not want an increase in taxes, then we should obviously cut expenditures.
I have listened carefully for suggestions from the Opposition for major cuts. I have waited for the Opposition to put forward its program for the next election. I have heard the word "more". I heard that opposition Members would spend much more on national defence, I have heard that they would spend much more on research and development; I have heard that they would give more to the provinces for post-secondary education, that under the new health care Act the provinces should get more money for health care. I have heard them say they would like to do away with Canada's aerospace industry.
At the moment we know and everybody knows that it is necessary for the Government to borrow because there can be no significant cuts. Although my friends opposite rail about government spending, they know there can be no cuts in Old Age Security, the child tax credit, unemployment insurance or job-creation programs.
From whom do we borrow, Mr. Speaker? Some may think that we go offshore to borrow large sums of money. We know that is not true. Only a small amount of money is borrowed offshore; most of it is borrowed from Canadians who have large amounts of savings. The Government borrows these savings and uses them for growth and development and the humanization of our society. I find it difficult to believe that if Hon. Members opposite were in government they would not want to continue with most of this and would come asking us for the right to borrow money.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate. When I was asked to stand down in favour of my colleague in the New Democratic Party, I did it in favour of history. Years from now, when people ask me what the New Democratic Party stood for in Parliament, I want to be able to say that in its last year, 1984, I assisted it in participating in the proceedings in the House.
I should say that I am sorry to participate in this closure debate. No one likes closure. I want to refer to some of the speeches that have been made, however, particularly that of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).
Like many Members on this side of the House, I was shocked to hear the Hon. Member come down squarely in defence of the collection practices of the Department of National Revenue. When he goes back to his riding I think he will
find that the people there are not very impressed with his defence of the auditing and collection techniques of the Department of National Revenue.
There certainly are big needs in the country, Mr. Speaker- the need of Maislin Transport for $34 million, or the big need to rent the Centennial Tower so that we can lease three out of fifteen floors. That is the kind of need the Liberal Party has developed over the years.
I do not want to say that the previous speaker lied when he said that this party was in favour of doing away with the aircraft industry, because that would be unparliamentary; I would only say that he has come as close to the truth as one can without actually lying.
Let us get down to real facts now, Mr. Speaker, and why the Liberal Party wants closure. Why did it bring in closure on this Bill? I think there are two or three reasons for that. The first is that the Liberal Party is feeling the heat throughout the country because of its mismanagement of the economy. There is increasing unemployment in Canada. Someone had the nerve to refer to the problems of the U.S. economy. One of its problems is that it has only 7.8 per cent unemployment; we have an 11.3 per cent unemployment rate. We keep bringing this to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who obviously has no answers, so the Government decided to cut debate. But closure is the problem of the Liberal Party.
Let us deal with the specifics, the leadership campaign. Five out of the six candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party were directly involved in the creation of the deficit, to pay for which we must borrow. Those are the people going out across the country explaining to Canadians how different it is going to be if they are only chosen in the next election. This debate on the borrowing of more money is of supreme embarrassment to those leadership candidates. It is no wonder they want closure enforced so the debate can come off the floor of the House of Commons.
Let us talk about the other candidate, the one out of the six who is not a Member of Parliament, that colleague of the Members opposite who quit and went back to practise law on Bay Street at $300,000 a year. Let us talk about that candidate who is now going to come back and save the country by running for the leadership of the Liberal Party. It is that candidate, Mr. Speaker, who started the trend of deficit in the first place. He also wants closure on this Bill. He wants it out of the House of Commons.
I did not have an opportunity to speak in the original debate because closure was brought forward. I am pleased to have this opportunity now to speak to just exactly what the Government is doing. It is trying to borrow some $29 billion to fund runaway spending.
The Bill contains a contingency fund which is far more than it needs. What bothers us on this side, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that when deficits are projected, they never seem to be able to get the figure right. The projected deficits are always increased when it comes down to the final facts. The govern-
March 28, 1984

ment never seems to be able to come under the projected deficit. It is always over. Spending in 1984-1985 will be up a further 9 per cent. Here is a government, Mr. Speaker, with a large deficit already, which cannot seem to come to grips with the economic realities of today. Therefore, the only solution it has to the problem is to borrow, borrow, borrow.
What is going to happen? What will the results be from what the Government is doing? What are the costs to the Canadian people? I was amused when the Minister introduced the closure motion and talked about the goal of the Government to minimize interest charges. We all remember, Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 1981, how it minimized interest charges by bringing in a Liberal interest rate of 19.5 per cent for Canada savings bonds. That was part of the Liberal high interest rate policy which carried on through 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. That policy was responsible for record high bankruptcies, record high foreclosures, record high powers of sale, and record high farm bankruptcies. That was the result of the Government's policy.
What are the costs? The Canadian people have the cost of paying the interest on this ever growing burden. It is our estimate, Mr. Speaker, that servicing the debt in 1984-1985 will cost an estimated $20 billion. That is $800 for every man, woman and child in Canada. It is $1900 per taxpayer. Interest on the national debt will be 4.7 per cent of the Gross National Product of Canada.
What is the second cost to Canada? It is the loss of fiscal flexibility. I was also amused when one of the previous speakers talked about the importance of the Government having access to financial markets. No government could possibly go to financial markets as often as this one. In fact, in 1968-1969, $1 in every $9 raised by the Government was needed to service debt. Today, $1 in every $3 is used by the Government to service debt. Now when the Government goes to these markets it talks about, what does that do to the money market? Well, it is quite clear what it does. It crowds out the other borrowers. It crowds out businesses which do not want to throw money away like this Government but want to create jobs, and it raises their costs of doing business. That is one of the economic costs we find from the practices of the Government. Further more, if those people cannot get the money in the money markets in Canada, they are forced to go out of the country to borrow. That means they are going to pay higher interest rates.
The last cost, Mr. Speaker, is perhaps the cost we should be most concerned about, that is, the lack of confidence which the continual borrowing brings about in the minds of the Canadian people and in the minds of the international markets which watch us. I believe that is the cost we are all paying right now.
I regret that my time is cut short. I appreciate that that is a rule of parliamentary procedure. It is very unfortunate that the Liberal Party is cutting off debate on this Bill and, naturally, our Party will be voting against the motion to cut debate.
Time Allocation


Mr. Alain Garant (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in addressing the House on one of the most important Bills it is now considering-the Borrowing Authority Act.
Mr. Speaker, we must realize the vital implications of this Bill for all Canadian citizens, wherever they may be. Needless to say, Hon. Members have commented at length on the size of the deficit, and Opposition attacks in this respect have not been lacking. However, I think it is time to look at the facts.
The Canadian people will realize that in the middle of the recession we have just experienced, this Government acted responsibly. No Mr. Speaker, it was not easy, during the recession, to reconcile social and economic considerations. However, our Government managed to maintain our achievements in two areas that are so essential to the well-being of Canadians.
The problem was how to help those who were most severely affected by the economic recession, while injecting the necessary funds to sustain levels of economic activity, lessen the impact of the recession and thus create much-needed jobs. Mr. Speaker, we chose to pursue our humanitarian policies, although it would have been very easy to shirk our social responsibilities.
The better times we are experiencing today are proof that we did the right thing. The economy is improving regularly, and the Government is continuing to introduce economic policies aimed at bringing down inflation, increasing employment, cutting Government expenditures, thus reducing the deficit but doing so in an orderly and responsible manner.
How can the Opposition maintain its arguments, which do not hold up under closer analysis? How can they claim the Canadian Government is spending rashly when it has been proven, and the figures are there, that half of the increase in the deficit recorded since 1981 is directly due to the impact of the recession on public revenues and expenditures, and especially unemployment insurance benefits.
A substantial portion of the remaining increase in the deficit is due to increased public debt charges. Thus, only a relatively small proportion of the expected rise in the deficit is due to official and discretionary measures taken by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, this Government has decided to accept a relative increase in the deficit in order to support economic activity in periods of cyclical weakness, because it realize that continued recovery will automatically bring about an orderly reduction in the deficit, as could already be seen in the last Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
Mr. Speaker, on what basis are Opposition Members claiming that the level of the federal deficit demonstrates this

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation
Government's inability to control its expenditures? They should look at the facts.
Since 1975, the federal Government has been committed to keeping the trend growth of Government expenditures within the trend growth of the GNP. However, this commitment does not mean that every year the Government must intervene to the same extent. During the downward phase of a cycle, it is reassuring to be able to rely on greater support by the Government, while during the upward phase, the Government can and must withdraw gradually in favour of the private sector. That is exactly what this Government intends to do, and what has helped it to achieve its spending objectives.
During the 1975-76 fiscal year, total Government spending was 22.9 per cent of GNP; in 1980-81, it had dropped to 19.1 per cent of GNP. During the present fiscal year, because of a general slow-down in all western economies, the Canadian Government's spending should be allowed to rise to 21.6 per cent of the GNP trend, a level that is still substantially lower than that for 1975-76. It is expected that this percentage will keep on dropping until 1987-88.
Mr. Speaker, how can Opposition Members possibly conclude that the Government has been inconsistent in financial matters? I repeat, they should look at the facts. In times of cyclical weakness, an increase in the deficit substantially alleviates the impact of a general drop in economic activity and ensures that the problems facing individuals during a recession are not excessive. Any attempt to nullify the automatic impact of the recession on the Budget balance would merely aggravate the recession itself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I am told that apparently, the Hon. Member is reading a prepared text, which is not customary in the House. The Hon. Member may occasionally consult notes or he may quote from a document, provided he indicates his source, but he may not read a prepared text.


Alain Garant: Mr. Speaker, during an economic slow-down, it is up to the Government to take discretionary measures to reduce taxes and increase expenditures in order to sustain the level of economic activity. Between 1975 and 1978, the federal deficit was substantially increased in order to stimulate the economy. From 1979 to 1981, however, there was a continuous drop in the deficit. If there had not been a recession in 1982, Mr. Speaker, the deficit would have continued to drop.
The fact that the deficit contributes to cushion the cyclical fluctuations of the economy does not fly in the face of our efforts to achieve a deficit whose trend goes a long way indeed towards meeting long-term economic requirements. And that, Mr. Speaker, is what the short-sighted views of Members opposite prevent them from understanding.
And to top it off, they argue that the deficit of the Canadian Government fuels inflation and leads to soaring interest rates.
Here again the facts belie those statements. Mr. Speaker, the evolution of the situation since 1981 shows that there is no direct relation between deficits and inflation, nor between deficits and interest rates. As a matter of fact, the recent increase in the federal deficit came at the same time as a considerable decline in inflation. Besides, despite the higher federal deficit, interest rates are still a long way from the pre-recession peaks.
Mr. Speaker, all that goes to prove that deficits can be an effective and appropriate economic budget management tool when business slows down. As to the suggestions made by the Opposition, I must admit quite frankly that I have been unable to reconcile them. How can they say that they are really intent on reducing the deficit even more, when the few concrete suggestions they made this past year would see a reduction in Government revenues or an increase in public expenditures-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired. The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to check the number of times I have spoken on closure in the last five years. Closure is the mechanism put in place by the Liberal Party to shut us up. It is a disgrace to Parliament. It is a disgrace to my constituents and to Canadian citizens at large. It has been overused and must be stopped.
We listened to a speech by a government Member just now. Regrettably I must tell you that the statistics he was quoting are totally inaccurate. I do not know whether he has ever been to a finance meeting. I do not know whether he has ever read statistics. However, there was no accuracy. As an example, he stated that in 1978 they had to increase the percentage of deficit. In 1978 the deficit actually decreased from the previous. I do not know where he got his figures, Mr. Speaker, but they are out of line.
We are debating borrowing authority and being clamped down on it. March 31 comes this weekend. On March 31, prior to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his gang taking over, the total deficit of the country was $18 billion. One year from this weekend the national debt will be 10 times that amount. It will be $180 billion plus. This country is in bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker. The Government is bankrupt of ideas. It is providing nothing to improve the private sector.
The Member who spoke previosly also stated that it is up to the private sector to bring us back. Ninety-two per cent of our personal savings go to fund the Government. That leaves 8 per cent. How can the private sector compete at reasonable costs?
It is ridiculous to invoke closure on this Bill which concerns such an important subject. It will affect every child in this country and his or her children for generations to come. I have five children. My grandchildren will have to face up to this
March 28, 1984

debt some day, and they will not be proud of what the Government of Canada has done to them.
The Government tells us that the deficit and its borrowing requirements are not so bad. I would point out that the Government's borrowings and its debt is very serious. The United States has a deficit of 4.7 per cent of its GNP, while our deficit is 6.9 per cent of GNP and rising. It is rising because the economy is declining.
The Government will not generate the revenue that it has anticipated. Furthermore, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has already initiated a supplementary borrowing Bill when we have not even finished with this Bill. He realizes that he did not tell the Canadian public the truth six weeks ago when he said that the deficit would be down. When he was in committee last week he did not deny that he would have trouble getting the deficit down. But we are faced with a higher deficit in the coming year than we have faced in the past. That is why we are objecting to the Bill. The Government will not tell us all of its intentions for this money or tell us about all the gimmicks it has up its sleeve. It is playing games with the Canadian public, who are getting sick and tired of it.


Mr. Chenier:: Wait until the next election. You will be out of here.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I will not be out of here. I am sure that a lot of your colleagues will be out of here.
The Canadian public only has to realize that in 1968 we spent 17.4 per cent of our GNP and last year we spent 25.3 per cent. I will wager that it will go up to 26 per cent next year. The Government is sending us downhill on a rapid slide. Wonderland in Toronto has nothing compared to the slide into the drain upon which the Government is putting us.
The Government has been unfair and untruthful to the Canadian public. Let me illustrate this by quoting some statements made by the Government. One of the best quotes is from the Minister of Finance, who said, "Deficit spending is good for economic growth". The Government has spent throughout the 1970s when we were in good times, but that did not do us any good when the crunch came in the 1980s. The Government's actions have been damaging to the country. It states that there is a deficit because of the positive initiatives of the Liberals. One of the most important factors in the present circumstances is economic mismanagement. The Government does not know where the money is coming from and does not know where it is going. It also said that there is nothing wrong with having a large national debt. It will be the generations of the future which will realize the damage.
History has shown that any country that has experienced a high deficit such as this has had to resort to printing money. That is the only solution for that bankrupt bunch across the way.
The Government keeps telling us that there is nothing wrong with a short-term deficit. A deficit from 1968 to 1984 that has risen by $162 billion is not a short-term deficit; it is long-term spending.
Time Allocation
Another rather amusing quote from the Government is, "Over the next few years the deficit will fall dramatically". And this quote particularly strikes me, "Relative to other nations, our deficit is not out of line". Based on GNP, the United States will have a deficit of $1.25 trillion. If the deficit in the United States were at the same level as that of Canada, it would be $2.5 trillion.
When we compare our debt to that of the United States, it shows that we are in trouble. Yet the Government is putting the clamp on us and saying that we cannot discuss this Bill any longer. According to the Budget, the Government does not need the funds that it is requesting. It has between $4 billion and $8 billion in the bank. While it asks for $29.5 billion, we are told it will spend only $29 billion. There is something dishonest about the way the Government is dealing with this country and Members of the House.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You can't count.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I hear the yelling from the other side. I understand that.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Nobody is yelling.


Thomas Scott Fennell: They are nervous about the fact we are giving statistics that will hurt those Members. The interest burden which we are forced to carry is now 20 per cent of our total expenditures. This burden has removed any fiscal flexibility that we might have.
There have been no new plans to get the engine growth moving again. There has been nothing. The Government has put us on a downhill slide.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: You are repeating yourself.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I will repeat myself many times in order to get the point across that what you have done to this country is serious. Besides its spending program, one of the major costs the Government is placing on the country is a lack of confidence in Canada. We have totally lost the confidence of the rest of the world. Our productivity is at an all time low. While the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Lumley) has worked hard to increase productivity, it cannot be done overnight. The Government is spending the same amount on research and development as it did in 1968, whereas Japan has increased its expenditure threefold.
I appreciated the opportunity to speak to this Bill, but I am very annoyed about having to speak to closure. It should not be permitted in the House, and I hope that this is the last time I am faced with closure in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cousineau) on a point of order.
2522

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to set the record straight. The Eton. Member spoke about closure, whereas, in fact, the motion is asking for a time allocation.


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to re-emphasize the comments made by my colleague, that this is not closure but simply time allocation. The reason for time allocation is that since debate on Bill C-21 started, there have been 93 speeches made on second reading in the House on the Bill, the amendment and the subamendment.


Thomas Scott Fennell: 1 notice that you did not speak much on it.


Ralph Ferguson: There were 17 speeches by government Members, 64 by the Official Opposition, and 12 from the NDP. The Bill has had approximately eight days of debating time before the House of Commons. When one considers that six days are allocated for the Budget debate, I suggest it is time that this debate was brought to an end.
The Hon. Member spoke about the increase in our deficit. If one looks at the Budget documents, particularly the fiscal plan at page 63, a review of the last 16 years shows that the GNP increased more than fivefold since 1968. In fact, the preliminary estimate for this coming year is $389 billion for the GNP. When we have the ability to repay, the deficit can be adjusted accordingly.
The Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) suggested that government borrowings may be as much as 90 per cent of Canadian savings. I should like to point out to him that the ratio of financial requirements to private domestic savings in the 1984-85 fiscal year is projected to be about one-quarter, rather than 90 per cent as cited by the Hon. Member. Financial requirements are projected to be $25.6 billion in 1984-85 and private domestic savings are expected to be just under $100 billion, using the national accounts definition of savings. Such statements as this concern us, certainly those of us on this side of the House. He made comparisons that really paint a distorted picture of our financial position, of our ability as a nation to provide the safety net for our seniors, the disadvantaged and the unemployed. But we as a Government are obliged to look after the welfare of the people, particularly those in most need.
In reality, when we look at the amount of borrowings in Canada by the Government, much of the borrowings are borrowed from Canadians themselves. Consequently it is a much different perspective than that of other nations where a large percentage of their borrowings are from outside their boundaries. The broad economic objective of the Budget, as with the April 19, 1983 Budget, is to initiate and sustain an investment-led expansion and an economic activity that will create employment without the resurgence of inflation. Certainly this Budget has to be looked upon as an expansionary Budget to ensure the people of Canada that the Government's
objective is to assist small business to expand and create the much needed jobs for Canadians.
I find it most difficult to listen to members of the Opposition complain about various sectors of our economy, suggesting they are not doing very well at all. I should draw to their attention what is happening under the National Energy Program. In 1983 we had the best year in history for oil wells drilled and completed. Over four thousand in Canada were completed. The best year previous to that was 1980 when slightly over 2,600 oil wells were drilled and completed. I am not referring to gas wells because we have a huge surplus of natural gas in Canada. Approximately 11,000 gas wells are capped in the Province of Alberta alone with no markets available at the present time. Consequently searching has been diverted to the oil sector. To date there has been a tremendous increase over 1983 for the first two months of the year. This tremendous increase occurred not only in Alberta but in Saskatchewan and other oil-producing provinces. The program has been accepted and is showing the fruits of the thought put into it.
I should also like to point out that in the month of January, 1984 we had the biggest trade surplus on record, in the amount of $2.1 billion. This shows that Canadians are aggressively competing in and pursuing world markets.
Let me point out also that since the recovery began Canada has created 424,000 new jobs for Canadians. In the month of February alone over 54,000 new jobs were created, most of them full-time job opportunities. It is in this context that the Government is quite correct in the policies that it is pursuing. But in so doing, we have to make sure the vehicles are in place to assist the expansion as the recovery is gathering momentum.
I am alarmed at the situation in some areas of our economy and society, but there is nothing there that a stable hand at the helm cannot overcome. I am concerned about some of the things confronting those going to our post-secondary schools and universities. The Government of Canada is providing funding for these universities. Approximately 58 per cent of the cost of post-secondary school education in the Province of Ontario is borne by the Government of Canada. Students pay about 19 per cent through tuition fees and the province picks up the balance. But while the federal Government's share in Ontario has increased by about 78 per cent since the Established Programs Financing Act came into place in 1977-78, the proportion provided by the province has decreased during that period. Consequently I am most alarmed about this. I hope the demand for opportunities for higher education will be recognized by the provincial government and the necessary changes made to provide educational opportunities for those who wish to continue.
I should also like to touch briefly on the continuation of the recovery. This will automatically result in the narrowing of the deficit. During the recessionary period we came through, revenues were down compared to what they would have been under normal circumstances. Naturally payments were higher. During that period more people were collecting unemployment insurance. As more jobs are created those payments will be
March 28, 1984

less demanding on our federal treasury. But by the same token, revenues will accrue from the other side of the ledger. It is in this context that we have to recognize that if at all possible the recovery is expansionary and responsible.
Development over the past year and a half or so demonstrates that there has been no clear connection between interest rates and the deficit, and interest rates are considerably lower than in the pre-recession peak despite a rise in the federal deficit. This is not to suggest, however, that the interest rate developments are not affected by current events in the country to the south of us. Rather, during a cyclical downturn private demands-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair must interrupt the Hon. Member to advise him that his time has expired.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is an incredible day. Here we are engaged in a two-hour debate in which the Government has decided to use its voting power to close off freedom of speech on a borrowing Bill. On the same day, Mr. Speaker, we notice on the Order Paper the Government's intention to borrow another $4 billion. Here we are closing off freedom of speech on the major Bill and yet at the same time introducing a motion which will lead to the Government's attempt to borrow another $4 billion on top of $29.55 billion. As I say, this is an incredible day.
I listened to the Hon. Member who just spoke. I wonder whether or not we could convince him to brag on the front page of his electioneering pamphlets about standing up in the House of Commons some 20-odd times to invoke closure, to invoke the denial of speech in this House. That is what Liberal back-benchers have done. They have supported the Government some 20-odd times in their declaration that freedom of speech is to be denied Members of this House. That is what they intend to do later this day.
Why, Mr. Speaker? Why do Members opposite prefer a society in which a Cabinet, a small group of elected people, in some cases elected and in some cases appointed, deny the freedom of speech? What would they replace it with? If they carry this propensity toward closure far enough, what will we have? We could have a dictatorship in which everybody submits. That is one of the logical, long-term consequences. I do not think Canadians, indeed North Americans, would stand for that. But what will we resort to if our freedom of speech is to be denied? Do we have to resort to fists? Do we have to resort to bullets and revolution?
The framers of the rules of the House of Commons put in place a provision to allow a government, the majority of the Members of this House, to cut off debate. But do any of us in our wildest imagination think that rule was put in place to be used routinely? That Members elected to this Chamber were not allowed to speak on matters of importance to the Canadian people? I do not think so. I think the rule was placed in the rule book to be used very, very sparingly, on occasion, when a
Time Allocation
minority of Members were clearly abusing the House on something not particularly important. That is why the rule was put in there.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the majority Members of this House are abusing the rule. Looking back, I remember the Government advertising on television, with some $6 million worth of flying geese, for the need for a new Constitution. Here we had the fundamental law of the land about to be changed. It was like a thunderbolt out of the blue; none of us had ever seen it, no provincial Premier had ever seen it. The Government laid it on this Chamber and two weeks later invoked closure to cut off debate. Two weeks, Mr. Speaker! That is an abuse of the rules of this House.
Today we stand here looking at a Bill to borrow $29.55 billion. This will hurt businesses, hurt people on fixed incomes, and it will lead to increased unemployment. It is a fundamentally important Bill and the Government wants to cover it up by depriving Members of this House of the right to speak on the Bill, the right to alert Canadians to its implications. A little later this day the Government is going to ask us to vote on the motion and I suspect the Liberal Members will stand up and vote for closure. It will be more than 20 times that they have done that in the life of this Parliament. I suggest democracy is at risk through the abuse of the rules of this House and the willingness of the Liberal Party to participate in that kind of abuse.
This is a fundamentally important piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. I heard Members opposite stand up earlier this day and say that we are just borrowing the money from Canadians, that all the interest will stay in the country. Mr. Speaker, technically that may have been a correct statement. In practical terms it is far from the truth. Canadians are net borrowers. This country cannot exist in this set of circumstances without borrowing money from abroad. Each time we do that, then some of the interest goes abroad. The Government of Canada might think it is borrowing Canadian money from Canadian banks, but lying behind that is the need of the Bank to borrow money abroad. What does that do? It drives down the value of the Canadian dollar, thereby increasing inflation.
When we stand in this House and ask for the right to debate the need to borrow this money, and the Liberal back-benchers are ready to stand up and say "No, we will deny you the right of free speech", then Canadians should ask themselves what is the Government trying to hide? What is it trying to cover up? The Government has told us it is going to be short $24 billion this year but it is asking to borrow over $29 billion. There is another motion in the Order Paper to borrow another $4 billion. The Government wants to borrow $9 billion more than it has told us it is going to spend. Why?
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the Government wants to create slush funds, to plough the money into Liberal ridings to try and bribe the voters? Do you think that is a possible explanation, Mr. Speaker? It is a burning question. In light of that, why does the Government want to move closure? It would just as soon the Canadian people never found out why the Government wants to borrow $9 billion more than it has

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation
told us it is going to spend. Will we see more flying geese on our television screens?
In Question Period we started to look at some advertising programs. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) has ads out across this country which are full of inaccurate information. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) has ads out across this country, more to get his picture across the country than to do anything good for Canada. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), a candidate for the leadership, has had tremendous increases in advertising about the marvellous things Canada Manpower Centres are doing. Well, Mr. Speaker, what those dollars are doing is creating false expectations in the minds of Canadians.
Borrowed money is being used to tell Canadians that programs exist for training, for job creation, but when people go to the Canada Manpower Centres they find that the budgets are spent and the job creation opportunities do not exist. I urge Members of the Liberal Party to consider whether or not the interests of Canada would be better served through further open debate on the need to borrow this money. I urge them not to vote for over the twentieth time to stifle this House, to deny Members of this House the right to freedom of speech.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened now for a few days to Tory arguments against the borrowing authority Bill. In reviewing some of those arguments, I see they have ranged from that of the hon. gentleman who just spoke, who said that this extra money would be used as an election slush fund in Liberal ridings.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I wish that were the case. I have felt for some time that the Government of Canada is really not spending enough money in Liberal ridings. When you run for re-election you have to tell the people what you are able to accomplish for them. They say that because we are on the Government side, we should have far more power than those on the Opposition side. That is straight reality. Over the years, the Government has always operated, and I have not seen anything to the contrary, in a manner whereby all constituencies are treated equally. I would venture to say that the majority of Government funding has gone more to urban areas than rural areas. This is because with many programs, government operates through the Public Service. A good example is the Summer Student Employment Program. A constituency allocation is made for direct job creation in summer student employment and another allocation that operates through the Public Service. If there are no Government offices in your riding, you do not get any of that rather large chunk that is allocated.
The Opposition say that this contingency amount might be used as an election slush fund. They question accountability. They say that the Government should be held to account to control expenditures and that it should show leadership. They question management, calling it fiscal irresponsibility. They say that nothing is being done to address the problems of
waste. Certain opposition members have pointed out where they believe government programs should be cut. There are certain areas where one could see a distinct difference between Progressive Conservative policy and that of the Liberal Party. There is no doubt about it, there are certain areas, such as job creation. When the Conservatives were last in government, direct job creation by the federal Government was discontinued in favour of, as they put it, allowing the private sector to create jobs. Unfortunately, private enterprise does not exist as far as business opportunities are concerned in certain areas of this country. Unfortunately, a great many rural and economically depressed areas have no private enterprise on which to build.
What do you say when you adopt a policy like that? Do you say that because there is no private enterprise, you have to remain on welfare? Do you tell people they cannot have government services such as community building, water and sewer facilities or wharves because there is no private enterprise? That is the basic difference between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of Canada.
No government will be able to do away with direct job-creation programs such as Canada Works, community development programs, the LEAD Program and the like. Listening to the former Conservative Minister of Finance, I am surprised that the Conservative Party still enunciate that as being an area that should receive a cut. He says there is a waste of money in government expenditures. If the former Conservative Minister of Finance is ever again the Minister of Finance and the Conservatives remain in power long enough to carry through that policy, no Conservative Member will have a hope in the world of ever again collecting any votes. It would be an absurd, silly, cruel act to discontinue direct job creation in rural and high unemployment areas. It is unthinkable that any political party would ever advocate that action, yet they do it time and again.
With regard to the comments of opposition members, there are some facts that should be laid on the table. In checking this contingency amount, I have discovered that a contingency amount has traditionally been included in requests for borrowing authority. Either it has been requested or it has not. If it has been requested, and if it has always been the case, what in the world are opposition members talking about? What kind of scheme is the Opposition cooking up to convince the Canadian people that for the first time this Liberal Government, going into an election this year, is creating this large fund to be used for political purposes? A mere check with the authorities and those who know would show that this is normal procedure. The reason it is there is to cover the impact of a large or unpredictable foreign exchange operation concerning financial requirements and to ensure that the Government will be able to continue its regular debt program if the House is not in session or has been dissolved. In essence, the contingency is designed to avoid any disruptions in the borrowing program which might lead to further disruptions. That is a fact. It is a normal course of action. It is not as some Members opposite would have Canadians believe.
March 28, 1984


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure anyone watching this afternoon would not have the faintest idea what we are doing. I cannot help but wonder at the way in which the arguments have been presented. The arguments themselves are certainly valid, but they are not relevant to what is before us. I want to talk about why time allocation is being brought forward and why we are opposed to it.
The Government has done two things. In the time that I have been here, at least, the Government has developed a pattern of asking for all of the borrowing authority in one Bill and asking for more than it can reasonably justify at the same time. On this occasion it has asked for $29.5 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85. It is not only a lot of money but it is $4 billion more than the Government can justify on the basis of its own accounting.
On top of that, it is my conviction, a conviction shared by most of my colleagues, that if the Government is to be accountable it ought not to ask for all of its projected borrowing needs at one time. There ought to be an opportunity during the course of the fiscal year for Members of Parliament to judge the performance of the Government on the basis of its borrowing needs and to pass judgment as to whether the Government has managed the affairs of the nation in a reasonable way, whether it has borrowed only for those which can be seen by the majority to be necessary projects.
This time we did what we have always done and attempted to present an argument to the Government. We recognize that the Government, whether it be the Liberal Government of the day, the Conservative Government of yet another day or a New Democratic Party Government, will from time to time be required to borrow money. However, we feel that it is important that the Government not be allowed to borrow at any time more than it requires for six months. We presented that argument to the Government. It has been put forward by myself and by many of my colleagues. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and other members of the New Democratic Party who speak on finance matters regularly have often argued that borrowing authority for six months is all that the Government can reasonably expect to receive through one Bill. That would mean that at this point in time, the Government would require an amount not exceeding $15 billion and probably something less than that.
Had the Government brought forward legislation along those lines, we would have been prepared to deal with it reasonably and expeditiously and to have proceeded to the other important matters that ought to be taking up the attention of the House of Commons. We offered the Government that argument and it was not accepted. We were then asked to look at the possibility of a need for borrowing authority for more than six months, because this is an unusual year and there is the prospect of an election looming. It was thought that perhaps under these circumstances the Government ought to be given authority to borrow for more than six months but
Time Allocation
less than a full year. We considered that argument and on the recommendation of my colleague, the finance critic for the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, we thought that allowing the Government authority to meet its needs and commitments for nine months or until the end of the calendar year would be appropriate in the circumstances.
1 know that my colleague the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), a Member who is constantly involved in matters such as these, was a little doubtful about whether we should extend the period of time to nine months. However, after considerable discussion, even he agreed. He is known throughout the House as being a frugal man who is vitally concerned about fiscal responsibility. In fact, all Members of the House have paid tribute to the fine work he did on the committee which studied fiscal responsibility and fiscal transfers.
In any event, we agreed among ourselves that we would extend the amount of time to nine months. Had the Government been willing to bring forward legislation along those lines, we would have accepted the request for authority to borrow a sum of money in the order of $18 billion or $19 billion, with the requirement that the Government return to the House of Commons to request the additional borrowing authority that it required when it required it and if it required it. We think that that is an appropriate approach for a government to take to borrowing, whether it be this Government or any other government. I suspect we will never find out whether the Government would have accepted that argument or not. We did in fact move an amendment to a motion to that effect but it is not likely to be accepted.
The public of Canada, who may well be riveted to their television sets with the eager expectation of seeing a vote take place in the House of Commons very soon, should understand what this is all about. I think that by explaining the situation as I have, perhaps they now appreciate that the reason we could not give approval to the borrowing of $29.5 billion or $29.6 billion is that it is more than the Government has proven it needs and it is for a complete fiscal year. We disagree with that in its entirety. We draw the line at that. Therefore, using the only method available to us, we had our speakers rise and, in an intelligent and compassionate way, explain what our position was and beg the Government on frequent occasions to consider that position and accept it as reasonable. However, the Government has, for one reason or another, failed to respond properly.
I do not think that the public of Canada would want this Government, the Government of Saskatchewan, the Government of British Columbia in particular, the Government of Ontario or any other government, to be given carte blanche to borrow far more than it needs. It is therefore incumbent upon us to make sure that that does not happen. It is because of our opposition to allowing the Government to do so that the Government has chosen to use time allocation.
I am not like members of the Conservative Party who say that time allocation is an inappropriate tool. It exists in the

March 28, 1984
Time Allocation
rules to be used on occasion. However, this is not the right occasion. I can imagine that there may well be an occasion when it might be appropriate but this certainly could never be considered by any thinking individual as the right time.
1 want the public to understand why we are opposed to what is happening here today and why we feel that what the Government is doing is wrong. I want the public to understand why we do not necessarily align ourselves with all the Conservative verbiage which has gone on.
Further, before I sit down, I wish to say that it does not surprise me that the people of Canada do not have a lot of confidence in the House of Commons. We are asking them to accept the fact that we should be allowed to do something which they themselves would never, ever be prepared to allow. The Government is asking them to accept that it should be given this massive borrowing authority in one lump sum which the people of Canada, who have to pay the bills, would not want the Government to have.
I would like, therefore, to suggest to the Government that when it asks for borrowing authority in the future, it should make it for no more than six months at one time and it should be held accountable for its actions. I think it will then find from this Party some willingness to look seriously at those kinds of requests.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.07 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 82 have expired.

Accordingly, under this Standing Order, I have the duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills: Bill C-27, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1984; Bill C-28, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1985.
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-10, an Act to amend the Act of Incorporation of United Grain Growers Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
Mr. James de B. Domville
Government Film Commissioner and Chairman of the Board (term expired January 7, 1984)
Mr. Paul Fortin Vice-Chairman of the Board
(as of January 8, 1984 Acting Chairman of the Board)
Mr. Francois Macerola
Acting Government Film Commissioner
(as of January 8, 1984)
Mr. Mervin I. Chertkow Kamloops, B.C.
Lawyer
Ms. Merle Shain Toronto, Ontario Writer
Mr. John Godfrey Halifax, N.S.
President of King's College
Mrs. Nora Harvey
Winnipeg, Manitoba
Member of Fort Garry School Board
Mr. de Montigny Marchand Ottawa, Ontario
Deputy Minister for Foreign Policy Department of External Affairs
Mr. Pierre Juneau Ottawa, Ontario
President-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Mr. David P. Silcox Ottawa, Ontario
Assistant Deputy Minister, Arts and Culture Department of Communications
2. Concerning remuneration, please see the report on Governor in Council appointees tabled in the House of Commons on November 17, 1983.


CNR-EXECUTIVE AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Howie: What are the (a) names (b) positions of the persons who occupy positions on the Executive and Board of Directors of the Canadian National Railway Company and, in each case, what amount was he/she paid in respect of that
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER	position in the fiscal year ended March 31,1983?
(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. 387, 536, 592 and 594.


NFB-DIRECTORS
Mr. Howie: As of January 1, 1984 what were the names of the directors of the National Film Board and to what remuneration was each entitled during the current fiscal year?


Lloyd Axworthy: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
(a) and (b)
Directors
Hon. J. H. Horner, P.C. Chairman of the Board
Dr. J. M. LeClair
President and Chief Executive
Officer
Mr. G. D. Mandel Director
Mr. D. G. A. McLean Director
Mr. E. A. Pratt Director
Mr. G. Di Battista Director
Mr. F. D. Rosebrugh Director


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the National Film Board as follows:
1. Board of Trustees from April 1, 1983 to March 31, 1984
Mr. J. S. Hinds, Q.C. Director
Mr. B. Joncas Director
Mr. J. T. Sears Director
Mr. G. T. Urquhart Director

March 28, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Officers
Hon. J. H. Horner, P.C. Chairman of the Board
J. M. LeClair
President and Chief Executive Officer
H. J.G. Pye, Q.C.
Vice-President and Secretary
G. M. Cooper Vice-President and Assistant to the Chairman
A. R. Williams Corporate Vice-President Western Canada
Corporate Y. H. Masse
Senior Corporate Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
L. L. Atkinson Vice-President
Human Resources-Corporate
G. C. Church Treasurer
E. D. Pinsonnault, Q.C.
Vice-President
Law-Corporate
S. D. H. Thomas Corporate Comptroller
Divisions CN Rail R. E. Lawless
President and Chief Operating Officer
J. L. Cann
Vice-President
Operations
J. Horrocks Vice-President Finance and Planning
W. H. Morin Vice-President Employee Relations
J. H. D. Sturgess
Vice-President
Marketing
P. A. Clarke
President and General Manager TerraTransport
D. L. Fletcher Vice-President Prairie Region
J. R. Lagace
Vice-President
St. Lawrence Region
R. G. Messenger Vice-President Atlantic Region
G. A. Van de Water Vice-President Great Lakes Region
R. A. Walker Vice-President Mountain Region
A. E. Deegan
Vice-President
Administration
R. Boudreau, Q.C. Vice-President-Law
P. J. Foliot Vice-President Purchases and Materials Management
CN Enterprises
R. C. Franklin President
D. H. Burstow President CN Real Estate
D. C. Campbell President
CN Communications
J. B. Griffith President
Transport Route Canada Inc. and
President

D. S. Oberlander President CN Hotels Inc.
M. L. De Pellegrin President
Canac Consultants Limited
R. J. Tingley President CN Marine Inc.
W. H. Waddell President
CN Exploration Inc.
CN Investment Division
T. Cedraschi President and Chief Executive Officer
Grand Trunk Corporation
J. H. Burdakin President
Compensation. See the Report on Governor in Council Appointees tabled in the House of Commons on November 17, 1983. Compensation for all other positions not listed in the report is regarded as proprietary information to the Canadian National Railway Company.


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


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council as follows:
(a) and (b)
Members of the Executive and Board of Directors April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983
Travel 2,097
from October 28, 1982 to March 31, 1983
Name
Dr. William E. Taylor, Jr.
Position
President
Salary DM-1 75,360 to 88,610

Fees
March 28, 1984

Andre Fortier	President
from April 1, 1982	
to October 26, 1982	
T. H. B. Symons	Vice-President
G. Bouliane	Treasurer
A. Forster	Secretary
J. G. Nicholson	Executive Director
Elizabeth Arthur	Council Member
Naomi Black	Council Member
Jean Cadieux	Council Member
Robert K. Crocker	Council Member
Marie-Josee Drouin	Council Member
Stefan Dupre	Council Member
Claude Garcia	Council Member
Gustave Gingras	Council Member
Jacques Henripin	Council Member
Jean Jones	Council Member
Douglas Kenny	Council Member
Gerald L. Kristianson	Council Member
James W. Lightbody	Council Member
Jean-Guy Paquet	Council Member
Alexander K. Paterson	Council Member
Edward F. Ryan	Council Member
Denis W. Stairs	Council Member
David Walker	Council Member
Royal Assent
DM-2 82,150 to 96,670	-	2,674
		33,000	12,649
EX-3 57,980 to 68,150	-	1,510SM 45,250 to 53,210	-	4,639EX-5 69,110 to 83,100	-	8,380_	562552-	1,481-	-	4,690 Au 1,176-	5412,8980-	2,488-	4,236-	2,396-	6,714251355-	2,351-	4,612-	-	9,199
Vice-President and members serve without remuneration but each member is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and other expenses while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties.


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


Mr. Rolland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council is concerned, the names of persons occupying positions on the Executive and Board of Directors as of March 31, 1983, and moneys paid them with respect to these positions are as follows:
G. M. MacNabb	DM-2 salary range
($86,250- 101,500)
Council Members	T ravel	Honorarium	TotalRene J. Levesque, Vice-President	5,146.60	6,375.00	11,521.60Peter F. Adams	6,825.75	900.00	7,725.75Bernard Banachewski	3,856.83	375.00	4,231.83Andre Biron	4,802.62	3,750.00	8,552.62Arthur N. Bourns	7,321.57	3,525.00	10,846.57David M. Brousson	1,110.31	-	1,110.31Robert B. Church	7,298.79	300.00	7,598.79John A. Coleman	661.19	450.00	1,111.19Allan R. Crawford	7,743.79	-	7,743.79John H. Dinsmore	149.50	-	149.50George Just	988.78	300.00	1,288.78John W. Ker	3,363.31	300.00	3,663.31Eric G. Manning	7,395.71	2,175.00	9,570.71Douglas E. Ryan	2,703.10	300.00	3,003.10Yoginder N. Sadana	2,704.16	300.00	3.004.16Theodore P. Schaefer	6,358.71	-	6,358.71David F. Strong	2,297.76	-	2,297.76John D. Turnbull	7,449.13	300.00	7,749.13Danielle Zaikoff	1,496.27	300.00	1,796.27Total	79,673.88	19,650.00	$99,323.88
Vice-President and members serve without remuneration but each member is entitled to reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of their duties.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
*


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have reviewed the following communication:

March 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act Rideau Hall Ottawa
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 28th day of March, 1984, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 27, 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. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult time to begin a debate on this particular subject matter, particularly after the time allocation motion we have just had. However, perhaps that is why I was asked to begin the debate at this stage, because as a former Parliamentary Secretary I must say that I have had a lot of experience with time allocation on government borrowings.
We have followed the same pattern with all of these borrowing Bills. The Opposition speaks for as long as it can, it raises what I believe are many serious points in its debates, and eventually the Government decides that it must govern and introduce time allocation. While it is not an easy circumstance, I believe it is necessary.
1 know the concerns that are raised by the Opposition Parties and I respect them. I have seen the Tories argue consistently in the House that a dollar that is borrowed could be reduced to 50 cents. There is nothing the matter with that argument. I think it keeps the Government on its toes.
Equally, the Tories argue that borrowing Bills should be relatively small and that the Government should come back to Parliament to justify itself on a regular basis. Again, I think that is a respectable argument and is one that I commend. On the other hand, all of this needs to be kept in balance. We need an efficient Parliament and an efficient, smooth borrowing process with the Government.
Although we have heard some very good and, I must say, traditional arguments surrounding time allocation, in this particular case I believe it is time we got on with the job. I believe there is enough in front of Parliament that we should get on to some of the other legislation.
Any debate on borrowing authority is a debate about government support for the economy and specific people within the economy. It is a debate today about how much support should be given, how much money the Government should borrow and spend to support the economy. The current debate focuses on whether we are causing any damage to the economy as a consequence of our borrowing. I do not believe we are. 1 believe we have stimulated our economy and the recovery through our borrowing and spending. We are helping those who need help. We are in a very good position in our international circumstances.
It is interesting to watch the Conservatives in this same debate. Let me remind the House that only a few weeks ago the former Conservative Finance Minister said that future Tory policy would be mean, tough and nasty-minded. The Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), who hopes to be a prominent Tory economic spokesman in the future, says that he would cut right across the board in every department, despite demonstrated needs or despite demonstrated service.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Equally, in The Globe and Mail on the weekend, we saw an article that reinforced our view that the Tory Party will attack universal social programs.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: There was a quote in The Globe and Mail that said that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) wanted to study and remove the universality in our social programs even if that meant that we would have to have means tests.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: These are not claims that I am making; these are claims that one can read in The Globe and Mail and in The Toronto Star.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. There is so much noise surrounding the Hon. Member that I cannot hear him from the Chair even with my speaker turned on full blast.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues feel passionately about the Government's support for the economy and they feel passionately that the Conservative Party should not be allowed to do these things. Therefore I understand the spontaneous demonstrations that we are hearing among these high-minded people.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look at the way the Canadian Government is supporting the economy. You will note, for example, the very clear parallel between our commitment to Canadair and de Havilland, on the one hand, and the historic Tory move to destroy the Avro Arrow 25 years ago. If we
March 28, 1984

follow the advice of the Tory Party, we would sink de Havil-land and Canadair in the same way that they sunk the A.V. Roe Company in my riding. Thousands of people with good products and markets and with great technology would be out on the street if the Tory Party had its way. We should know the consequences of Tory policy. We should know that Canada would be denied access to these high technology products. Canada would be denied jobs. Our best brains in the industry would once again go south, to the United States, the way they did in the 1960s. That is the kind of Tory policy that we on this side reject. We are prepared to support our economy and to support our businesses.
We did the same thing with Chrysler. The House will remember that we were criticized for supporting the Chrysler Corporation, yet we were prepared to do that because of the thousands of people employed directly there and the hundreds of small businesses that rely on the Chrysler Corporation for their livelihood. We made a commitment to the future of the Canadian economy by supporting the Chrysler Corporation. Today, that commitment is paying off. That corporation is back on its feet. The partnership that it formed with the Canadian Government has proven to be fruitful and has proven to maintain a basic institution in our economy.
One can say the same thing for small businesses. Thousands of them have had support from us from the Federal Business Development Bank, the Small Business Bond Program and the hundreds of other efforts we have made in smaller ways for each of these businesses. We are prepared to spend money to get our economy going again. That is the spirit of the Special Recovery Program. Look at how it reaches out to weaker industries, flat industries, tourism, for example, or the construction industry. The Special Recovery Projects are ways to stimulate those soft parts of our economy until the participants are able to stand up on their own two feet and support themselves.
Equally, Mr. Speaker, we are ready to reach out to individual Canadians who are in need. We are ready to support home owners through our mortgage insurance plan. We are ready to support pensioners through higher guaranteed income supplement. We are ready to support people with their pension planning through bigger RRSPs. We are ready to support employees with profit sharing plans. We are ready to help unemployed youth with greater dedication of funds to the Youth Opportunity Fund. Look at all of our commitments to job creation. It does not matter which category. What about Canada Works, Summer Canada, and Environment 2000? All of them represent a partnership where we take the resources of the federal Government and put them to work on behalf of individuals who need their help. That, Mr. Speaker, is a Liberal approach.
We support our economy and we support individuals who need our help. We are doing all of this in the context of an economic recovery.
Borrowing Authority Act
It is important as people get jittery these days to remind ourselves that the economic recovery is actually under way. We hear lots of doom and gloom but the recovery is here. We know that. We can see that our inflation rate has dropped dramatically. Even though we are nervous about interest rates and our dollar, we can still look to the deepest days of the recession and see how far we have come toward recovery. These events surrounding our dollar and our interest rates are events forced upon us from the outside world by the American economy, its dollar that is so strong on international markets and by American interest rates which are so high.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is the following. Mr. MacLaren, seconded by Mr. Lumley, moves that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be now read-Shall I dispense?


Some Hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Mr. Deans, seconded by Mr. Young, moves that the amendment be amended by deleting the word "fiscal" and substituting the word "calendar" therefor. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung:

March 28, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. After consultations with the Parties involved I have decided to stop the bells and suspend the sitting until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 6.26 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
The House resumed at 9 a.m Corbin in the Chair.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 29, Mr. And the division bells having stopped at 11.09 a.m.:		
The House divided on the amendment to the amendment		
(Mr. Deans), which	was negatived on the following division: (Division No. 34)
 YEAS Messrs.	
Althousc	Gurbin	MillerAnguish	Gustafson	MunroBlaikie	Hargrave	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Blenkarn	Hawkes	NickersonBroadbent	Heap	NielsenCardiff	Hees	NystromClark	Hovdebo	Oberle(Brandon-Souris)	Howie	OrlikowCook	Keeper	PaproskiCooper	Kempling	PattersonCorbett	Knowles	RiisCossitt (Mrs.)	Korchinski	St. GermainCrosbie	Lambert	Sargeant(St. John's West)	Lawrence	SchellenbergerCrosby	Lewis	Scott(Halifax West)	MacDonald (Miss)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crouse	(Kingston and the Islands)	ScottDarling	MacDougall	(Victoria-Haliburton)Deans	Malone	SkellyDick	Manly	SpeyerDomm	Mazankowski	StevensEllis	McDermid	StewartFennell	McDonald (Ms.)	ThackerFraser	(Broadview-Greenwood)	ThomsonFretz	McKinnon	VankoughnetFriesen	McKnight	WenmanGamble	McLean	WilsonGass	McMillan
NAYS Messrs.	Wise Young-77.Axworthy	Collenette	DuclosBachand	Comtois	DupontBaker	Corbin	DuprasBeauchamp-Niquet	Corriveau	Erola (Mrs.)(Mrs.)	Cosgrove	EthierBegin (Miss)	Cote (Mrs.)	EvansBerger	Cousineau	FergusonBlais	Cullen	FisherBloomfield	Dawson	FlemingBockstacl	Dc Bane	FlisBossy	de Corneille	FosterBreau	Demers	FoxBujold	Deniger	GarantBurghardt	Desmarais	GauthierBussieres	Dingwall	GendronCampbell (Miss)	Dionne	Gimaiel(South West Nova)	(Chicoutimi)	GingrasCampbell	Dionne	Gourd(Cardigan)	(Northumberland-	(Argentcuil-Papineau)Chenier	Miramichi)	GourdeChretien	Dubois	(Levis)Gray	LapointeGuilbault	(Beauce)Harquail	LeBlancHenderson	LeducHervieux- Payette	Lefebvre(Mrs.)	LoiselleHopkins	LumleyHudecki	MacBainIrwin	MacEachenIsabelle	MacGuiganJohnston	Mackasey
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.) Lachance Lajoie Lalonde Landers Lang Laniel Lapierre Lapointe (Charlevoix)
Messrs.
Oucllet Parent Pelletier Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard Portelance Regan Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rooney Roy
Schroder Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Trudeau Turner Whelan Yanakis-121.
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Olivier Ostiguy
Mr. Speaker:: 1 declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was a little disturbed at the voting procedure. As far as I could tell the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) came in when you were well into reading the motion, took his seat and voted. Two other Members right behind him stayed at the back and did not vote. I just wonder if we should look at that procedure and see whether that vote should be counted.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I did come in while you were reading the motion. I heard the motion but I came in while you were reading it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that acceptable? In the circumstances- The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Mr. Nielsen:: I believe the Government House Leader will be rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please take his seat? In the circumstances the Chair is going to allow the vote of the Hon. Member for Spadina to stand.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to be polite and let you rule on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). That is why I was waiting to rise.


Mr. McDermid:: He was not saying anything.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, I know.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has difficulty in reading the minds of Hon. Members.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I realized you were about to say something.
March 28, 1984


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, last night I had conversations with both House Leaders of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). We agreed that today we would deal
Business of the House
with third reading stage of Bill C-3. 1 think they would corroborate that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed unanimously that notwithstanding any Standing Order the House will sit again later this day?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 11.20 a.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 29, 1983