1984-03-13

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, the last time this matter was up for debate I went into the issue of whether it was really necessary for the Government of Canada to be borrowing $29.5 billion, an amount equal to what was not too long ago our entire budget. Included in that total are amounts for contingencies which, for Members of the Opposition, represent a flashing red light. When the Government of Canada asks for over $4 billion more than its budgeted requirements, according to the Supplementary Estimates (B) and (A), there is reason to be concerned about whether the contingency amounts requested are totally necessary.
We on this side, on behalf of our constituents, expressed concern at the lack of priorities of this present Government. To compound this concern, we have obvious divisions within the Liberal Government and Cabinet on what should be the policy concerning financial accountability to the Canadian people and Parliament. On one hand we have a Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) which claims one thing. On the other hand we have members of Cabinet, who are now aspiring to become leader of their Party, expounding entirely different positions. That brings into question the credibility of this Government and Cabinet policies because there are obviously divisions within the Cabinet on just what direction this Government should take.
I would like to give a few examples of the contradictions between members of Cabinet and the policy as expounded in the Minister of Finance's Budget. One of the most crucial matters is that of economic development, and therefore we look to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston). We find he is espousing certain things today which are not necessarily the position of the Government of the day as it proceeds with its request for $29.5
billion. I will give the House an example. On March 9 the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development said:
I'm the last one to say that once you create a program it should stay there forever.
All programs can be improved. This question of universality-that's a buzzword which I don't even like to hear these days. The point is that social programs have to be married to the economic requirements of the country so that people use those programs to help themselves get back into the mainstream of economic activity.
He went on to say:
I think all Canadians understand that governments have to live within their means and that the only way of getting at the deficit is either more taxation or, on the other hand, cutting programs, or inflation, because that's another way governments traditionally have gotten rid of deficits in historic times.
If it is the intention of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development to cut the deficit, as quoted on March 9, why is the Government asking for $29.5 billion which would increase the deficit? Why is the Government requesting $4 billion more than it has fiscally spelled out in its 1984-85 requirements?
We can refer to other members of Cabinet to show that the Cabinet is obviously all over the place on what fiscal responsibility is. I maintain that no government can act any differently from any individual managing their household or any business person managing their business. When you spend more than you have on a continuing basis, sooner or later you are going to have to face reality. Money is going to cost more. When money costs more, inflation goes up and the value of the Canadian dollar goes down. As all caucus members in all political parties are aware, interest rates are now rising quite rapidly. Last week one-year Treasury bills moved from 10.44 per cent to 10.95 per cent interest, an increase of over 50 base points or one-half of 1 per cent.
The present net federal debt matures within about two and one-half years. It is essential following interest rate debt. The effect of last week's increase in interest rates alone increases the cost of carrying the $150 billion net debt of the country by $750 million. This little increase totally shatters all of the Budget figures of the Minister of Finance. This point should be well made by all members of the Opposition. The forecasts in the present Budget of the present Finance Minister are already out of date and we are still debating a borrowing law for $29.5 billion which is $4 billion more than the Government really needs.
To explain the differences of opinion within the Cabinet, I would like to quote a statement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) made on

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
November 7, 1982. At a Liberal Party biennial policy convention, "bleeding heart Munro" supported a motion that we eliminate universality. He said:
The Government is wasting millions of dollars by sending monthly pension cheques to wealthy senior citizens and baby bonuses to families who do not need the money. Such funds should be redirected to help the most needy.
It is very damaging to the position espoused by the Liberal Party, that universality is here to stay, when statements like that are made within the Cabinet of the Liberal Government today by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They require some clarification from the Government as to what the policy is. Now that the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are travelling throughout the country telling people that what the Government is doing today is not right, it behooves us in the Opposition to confirm their positions and ask the Government of Canada what it will do about it.
Back in the early 1970s the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development produced a book which is dedicated, to use the words of the Minister:
-to all Canadians who share my belief that Canada, with its beauty, its [DOT]resources, its people, and its legal-political heritage, could be a country of unequalled opportunity and happiness, were it not for too much taxation, too strong a bureaucracy, too much government, too much welfare, too many politicians, and too few statesmen.
There are so many inconsistencies in statements by Ministers today that one wonders if a Finance Minister who brings down a Budget calling for a projected debt of the country of over $31 billion and a borrowing requirement of some $29.5 billion is really fiscally accountable to the Canadian people.
Another article for The Toronto Start last year written by the same Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development states:
What we really require in Canada is solid fiscal reform on the revenue and expenditure sides to make our system more efficient and equitable. The taxing mechanism itself must be readjusted. At the same time we must address ourselves to the expenditure side, attacking inefficiencies and specific superfluous programs on a department-by-department basis. Wielding the big axe on programs across the board may have some political appeal but it's impractical and inefficient.
If I go into a few of the matters that need to be addressed by this Parliament, I think I would be repeating the Minister. We should occasionally look at some of our Crown corporations which were alluded to by the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development as needing some cut-backs. We should look at Canada Post. The advertising costs in the post office are rising faster than the postal rates. Advertising costs are projected at $2 million in fiscal year 1983. According to Canada Post Corporation President Michael Warren, this will at least double to $4 million or $5 million in fiscal year 1984. The post office spent $500,000 to explain postal rate increases implemented in the spring of 1983.
Let us look at transport for a moment. Mirabel Airport has appropriately adopted a white elephant as its symbol. This unnecessary and unwanted airport has cost the taxpayers of
Canada a total of $841 million to date, including construction costs of $514 million and total operating costs of $327 million. In the last fiscal year 1982-83, Mirabel lost $35 million compared to a $43 million profit as Lester B. Pearson International Airport. I think we should rename Mirabel Airport "Pierre Elliott Trudeau Airport".
Out of 336 ministerial JetStar flights in the first seven months of 1982, 44 per cent were to transport Cabinet Ministers to and from their ridings. The estimated cost of this, based on Transport Canada charges of $ 1,000 per hour, is $300,000. Air Canada sent 20 executives to California for a $600 a day medical examination.
Let me deal with Petro-Canada and take a moment to point out a couple of matters that have recently developed with that Crown corporation. Petro-Canada is considered to be the "Big Brother" watching over consumers in Canada and trying to protect them. It has now entered into signed reciprocal trading arrangements with the Seven Sisters. This is a case of Big Brother joining the Seven Sisters in an effort to protect Canadian consumers. What are these reciprocal refinery agreements, some of them long term, 15 years or more, doing to Canadian consumers today when they go to buy gas at the pumps? They are forcing up the price of gas at the whim and fancy of our protector, Petro-Canada. I think it is time for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: A ten-minute question and answer period will now be provided. Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), for debate.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-21, the borrowing authority Bill. This is not a routine piece of legislation but with the number of times we have debated the question of government borrowing over the years we tend to think it becomes routine. It is, though, one of the most important pieces of legislation before this House. The debate today is a debate on whether or not we are giving the Government authority to borrow moneys sufficient to finance the deficit, a deficit of 31.5 billion this year. It is a debate also on the implications of Government borrowing money of that magnitude.
I want to start by asking a very simple question of Hon. Members. Is there anybody in this House who wants to go through another recession like the one we went through in 1981-82, where employment in Canada dropped by over 5 per cent, where industrial production dropped by about 17.5 per cent, and where as a result thousands of businesses and many, many farms were lost? The answer is obviously no.
March 13, 1984

What we remember most about that period is the fact that interest rates were far higher than they should have been. Interest rates sky-rocketed during that period to between 22 per cent and 25 per cent. The reason was largely because of what went on in the United States and the very high interest rate policy followed there. Canada was going to have a deep recession regardless, but the effect of these high interest rates meant that the recession was far, far worse than it was in the United States. The unemployment rate in the United States went from 7 per cent to 10.5 per cent, whereas in Canada the unemployment rate went from 7 per cent to 13 per cent, almost double that of the U.S.
Why did this happen? What were the differences in Canada compared to the United States? We had the National Energy Program which totally undermined one of the most important industries in Canada. What about the way the Foreign Investment Review Agency was administered? There was the attitude toward investment, both domestic and foreign, and we had the 1981 Budget which raised taxes just at the point in time when the economy was falling into recession and we should have been reducing taxes. This caused a tremendous disruption in the economy. These were significant factors where deliberate economic policy in Canada added to the natural economic forces that were leading to a recession at that time. Our budgetary deficit was too high to give the Government the flexibility to offset the impact of higher interest rates in the United States or to follow a different economic course here in Canada. As a result, we were helpless as we watched the United States rates climb higher and higher. Canadian rates followed and in some cases were pushed even higher than those in the United States.
Today we are facing a similar scenario, Mr. Speaker. The Government still has not learned the lesson we suffered so dearly in 1981-82. It is likely that we will be facing a recession either later this year or early next year brought on by policies followed by the United States which we have no opportunity or flexibility to offset. All the ingredients are there. We have a slower recovery in Canada. Employment growth is far slower in Canada than in the United States. The unemployment rate in Canada has risen from 11.1 per cent to 11.3 per cent over the past two months. In the United States it has gone down from 8.0 per cent to 7.8 per cent. Business investment in Canada is flat. The latest figures for the Gross Domestic Product show that it has turned down.
By contrast, the United States economy is quite healthy. The unemployment rate, as I said, has gone down. Business investment, investment which creates tremendous numbers of jobs, in now projected to increase in 1984 by 12.8 per cent. That is the highest increase in real terms since 1966. The United States response is a classic one. It wants to temper this very healthy economy by leaning against it somewhat. The obvious response is to allow interest rates to move up ever so slightly to temper the boom and not let it get out of control.
Borrowing Authority Act
What is the Canadian response to our slow recovery? What would we expect? Are we allowing interest rates to fall somewhat because of the slow economy? Will we try to encourage business investment or the purchase of automobiles or houses by lowering interest rates? No. Interest rates are going up. They have risen about one percentage point over the past few weeks. Why are we moving in lockstep with the United States economy? This Canadian response is irrational and inappropriate. It will surely lead to the recession which we do not need at this time.
The Government says that we have no option, that United States rates are going up and that we have to follow because of our very close relationship to the U.S. economy. Surely that forces us to ask ourselves one question: How can we unhook ourselves from the United States economy? How can we gain a greater degree of independence of action? How can we distance ourselves somewhat from United States interest rates today when it is inappropriate for us to follow the same interest rate policy as the United States? Or, simply put, how can we avoid falling into the same trap that we did in 1981-82?
It is obvious that we cannot be totally independent from the United States. With 70 per cent of our trade and the great amount of integration between the two economies, we cannot become totally independent. However, we can achieve some independence and flexibility in our policy response when our economy is moving in a different direction. Right now we do not have that independence or flexibility. We have been described by some people as the tail on the end of the dog. I would describe it as being the flea on the end of the tail of the dog.
How can we achieve that flexibility and independence? I want to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the experience of the United Kingdom. In 1981 it took a policy decision to reduce its public sector borrowing requirement relative to total government spending by a significant amount. The result is that today its borrowing requirement or its deficit is about 8.5 billion pounds. That is roughly 6 per cent of over-all spending compared with about 30 per cent in Canada. Also it is about 2.6 per cent of its national income compared with about 8 per cent in Canada. The United Kingdom has moved differently from the United States because its economy is a little weaker. Previously its interest rates were very much the same as those in the United States, but we have seen a very interesting phenomenon over there: its interest rates have become unhooked from the United States ones.
I should like to give some figures on this. U.K. Government rates are 10.71 per cent. The U.S. Treasury rates are 12.05 per cent. United Kingdom corporate rates are 11.6 per cent and in the United States the corporate rates are 12.75 per cent. The bottom line of all this, when we take the different inflation rates into account, is that real interest rates in the United Kingdom are 4.9 per cent as against 7.2 per cent in the United States, a difference which is appropriate for the different performance of the two economies.

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
The U.K.'s lower deficit has done two things for them. It has taken the pressure off interest rates. It has also given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer flexibility in his forthcoming budget to drop taxes or increase spending, depending on what he feels is appropriate at this time. He has that flexibility. He has that independence of action which we do not have at this time. The policy that they began in 1981 to reduce their deficit in a significant way has given them that flexibility to follow different policy approaches when that is appropriate.
There are other examples. I have just talked about the U.K. There is also the contrast between Germany and France, two countries living side by side with a fair amount of trade between them. It demonstrates that this is possible because of the better economic performance of the Germans relative to the French. They have been able to keep some distance between the two policy responses in those two countries.
That is the lesson of the Budget deficit that we have in Canada. The 31.5 billion deficit, plus the borrowing of the Crown corporations, is far higher proportionately than most other countries. Of the industrialized countries, only Italy is higher than us. Relative to the United States, we are about 50 per cent higher. That is why we must take action now on our deficit. We have to start taking those first steps today. With Bill C-21, this borrowing authority Bill, we are presented with that opportunity.
Let me summarize the economic costs of a higher deficit. First is the interest burden that all Canadians pay. The cost of the interest is $1,900 per taxpayer per year. Second, we have lost our flexibility within the Budget. One dollar out of three revenue dollars is spent on interest alone. One dollar out of five expenditure dollars is for interest alone. That is far too much. It reduces the dollars available for other programs. The third cost is that heavy government borrowing of the order of magnitude that the federal Government is borrowing today crowds out other productive investment, whether it is business investment or borrowings by individual Canadians to buy a car or a home. All of these are going to be squeezed back, particularly when you consider that over-all government borrowing today of $29.5 billion is about 92 per cent of the personal savings of individuals amounting to $32 billion.
The next point is that it forces foreign borrowing by the Government and by the Crown corporations directly through U.S. dollars, Swiss francs, German marks or whatever, or indirectly because of the amount of bonds that are purchased by individuals or institutions in other countries. Also, it forces provinces and corporations to move into foreign markets to borrow money when they cannot find that money in Canada. Canada today over-all is one of the largest international borrowers in the world, up in the big leagues with Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
The next point is the high interest rate that are caused because of the concern of investors that these deficits are going to lead to higher interest rates and higher inflation. There has been a debate among economists that this is not so, but the fact is that in the real world investors have said that it is so
and have acted accordingly. That is one of the reasons real interest rates are as high as they are in Canada and the United States, the two countries with the most significant deficit problems.
The final point is the loss of confidence by investors in Canada and abroad. That is very clearly demonstrated in the weakness of the dollar, not just in these past few weeks. It is coming to a head right now, but this has been going on since 1976 when the dollar was $1.03. It is now 78 cents. That is purely and simply a lack of confidence in the financial management and performance of this economy. Today we are seeing the inevitable result of excessive government borrowing and government mismanagement. It is all tied together in that one figure, the level of the Canadian dollar in the foreign markets today.
These costs translate directly into lost jobs. It is a clear reason why today employment in Canada is still 139,000 jobs lower than it was at its peak in the middle of 1981, or 1.3 per cent. In the United States the comparable figure is 2,796,000 jobs, or 2.8 per cent higher than it was in the pre-recession peak. Where the disparity becomes even more serious is in full-time jobs. In the United States they are 1.7 per cent above the pre-recession peak. We are 3.7 per cent below that prerecession peak in terms of full-time jobs.
That contrast should be all that is necessary to tell the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and Members of Parliament that the policies that this Government have been following are wrong, wrong, wrong. The place to change this policy direction must start with action on the deficit. The time to do it is now. It will give us more flexibility; not immediately, but it will start that process where we will be able to do the same as the U.K. has demonstrated in its performance in recent years.
Let us take advantage of the strong economic recovery in the United States. Let us move with them. If we can cut our deficit and be carried along by the momentum of the deficit in the United States, the pain here of reducing the deficit will be considerably less. Action today would give confidence to both Canadian and foreign investors to put money into this country, to give some upward lift to the Canadian dollar. That in itself would give the Bank of Canada some opportunity to relieve the pressure of interest rates and pressure on the Canadian dollar.
I stress that this will not happen overnight. It will take time. We have to start those steps today with a substantial reduction in the amount of borrowing requirements requested in this Bill. The reason why it will take time is that there is no confidence on the part of investors or individuals in the policy statements which this Government has made. Over the years we have heard various Ministers of Finance say: "We are going to hold government spending to the rate of growth of the national economy". Let us look at what has happened here. I want to give some examples. There have been four years in the past 14, one of which was a year of Conservative Government, when that actually took place.
Let us look at some of the times when it did not take place. In 1974 GNP went up by 19.4 per cent and government
March 13, 1984

spending went up by 29 per cent. The next year there was an 18.7 per cent increase in the GNP and government spending went up far higher than that. In 1977-78 it was 13 per cent as against 19.6; in 1981, 20.4 per cent as against 14.3 per cent; and in 1982, 18 per cent as against 5.2 per cent. No one believes what the Government is saying. That is why we have to show the public by our actions, not by words which have a very hollow ring to them.
Let me summarize the message that I have been putting forward to Members here today. We have to start today to take action. This was demonstrated clearly in the Estimates that we saw the other day. Spending controlled by legislation, so-called statutory spending, is up by 8.1 per cent. Discretionary spending, spending that can be controlled from year to year, is up 13.2 per cent. Therefore, there is no demonstration yet of the discipline needed to get this deficit under control.
The message to Canadians is that we have to reduce government borrowing. If we do reduce government borrowing, we will free up savings of Canadians for use for productive purposes, such as business investment, the purchase of cars, houses and the creation of jobs. We will reduce interest rates. There will be less pressure from the Government of Canada on the markets which will allow interest rates to come down. Most important, we will be able to increase the independence of action and flexibility of the Government of Canada in following policies which are appropriate to the Canadian economy, rather than being forced into slavishly following the United States when their economy is performing differently than ours. That is why we have to cut borrowing. That is why we as Members of Parliament have to take a hard line and tell this Government that it must cut back its borrowing for the good of all Canadians, for the health of our economy and the health of our society.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in listening to the Hon. Member, as I am whenever he speaks, but I would suggest to him that a great deal of a mumbo-jumbo type of analysis went on. Does the Hon. Member honestly believe that the whole problem with the economy can be wrapped around the deficit? He said that we should be reducing the deficit. I think all of us would agree that we want to see the deficit reduced. The specific question that he must answer is how it will be reduced. The Hon. Member said that we could reduce the deficit in many ways. Let us have him put some specifics on the table. Precisely how does he suggest that the deficit be reduced right now?
Second, does the Hon. Member realize that our economy is significantly different from that of the U.S. and the U.K.? Our economy is a resource-based economy. Has he looked at past history? Does he realize that a resource-based economy is typically hit harder in times of recession and that when facing world competition for those resources, it will have a difficult time restoring employment?
The main areas of unemployment in the country are in the resource industries. Those industries are facing stiff interna-
Borrowing Authority Act
tional competition. What, perforce, would the Hon. Member suggest the Government do in order to make those resource-based industries more competitive with world competitors immediately? Those are a few of the questions I would like to put to the Hon. Member.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, perforce the Hon. Member would listen to my speech the next time and perforce he might learn something. Let me try to recall for him what I said in my speech. The Hon. Member said that all are in agreement with the need to reduce the deficit. Has he discussed with the Ministers the reasons it is important for us to reduce the deficit? I ask that question because I think it is important that we in the House do not get distracted by where we are going to cut. What is the most important point? It is of absolute importance to reduce the deficit so that we can have a healthier economy and deal with some of these other problems.
I am not suggesting to the House that the only problem we have is with the deficit, but I am saying, and I think the Hon. Member would agree with this, that it is the most important problem. Finding a solution to that problem will help us deal with some of the other problems with which we are faced.
The Hon. Member asked me where I would cut. If the Hon. Member had been in the House last week, he would know that I addressed that question then. If he would like he can check back in Hansard to see what I said.
Let me address the Hon. Member's second question which dealt with the fact that our economy is significantly different from that in the United States because our economy is a resource-based economy. That is precisely the point that I am making. The fact that our economy is different should be taken as the primary reason why we should be in a position to have the flexibility and independence to do the things we need to do for our economy without having to follow what happens in the United States. If we have a deficit of $30 billion and we have spending of $100 billion, 30 per cent of that is deficit spending. When we are spending one dollar out of three revenue dollars on interest and interest alone, what flexibility do we have to deal with the problems in the resource industries?
The Hon. Member asked me what I would do about these problems. Let me tell him what I would not do about them. I do not know how the Hon. Member can say to the House that our industry is resource based and we must be concerned about the loss of competitive positions for the two main industries. What happened to the mining industry 10 years ago? We took a series of steps which increased taxation in the mining industry just at the point in time when the competitive position of the mining industry relative to the rest of the world was beginning to suffer. That is when the Government significantly increased the tax load on that basic industry of the country.
What about the National Energy Program which began in 1981? The Hon. Member knows and I know that the steps taken by the Government led to a weakening in the energy industry of huge proportions which resulted in a loss of economic activity in that industry from which we are still

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
suffering today. Obviously what we must do is look at the resource industries not as a cash cow, not just as a source of revenue for government, but as basic industries in the economy which are essential to our over-all competitive position and important to our over-all economic performance.


Mr. Deniger:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague opposite how he can possibly talk about reducing the deficit when his own Party wants to increase military defence, and that considerably, and increase transfer payments to the provinces, and is also proposing tax relief for business, and when he himself said, in his answer on October 23, 1981, on Question Period to Mr. McGillivray, that he was prepared to reduce tax rates for high income groups?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised the question of three or four different elements of spending. I think he realizes that he has picked three or four different areas from within the Budget. There are other areas in which cuts can be made in order to allow for an increase in spending in those very important areas to which he refers.
If the Hon. Member were to look at the amounts of money that are involved, he would see that those amounts of money are not large relative to the over-all spending of $105 billion. In my remarks I mentioned that discretionary spending, spending that is up to individual Ministers and the Government as a whole each year, is up by 13 per cent in the era of the six and five program. Statutory spending is up by about 8.8 per cent, I think. I am telling the Hon. Member that we should increase discretionary spending by 5 per cent. I think he would find that by holding the line on some of that discretionary spending, plenty of money exists which will result in an ability to pay for the increased spending which we have committed to transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care as well as for military spending.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the former Minister could advise us what will happen with the increase in interest rates which took place in the last week. The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) will know that one-year Treasury bills moved from 10.44 per cent to 10.95 per cent in one day last week, an increase of 55 base points. What does that do to our net debt which now stands at $150 billion and is moving to $180 billion? How does that affect the total cost of carrying the debt?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, using a quick calculation, I believe that that will come to something like three-quarters of a billion dollars being the over-all cost of the debt if that is carried through during the course of one year. This is one of the key elements which I think Members opposite should understand. If by taking a tougher line on government borrowing we can reduce the pressures of government borrowing and therefore reduce interest rates on government borrowing, that in itself can free up a tremendous amount of money to put toward other more productive uses, such as increasing military
spending and increasing transfers for post-secondary education and health care.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would be specific. The Party has indicated it will increase defence expenditures, increase or at least hold the line on transfers to the provinces for medicare and post-secondary education and reduce taxes on businesses. The Hon. Member should realize, if he does not, that he is not going to reduce the interest burden on the Budget in a short period of time. Over time, yes, it could be reduced, but it cannot be reduced overnight. The Hon. Member is talking about reducing the deficit now. The question is that if expenditures are going to be increased in those areas and revenues are going to be cut in other areas, and from what the Hon. Member apparently just said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time for the question period has elapsed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow my colleague the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) in debate. I feel he made a very thoughtful and constructive presentation-


John Leslie Evans: Very constructive, but-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and very logical. I am happy the Parliamentary Secretary agrees. It was a very responsible presentation and it certainly is incumbent, I feel, upon Hon. Members on the other side to become more responsible in their presentation rather than giving us the kind of political rhetoric and flim-flammery that we hear coming from Hon. Members across the way.
Bill C-21, Mr. Speaker, represents the largest borrowing authority ever to come before Parliament. The last largest Bill was, I believe, for $19 billion. This Bill asks for $29.5 billion. It is the eighth time this Parliament has been presented with a massive borrowing Bill. I believe the total borrowing works out to something like $103 billion.
My colleague, the Hon. Member who just spoke, talked about the tremendous burden this magnitude of borrowing imposes upon the Canadian economy and upon individual taxpayers. He indicated that the interest alone costs every taxpayer some $1,900 per year. Interesting as well is that the interest on the debt in the 1984-85 fiscal year will equal 4.7 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product, and this compares to a figure of 2 per cent when the current Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office. That is a more than a doubling, Sir, and I believe that gives you some idea of what we are really faced with.
Another way of putting this, Mr. Speaker, is that in the fiscal year 1968-69, it required one out of every nine tax dollars to service the debt. Today, as a consequence of the successive deficits and the current irresponsibility of this Government, it takes one out of every three tax dollars to service
March 13, 1984

the deficit. Two disturbing thoughts emerge from this, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I am sure the public, particularly those people who are thoughtful and are concerned about the economic future of this country, have the impression that spending is clearly out of control and that the Government is not treating their tax dollars with any degree of respect. It has gotten so bad that the Government cannot even predict accurately. The budgetary deficit for this fiscal year, according to the former Minister of Finance, was supposed to be something in the order of $11 billion. It is instead $31.5 billion. So there was a mistake in calculation of $20 billion. That really goes not augur well for generating any confidence in the minds of the average Canadian.
This Government is so impaired, so drunk with spending, that it should lose its licence for life. I feel in the minds of people there is a sense of unfairness, a feeling that somehow the Government is not only spending unwisely, but it is being very unfair in the way in which taxpayers' dollars are being distributed throughout the country. There is a sense that there is discrimination and inequity in the distribution of the people's money. We know of the tremendous amount of money which is used for political purposes, the porkbarrelling, so to speak.
What emerges in the minds of the Canadian public is that there are really two classes of unemployed people in this country. There is regional discrimination, and the result of that, Sir, is regional disharmony and division. In some cases it creates a genuine feeling of disgust. One only has to look at articles which have been written, some recent and some not so recent. I will quote from an article by Brian Fox of Southam News in the July 30 edition of The Citizen. It outlines in detail the Special Recovery Projects. The headline reads "Liberal ridings win at handout time". The article begins:
The federal government has been using its pump-priming $2.4 billion capital works program to pour millions of dollars into Liberal ridings and the backyards of influential cabinet ministers.
It continues:
Politics undoubtedly has been a major factor in determining where these valuable federal funds would be spent.
For example, in Nova Scotia $25.4 million has been budgeted to improve 31 small harbors. Of those, 19 are in Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, held by Allan MacEachen, now minister of external affairs and deputy prime minister.
Interestingly, MacEachen is one of nine Liberal ministers on the sub-committee which approves the siting of the projects.
Of the remaining 12 harbors, 10 are in other Liberal ridings and the remaining two are in Progressive Conservative territory.
To date, those two harbor improvements are the only projects that directly benefit PC ridings.
The article concludes:
In true Liberal fashion, these goodies are timed for the middle of the byelection campaign-
That sums of the kind of feeling of unfairness and inequity which pervades the country. This is the feeling of people who are strapped and finding life very difficult when they see this kind of money thrown around simply for political gain. And it will probably continue. It will probably get worse. An article in
Borrowing Authority Act
Edmonton's The Journal talks about the secret film which unveils Liberal strategy, and I quote from the article:
The 30-minute Film implies throughout that the Liberals will use taxpayers' money to woo key electoral groups-women, youth, the urban middle income groups and ethnic voters.
In addition to Canadians being discriminated against, I believe they feel a sense of "being had", being conned by this Government with their own money through advertising, through straight porkbarrelling and through the kind of seductive practices which will be contained in this 30-minute film. The total picture is that respect for the institution of Parliament, respect for government and respect for the departments of government is being eroded very dramatically. If we couple that with what is going on in the Department of National Revenue and the high-handed, Gestapo-type tactics which are being employed by that Department to extract every last bit of blood out of the taxpayer, there is a real feeling of disgust and anger out there.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, it means that there is something dramatically wrong and something must change. If we are going to have a voluntary income tax system, there is going to have to be some improvement in the integrity of that system. There must be some improvement in terms of accountability so that this institution, Parliament, will have some control over the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars.
The Government fails to recognize that what it is spending here is not money that falls from the sky, it is the people's money. The lack of respect, indeed the disrespect, this Government has had over the years for the people's money is really at the root of the problem.
On successive borrowing authority Bills our Party has tried to zero in on the need to reduce waste. We have identified many areas where in our opinion there is waste and extravagance. We have tried to identify areas where excessive government expenditure could be reduced. We have tried to identify programs which we believe have outlived their usefulness and should be reassessed. We have supported the Auditor General in his desire to ensure money is spent on the basis of adequate value received-comprehensive analysis. What we find disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that when these areas are identified this Government uses distortion, fear and hysteria. When you question any expenditure the Government immediately says: "Oh, the Tories are going to cut this and that". That is very irresponsible, Mr. Speaker. How can you, in a rational way, attack this problem which has built up over the years? Why can we not have a rational debate on this issue?
We have recommended that a sort of no holds barred committee be formed to get right into the nitty-gritty of the Government's expenditure program. But the Government pooh-poohs the idea. That is only one suggestion for getting to the bottom of some of these things, and I am sure there are others. But we know the Government will not go that route because it would restrict its ability to porkbarrel, to cajole the voter into supporting the Government. It would restrict the

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
Government's ability to con people with their own money, to buy votes.
The Special Employment Initiatives Program is a clear example of discrimination in the most crass manner that one could ever envision. We have waste and unproductive investments, and all of it adds up to a massive burden on the producers of this country.
We are hearing a lot about the new Liberalism, the new era of Liberalism of the 1980s. If the slick media campaign being unveiled is any indication where the new Liberalism is going to take us, then we can only expect that we are going to have the same kind of thing. The former Minister of Multiculturalism, in his expressions about ballyhoo and manipulative tactics, gave an accurate description of this Government today. I sense it will be an accurate description of the Government under a new leader, irrespective of who that leader might be.
I would like to give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker, to illustrate clearly the motivation of the Government in its abuse of the taxpayers' dollar. First of all, there was an announcement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) some time ago concerning the expenditure of some $306 million for the establishment of four new maintenance centres for VIA Rail. There was one in each of Winnipeg, Halifax, Montreal and Toronto. I want to talk about the Montreal facility because I think that is a real can of worms in this project.
At present VIA Rail rents a facility under a three-year lease with a one-year renewal option over a six-year period. It is paying roughly $3 a square foot, with 600,000 square feet of available space although it is using only 70,000 square feet. The facility is pretty good. It was built by Hawker Siddeley. However, rather than maintaining that facility or purchasing it, which it could do for something in the order of $11 million, and renovating it for probably $14 million to $15 million, for a total cost of $25 million, what do we see here? The Minister of Transport announces a commitment to build a facility worth $147 million. Add in the equipment and interior improvements and we are really talking about a figure in the order of close to $200 million. But they have a facility there now which the Government could have for roughly $25 million. That is the kind of abuse and irresponsibility we are talking about.
My colleague from Peterborough talked about Mirabel, and I could talk about the aborted airport at Pickering. We know that when the Mirabel airport revolving fund was renegotiated the airport was losing something in the order of $52 million per year. With the write-down and rearrangement of the airport revolving fund the losses were cut, simply through a book transaction, to some $20 million or $25 million. On August 24, 1982 the Windsor Star said: "The elephant is still white but now there is hope. After seven years of failure new federal plans may be able to revive Mirabel". It is not being revived, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pepin:: It is.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The former Minister of Transport says it is. Well, if registering deeper losses is a revival, then it is
well on its way. In 1982-83, Mirabel lost $29,174 million. In 1983-84 Mirabel lost $43,912 million. In 1984-85, according to this year's Estimates, it will record a loss of $48,168 million. There have been losses of close to $500 million since this thing opened, which symbolizes the reckless political expenditures made time and time again by this Government.


Mr. Huntington:: What's $500 million?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What is $500 million? What's a billion? That is really the attitude. It does not matter because it is not the Government's money, it is the people's money. This Government, any government, is charged with the responsibility of preserving and ensuring those dollars are spent wisely and in a productive fashion. The taxpayer should not be abused.
When you look at this piling up of deficit upon deficit, Mr. Speaker, we could liken it to a family living beyond its means. Year after year after year they take out a new mortgage on their home to buy groceries and pay for their vacation and gasoline for the car. I am very interested in the remarks of the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston), who is running for the leadership. On March 9 he said that he thought all Canadians understand that Governments have to live within their means and the only way of getting at the deficit is either through more taxation or, on the other hand, cutting programs. Or through inflation, because that is another way governments traditionally have gotten rid of deficits in historic times.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation where the Government is really mortgaging the homes of Canadians, Canadians today and Canadians in the future. This has had a major impact on the nation's confidence, and a major impact on our ability to engage in productive investment which would increase the size of our Gross National Product. This is at the root of the problem of medicare and social programs which are under attack. It goes back to the issue of poor economic management. Mismanagement is really the buzz word for the Government's performance.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will appreciate that the amount of borrowing required depends to a large extent on the growth projections in taxation and so on in the country. In his Budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) forecast a growth of 4.9 per cent or 5 per cents, depending on how you read it. In the House yesterday the Minister said that the average projection for growth by economic agencies was 4.6 per cent. I know the Member studies economics and economic forecasts. Has he ever seen any growth projections by a private forecaster issued in January, February or March of this year that indicated any growth projection of 4.6 per cent, let alone an average of 4.6 per cent? Is the fact of the matter that the only growth projections overproduced this year have been in the order of 3.3 per cent, similar to the projection produced by the Conference Board?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues on this side of the House would prefer to follow the projections of
March 13, 1984

the Conference Board of Canada because it has consistently been more accurate than the Government. The Minister of Finance should have some credibility. We should be able to believe him. The Government does have the resources and facilities with which to make accurate projections. However, the Minister said that in 1983-84 we would have a budgetary deficit of $11.8 billion. It turned out to be 31.5 billion. I submit that does not provide much credibility to any figures which flow from the mouth of the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) comes from a constituency which has many farmers and ranchers. That group of people are heavily dependent on capital, and often borrowed capital. If the Government gets another $29 billion of borrowing authority, does the Member have any concerns or fears that that might have an impact on inflation and interest rates? Of what detriment might that be to the people in his constituency?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it will be a very major detriment. In The Globe and Mail this morning it was reported that agriculture is in depression. The number of bankruptcies is 58 per cent higher this year than last year. Last year there were 488 farm bankruptcies registered. That is about 400 per cent more than in 1979. That four-year period is significant because that is when the Government was returned to power. Naturally the increased borrowing will cause pressure upon the capital markets and will drive up interest rates. It will have an impact upon inflation as well.
Our Party advanced a 10-point agricultural program a year ago. We have renewed those principles time and again. One of them is the provision of at least $100 million to allow farmers who are locked into these high interest rates to bail themselves out. We also support the establishment of farm finance review boards which would assist farmers as an arbitrator functioning through the auspices of the Farm Credit Corporation offices, in negotiating with banks. We have also advanced other initiatives such as the reduction of the 9 per cent sales tax on farm fuels and fuels used by fishermen. In other words, we believe it is counter-productive for the federal Government to impose a heavy tax burden on the producers of food.
I could elaborate further. The fact is that there was nothing in the last Budget to assist and motivate optimism and hope in the agricultural community. The Government is looking after retired farmers but is certainly not looking after the young farmers and the farmers who find themselves in severe difficulty at the present time.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Vegreville. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office in 1968 about $12 billion was required to look after the affairs of the nation. At that time we numbered something like 20 million people. This year we have seen a Budget tabled which calls for more than $98 billion, and with the supplementaries it may well run to about $103 billion, to look after a nation which now numbers about 25 million people. Does the Hon. Member feel these excesses were
Borrowing Authority Act
necessary? Why does he believe it takes more than eight times the amount to look after five million extra Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is correct. When I came to the House in 1968 the Budget was $11 billion or $12 billion. Today it is $100 billion. Is that money needed? I guess there is room for some increases. I believe it really illustrates the growing intervention of government into the lives and economic activities of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We see potential leaders running across the country espousing a new Conservatism and a new Liberalism. That is really what they are talking about. They want to distance themselves from the socialistic policies which have hampered the productive and entrepreneurial spirit of the country. We have really had 15 years of socialism rather than 15 years of a government dedicated to private enterprise.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the shouts from the Official Opposition are most meaningful! I hear my colleague from Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) who is also in the House and speaks very well, both in French and English. He just nodded to me, and I must say I am very pleased to see him in the House this morning. Well, Mr. Speaker, about the situation concerning Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, we are hearing a lot of comments from the Opposition to the effect that the Government's deficit is a disgrace, that it must be brought down and that spending must be rationalized. However, we do not hear many comments telling us what programs should be cut. Of course, one of the Opposition Members has said that perhaps it would be a good thing to reduce or cut universality of health care, and it was the former Minister of Finance of the Progressive Conservative Government, that short-lived Conservative Government of 1979, who had dared to say so, and his comments were printed in the press. He was reprimanded by his Leader who said these services must not be touched. So it is all very well to make comments and get excited here in the House and say that the Budget deficit is a very serious thing and that we must do something about the fact that Canadians, according to the Opposition, are in difficulty. Mr. Speaker, there are many Government programs that are administered either by the federal Government or jointly by both levels of government. Obviously, there are many programs that require funding, and consequently, the Canadian Government, on the basis of its economic or social policies, must respond to the needs of Canadians. Whether we are talking about the spouse's allowance, the guaranteed income supplement or a pension system, the Government must act in response to the needs of Canadians. That is why in his Budget Speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) approached this subject that is very important to Canadians who are eligible for these benefits. He said in his
2038

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
speech, on page 14 of the Budget papers, that about 750,000 single senior citizens, three-quarters of whom are women, will benefit from the increase in the guaranteed income supplement. The Minister goes on to say that the additional Government support will amount to $460 million in a full year. The important thing is that Canadians approve of these social measures. And as far as the health care system is concerned, the polls show that Canadians generally favour the present system, and consequently the Canadian Government must continue in that direction.
About the deficit-because we have to finance these programs if Canadians are to benefit-we must ask ourselves: Where does the deficit come from? It seems that a large part of the increase in the deficit is due to increased public debt charges. Only a relatively small portion of the expected increase in the deficit will be due to official measures taken by the Government. However, the Government is prepared to accept an increase in the deficit in order to provide strong support for the economy. When the April 1983 Budget was brought down, at some point, perhaps a few weeks before, economists were asking the Government to increase the deficit if it had to, provided it released funds for job creation and for stimulating economic activity. They said that stimulating the economy would automatically reduce the deficit. Therefore, after reading the usual articles on the economy in general, we can say that our deficit is a cyclical, not a structural deficit. This means that if the number of jobs continues to increase, Opposition Members will say there was an increase in the unemployment rate over the last month. We must not forget that although 54,000 new jobs were created, there were also 75,000 Canadians entering the labour market for the first time.
What we have to do is adopt incentive measures that will automatically reduce the deficit and create jobs. Once jobs are created, economic activity will reduce the number of people drawing unemployment insurance benefits and thus reduce public spending. Similarly, the amount of corporate tax and sales tax collected will increase as well. Furthermore, once the planned increase in the tax rate, partly required to finance the incentive measures announced in the April Budget, becomes effective, that too will help bring down the deficit.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss our job creation programs. When we talk about job creation, we are talking about the employment situation of young people, men and women and in fact the population in general, but when we look at the statistics, we try to focus on the situation of our young people. For instance, right now we are preparing for the Summer Canada Program. For the fiscal year 1984-85, the Canadian Government wants to give Summer Canada a budget of $70 million, so that 27,000 Canadians will be able to take part in this program and we will be able to help these people during the summer. There is also the Canada Works
Program and Section 38, which will help people go back to work. The Career Acess Program is also very important and also requires considerable funding. If we look at the budgets for 1983-84 for job creation, and I am referring to Canada Works, a grand total of $812.8 million has been earmarked for it. Benefit costs will amount to $66.5 million and the actual program will have a budget of $614.3 million. There will also be an unemployment insurance budget of $123 million. As far as participation in terms of person-years is concerned, there will be a total of 250,000 jobs which equals 58.4 person-years of work. The important thing is that we have all these job creation programs, including Canada Works, LEAD, Career Access. If we take the case of Career Access, this program will help people who have been unemployed for some time and who, in some cases, may have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and are looking for a job. For 1983-84, the Career Access Program will have a grand total of $115,000 million.
Mr. Speaker, all these programs have to be financed. If we want to reduce our deficit, we must provide a stimulus for workers and employers to create jobs. In the Budget Speech of February 1984 and its predecessor of April 1983, the Minister said that the private sector, with the incentives provided by the Canadian Government, is a creator of jobs. We have a number of temporary programs. For instance, in 1982-83, we introduced the NEED Program. There were other programs that existed at the time, including the CCDP, Canada Community Development Projects. We injected money into the system to put Canadians to work and reduce the amount of unemployment insurance benefits being paid. We wanted to keep these people in the labour force and keep the economy going.
If we look at the NEED Program-and I am thinking more specifically of my own riding-last year, Mr. Speaker, under this program which was announced when we returned to the House around October 20, if I remember correctly, when the Minister of Finance brought down his Budget on October 27, 1982, the sum of $170 million had been earmarked for the Province of Quebec. At that time, there was an agreement with the Government of Quebec, which was concluded in December 1982. The agreement was broken, however, and now both levels of Government are pursuing their own objectives, and in the riding of Lotbiniere we were able to get $1.5 million-in other words, people presented projects and job creation was the result.
The important thing was that these programs such as NEED and Canada Works were made available to the private sector in order to stimulate employment. When an employer in the private sector hires a person who is in a job creation program, he may, if he is satisfied, decide to employ that person on a permanent basis, thus possibly taking someone off the welfare rolls or off unemployment insurance. As I said earlier, economic activity stimulated by the Government has an impact on employment. When, with the incentives made
March 13, 1984

available to them by the Government, employers are employing people who had left the labour market, these programmes, for instance in the riding of Lotbiniere, are beneficial.
Through the Canada Community Development Projects for 1982-83, the riding of Lotbiniere received over one million dollars. That year, as I said earlier, we were able to get $1.5 million under the NEED Program. For Summer Canada, we got nearly $200,000. The Canada Works budget for the riding of Lotbiniere is one million dollars, and this year, Summer Canada will have a budget of $147,000.
Mr. Speaker, these are job creation programs, programs that provide incentives for employment. If we consider the entirely temporary aspect of summer job creation programs, the effect will, of course, be felt only over a short period, because students are concerned here.
But, Mr. Speaker, we do have to work if we are going to finance all those programs. It is important to set those funds aside as an incentive to encourage employers to hire those people. The Career Access Program, to which I referred earlier, is a commendable undertaking, and the Canada Manpower Centres in every riding are open to employers and people who want to submit their applications. All those job creation programs are designed to help the private sector hire young people and others who have been seeking employment unsuccessfully for weeks. Other programs are specifically open to women or the handicapped. I heard somebody on the other side say that we have been experiencing problems and running a huge deficit over the past 15 years as a result of the Government's massive intervention in the private sector. When it comes to providing incentives, this Government is just as concerned as the private sector. I do not think we have any lesson to learn from Members opposite, particularly not from the Official Opposition. There is no doubt that we have to cooperate with them, as we have been doing for many years, Mr. Speaker, and we have been working even closer together since the Budgets of April and February were brought down. Never before have we had as much consultation as has been the case since the current Minister of Finance came on the scene. There was some, but not that much with the private sector. What were the priorities of the private sector in terms of job creation and lower deficits? As I was saying at the outset of my remarks, some economists pointed out in April 1983 that perhaps the Government should not be overly concerned about the deficit, that it should offer incentives, stress the importance of job creation and realize that it was more urgent to turn the economy around without constantly worrying about the deficit and thus steer the country right out of the doldrums and the recession we were experiencing. That is exactly what happened. There are other economic sectors where program financing is needed, and that is why we have to seek borrowing authority regularly at the end of each fiscal year. Invariably, we hear the same arguments from Opposition Members who
Borrowing Authority Act
take us to task for financial mismanagement and urge us to slash expenditures here, there and everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot ignore the fact that these are hard times and that we must face up to the heavy financial commitments which those various programs entail. Should we tighten the purse strings of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, even though that Department does make financial contributions to job creation programs? Should we reduce the funds earmarked for social programs or for the Guaranteed Income Supplement? Should we set less money aside for health insurance or post-secondary education which is financed by the Government to the tune of about 60 per cent? All those benefits are built into the system, people ask for them and want them maintained. I suggest that we must act responsibly and fill those needs, while at the same time providing financial incentives to create jobs and respond to the plight of the unemployed. And then, Mr. Speaker, the Government took the initiative of its 6 and 5 program. We said to the public sector: Listen, we have to face reality, we are going through an economic recession and the Government must be among those that set an example in terms of salary increases, we simply cannot afford to go beyond certain limits. After that, of course, we urged the private sector to adopt a similar approach. In my opinion, that policy had an extraordinary impact throughout the country. Some of the unions were perhaps reluctant at first, but then they wondered whether it would not be better to warn their members that the economic situation was bleak, that interest rates were quite high, and that they might be well advised to protect their jobs while waiting for an economic upturn and better prospects for income stabilization.
I believe that this fact was very readily accepted by the business community and the unions and in proof of this we have seen companies negotiate with their employees wage increases which allowed them to meet their obligations. This has been a period of co-operation and of increased awareness about existing conditions, and I believe that labour has now come a long way and seen the need to show some self-control and to be realistic considering existing economic conditions. I believe that labour has understood this very well. And when the Government decided to set an example in this area with respect to the implementation of its 6 and 5 policy, it was able to use some of the money thus saved to provide certain benefits for the vital sectors of our economy such as the building industry by offering purchasers of new or existing housing subsidies of up to $3,000 which were used to help create employment. People often say that when the building industry is in good health, so is the rest of the economy. I think that it was important to have such programs, Mr. Speaker. However, the incentives and assistance programs which we now have must be funded. As I was saying earlier, if we maintain these incentives and continue to create jobs, then the deficit will go

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
down. I therefore believe that the House should support this Bill and approve the borrowing authority requested by the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the Hon. Member's speech. I noted with some interest that he said one of the main reasons for the borrowing of money was the creation of work. He listed a number of programs, Canada Works, New Horizons, community development programs and so forth.
Bearing in mind that what we are doing now is talking about $29 billion, or a $102 billion deficit, does the Hon. Member not recognize that every time we borrow money of that kind we rob the borrowing market, which results in very stiff competition for the private sector? This causes pressure to increase both inflation and interest rates. In turn a negative impact on capital construction occurs in the private sector throughout the country and in fact it robs the country of jobs. While on the one hand the Hon. Member is trying to claim that you borrow money to create jobs, basically borrowing money destroys permanent job creation in the factories in favour of whitewashing local cemeteries. In other words, a job is created once and then destroyed thereafter.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with what the Hon. Member has said about the situation. The economists were saying after the April 1983 budget and also after last February's budget that the Government had to provide some incentives in spite of the deficit. This is what has been done since April 1983, and, whatever the Hon. Member might say, the rate of inflation has gone down considerably from between 10 and 11 per cent to about 6 per cent. It has fluctuated from one month to the next. While the Government made use of the borrowing authority which was approved last year, the inflation rate has gone down, incentives have been provided to create jobs and labour demands for wage increases have been reasonable. This is because, whatever the Hon. Member may say, there has prevailed a climate of confidence and it has been possible to lay some emphasis on job creation in the private sector with the assistance of the Government and because of all this the inflation rate has gone down and the economic activity has increased. When they saw that the economy was on the road to recovery, instead of keeping their money in the bank, Canadians began to reinvest in the economy in order to accelerate this recovery. As a consequence thereof, while many economists say that the deficit should be reduced, existing programs, in the areas of job creation, financial assistance and social legislation, for instance, must continue to be funded. If we had no unemployment insurance plan no social security programs, where would we be now, Mr. Speaker? Indeed, we
have lived through the recent recession. Contrary to the Hon. Member's opinion, I believe that incentives, reasonable wage increases and job creation programs, have shown the general public that the Government wanted to co-operate with the private sector and that this did not stop the economy from recovering as everything proves it has been doing since last year.
I therefore believe that we must continue to honour our financial commitments and to do what we have been doing since October 1982, April 1983 and even June 1982 by way of the 6 and 5 program. This is why the budget brought down in February stated that the restrictions would be lifted but that wage increases would have to be reasonable. As concerns the confidence of Canadians and the fact that they were afraid that interest rates would increase, this is why, especially to help the building industry, the mortgage guarantee program was proposed. I believe that with programs and incentives such as those we shall be able to keep inflation at a reasonable level and continue to encourage people to invest in the Canadian economy and in their own businesses, because economic recovery is a worldwide phenomenon, and in this way, the Canadian people will continue to have their place in the sun.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) a question. Later on, when this debate is finished, we will be voting to increase the public debt. By the time we accumulate all the votes we have passed over the years, the full public debt will be something like $140 billion to $150 billion.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: It will be $180 billion.


Benno Friesen: My colleague tells me that it will be $180 billion. I suppose it would be all right for us to do that if in so doing we could in some way promise that we would pay it all off during our lifetime. The fact is, however, that we will not pay it off ourselves, we who are voting for it. Perhaps the greatest injustice we are doing is that we will pass on this debt on which we are voting to our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren. They will inherit our vote, what we are voting today. The children who will be born next year and in the next generation will immediately, with the first breath they take, be in debt $5,000 to $6,000.


Arnold John Malone: By one government.


Benno Friesen: Most of it done by one government. In all fairness, does he think that is right?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, the best example of this is, having in mind the economy, if we refer to a small business or a farm .. . Let us take the example of a farm. The Hon. Member wants to speak about farms! I could go on for quite a
March 13, 1984

while on the subject. We know what the situation is in Alberta and we know what the situation was under the Crow rate. The Hon. Member was certainly against its being changed! In fact, the purpose of this change was to increase the railroad capacity and to promote job creation. Let the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) raise the farm problem if he wants to!
Let us have an example, Mr. Speaker. We have a father operating a farm and increasing year after year its production capacity and improving its equipment, and everything that goes with farming operations. Unless he was born wealthy and has all the money he needs, he must borrow on the financial markets to be able to do all that. So he borrows to increase his production capacity and to purchase farm equipment. This increases the value of his farm. When he sells it to his son later in life, he must take these value increases into account, which means that the son who buys the farm must pay somewhat more. To reply more specifically to the question, I can say that all our general services and programs, at the post-secondary level, for instance, will produce assets, and while our children will inherit some indebtedness, if the economic situation continues to improve as it is now doing, the public debt will decrease accordingly. I am sure that, with all the facilities we have, with all our export and import programs, with the markets which we are developing through our industrial, business and job creation programs, our children will be able to face the future. We shall put at their disposal the ways and means of coping with American and European competition and of producing on our own markets, so that while we may have some debts, we shall also have the assets and the wealth to meet these debts. I have therefore no worries as far as the future generations are concerned, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: This concludes the question period. Debate will now resume.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority. In the Budget of February 15, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) proposed expenditures of some $98 billion. The Minister projected borrowing requirements of $25.5 billion and a few days later the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) comes forward and asks for a borrowing authority of $29.5 billion, an additional $4 billion in less than three weeks. Like many Hon. Members on this side, I never cease to be amazed by the cynicism of the Liberal Government.
Why does the Minister ask for a borrowing authority for $29.5 billion rather than the $25.5 billion projected in the Budget? 1 think that begs some questions. Is the Budget some mere device rather than the primary economic document of the nation? Did the Minister suddenly discover that the Government needs an extra $4 billion? How will this $4 billion be used? Will it be used as petty cash for the Government? Is the Minister angling for a status like C. D. Howe had when he stated; "What's a mere billion"? The President of the Trea-
Borrowing Authority Act
sury Board wants $4 billion. Is he trying to attain a higher status?
As Members of Parliament we have the final responsibility for the administration of public funds. The amount is mind-boggling, almost $100 billion. My constituents understand the revenue side very well. They understand the tax structure and that Revenue Canada is very efficient in gathering tax moneys. A small business in my riding has found itself in difficulty because of a receivership. They are subcontractors who had amounts owing to them of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $80,000. They are unable to receive their moneys, but Revenue Canada is on top of them requesting their tax money. If they pursue this, this small cabinet business will have to close. That is the kind of tactic being used. This is what is happening to the small businessman.
What about the corporate structure, the large multinationals which are able to write off large amounts of tax? Canadians do not understand why the Government is asking for this $4 billion. Perhaps this money will be used to subsidize the transportation of western coal to eastern Canadian markets. Why not look at something like this? We have repeatedly asked this question in the House. Over 4,000 lakes in Ontario are dying because of the sulphuric acid in the air.
We import 16 million tons of dirty coal from the United States. This costs almost $ 1 billion a year. That dirty coal has a sulphur content 800 per cent higher than western Canadian coal. What is wrong with a program whereby the supplying province, the consuming province and the federal Government work together to create jobs in western Canadian coal fields, supplying central Canadian markets and stopping $1 billion from leaving this country each year as well as putting thousands of Canadians back to work?
Those are the kinds of programs we should be looking at. What does this Government do? It joins with the province in a project in northeast British Columbia which is costing billions of dollars. There is now a subsidy for the project. A study which has been conducted indicates that if that coal is shipped at less than $100 a ton, it will have to be subsidized. It is currently being sold at $84 a ton. Hundreds of miners are being laid off in southeastern British Columbia for short periods of time. We are vying for the same market, using taxpayers' dollars for a program that puts Canadians out of work in southeastern British Columbia. Does that make economic sense?
The Government asks for an additional $4 billion. It certainly will not get my consent for that kind of program. If the Government looks at something sensible that will create not only a clean environment but keep $1 billion a year from leaving the country and creates employment here, it will have my support.
My constituents are concerned about this $4 billion. Will it be used as another slush fund to elect Liberals? My constituents have difficulty with the gigantic tax expenditures mandated by this Government. Knock out a few of those tax expendi-

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
tures and the Government would not need this extra $4 billion. Why not drop the measure in the Budget that allows lawyers and doctors to pay less than their fair share of taxes as a result of RRSPs? Why not cap the amount Canadians can lock away tax-free in RRSPs? Why not start taxing corporations and banks at a level equal to what ordinary Canadians pay?
In the booklet Budget in brief there is reference to energy and resource taxes. It states that the incremental oil revenue tax will be deferred for an additional year, to June 1, 1985. This alone will save the oil companies $190 million. Our small business people and farmers are being pushed to the limit, going into bankruptcy right across this country, at the same time as we are giving the rich oil companies even bigger breaks. Through the Petroleum Incentives Program the Government will come up with as much as 93 cents on the dollar for exploration programs. Where, oh where, is it going to end? There is no commitment that Canadian products will be used or that Canadians will be hired, thereby alleviating our unemployment situation.
I also want to comment on the mortgage insurance program. What a scam this Government is putting forward! This mortgage insurance program will ensure that the banks get their interest rates. That is exactly what it will do. When you walk into the bank, the manager will say to you: "You are running pretty tight here; I do not think we would consider making this loan unless you have an insurance policy to ensure you can carry it through". Is that the kind of program we want? When the mortgage is due in three years, the interest rate may have gone up another 6 per cent or 7 per cent. This person would have to start again at that rate.
This program will only benefit the banks. If the mortgagor wants to sell his home, he will not be able to sell his insurance program, so up will go the interest rate. Who will buy at those kinds of interest rates? The Government knows that interest rates are going up yet it brings in this scam to cover up, telling the people not to worry, that they will be able to take out an insurance policy. What a joke!
I want to comment on the employment programs of this Government. It has a role to play and it must start playing it seriously, particularly in the area of technological change. In Japan it was found that there is a need to develop an early warning system in the form of flow of information about the planned introduction of new technologies. They have a program which studies the workplace to the year 1990. They have communications with their employees about their plans and programs, what they are doing in the workplace. They know the number of people who will be retiring and the replacements that will be needed. They are starting to train the replacements. Until we come up with that kind of program, we will have serious economic development programs. If we do not recognize that very soon, other countries will take over the major trade and we will be in an even more serious situation than we are today. It is unfortunate this Government uses patchwork programs, throwing money in any direction to try to carry it through so that it can be re-elected.
I want to refer for a moment to the comments made by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He stated in Vancouver that if the Conservatives were in government, they would take a serious look at pensions and family allowances and possibly at bringing back the means test. I hope they never get in government if they are looking at those kinds of policies. I hope this Government will recognize that the B.C. Conservatives have taken over the government of that province, whether they call themselves Social Crediters or Conservatives. They are cutting education programs. Busloads of secondary school children have to travel 35 kilometres to school. Classrooms are being closed and they are being bussed to other areas. That is a shame. It should not happen with the resources that we have and it can only be related to the mismanagement of the Government of Canada.


Mr. McRae;: May I ask a question?
[Translation}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please! It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, government Members continually say that we are in a recovery period. If it is judged by the fact that there were fewer personal and business bankruptcies in the first two months of 1984, I grant some substance to that statement. However, based upon those same figures, the agriculture industry remains in recession, or rather, in a depression. In January and February of this year 114 Canadian farmers declared bankruptcy, 58 per cent higher than in the same period last year. That does not include what I am sure would be an equal number of farmers who voluntarily liquidated and sold out.
The Government continually refuses to recognize this problem. Canadian farmers are in trouble. The Government continually refuses requests for emergency funds, implementation of agri-bonds, more Farm Credit Corporation dollars, lower interest rates, and reduction of energy taxes. It has turned its back on farmers all too often.
It is time government Members paid attention. What has to happen before they wake up? It is time for the Minister of
March 13, 1984

Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to get the Government to do something realistic, or he should resign.



FISHERIES


Mr. Re'mi Bujold (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the House how deeply I regret last weekend's events on the Magdalen Islands, which are part of my riding.
I cannot help condemning the members of the animal welfare group for their provocative actions. Seal hunting on the Magdalen Islands and elsewhere in Canada has taken place for several centuries and the people who take part in it do so in a humane fashion and always with the greatest concern for the welfare of the animals.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, this hunt provides a great many people in my riding and elsewhere with additional incomes at a time of the year when unemployment is extremely high.
Finally, I am sorry that a number of seal hunt supporters of the Magdalen Islands caused damage, but I can understand their disappointment and frustration in the face of these provocative actions by individuals who are seeking to make names for themselves and promote their own personal interests.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are like bottlecaps on an assembly line. Singular in purpose, they scour for power. Hour by hour, they drink and bathe in power. Who can tell, Sir, what happens to Liberal Members when they go walking in a snow storm? What destiny do they witness in a frozen sky? How badly does a winter blizzard numb their neurons?
Edmonton's Liberal alderman, Julian Kiniski, lobbied to encourage that Edmonton might host the upcoming Liberal leadership convention. That indeed was a laudable objective, for which I commend him highly. However, when Edmonton was not awarded the convention, he playacted animated anger, claiming that he had never been so furious in his life, and alleging that the reason Edmonton did not receive the convention was because the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) did not assure that the Government would not be defeated during the convention.
That was some ferocious blizzard within which Liberal Members took a walk which caused them to reason that,
because of the over-population in China, the alfalfa production at the Prince Edward Island weather station will cause the Grand Canyon to fill with uranium and there will be nuclear war, and therefore high school will be let out early. That was some blizzard, Sir.
In the past when conventions have been held for the NDP or the Conservative Party, the Government, by tradition, has recessed the House. Are we to expect that it would forget to recess the House for its own convention? Does Kiniski and other Grits expect that Parliament would convene with no government Members present? Kiniski is naive. Such meetings do take place, but they are not called Parliament. That, Sir, is a caucus.



HOUSING


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, CMHC's federal allocation for public non-profit housing was announced in January. Under this important program Ontario gets 1,400 new housing units. However, the Province of Ontario which administers this program refuses to allocate any of these units to either Toronto or Metro Toronto. Furthermore, the provincial Minister of Housing, Claude Bennett, is using flippant and very political language to try to assure the people of Toronto and hide his personal indifference.
The reality behind this situation is quite a different story. Single parents, seniors, pensioners, disabled people, and low-income earners across the City of Toronto are being denied access to new housing. The long waiting lists in that city are getting even longer. Now the Government of Ontario, which has traditionally neglected its housing responsibilities, is offering not only financial neglect but adding to that a very serious geographic neglect.
In the biggest city in the country, public social housing is grinding to a halt. This is unconscionable. The Province of Ontario's Minister of Housing must be condemned for this insensitivity and his flippant arrogance.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada 85 per cent of the people work, and 15 per cent of the people do not work. This is unfair and is quietly killing those who do not work.
In the Province of British Columbia 25 per cent of the young people are unemployed. We will face a lost generation, and that is a tragedy. Unemployment is the major problem in Canada today, and I call for a national commitment to full employment. I call for jobs for all by 1989.

March 13, 1984
Now, more than ever, Canada needs new ideas. I propose that we take the $13 billion from unemployment insurance payments, the $8 billion which is given to the oil companies, tax those fat cat banks, and use that money to create a national job-creation strategy. We should begin by upgrading, not downgrading, our educational system, so that we have the finest in the world, and we should create jobs for all by 1990.
In 1960, Mr. Speaker, I remember John F. Kennedy saying that America would put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Let us make a commitment to put all Canadians, especially young Canadians, back to work and have full employment by the end of the 1980s.



FINANCE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, economic confidence in a nation is reflected by the value of its currency. The plunging Canadian dollar illustrates the lack of confidence which the market holds in the decaying Liberal Government and the lack-lustre quality of the various candidates seeking leadership of that sinking ship.
Exchange problems have been compounded by the amazing behaviour of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). One day he does not care to what low levels the dollar sinks; the next, he instructs the Bank of Canada to buy Canadian dollars in any amount in order to camouflage the market response to his misguided policies. Tomorrow, as he again pirouettes with considerably less elegance, might I say, than his erstwhile leader, we face the inevitability of higher interest rates. The Canadian dollar will not cease its drift, nor will it stabilize, until the Canadian people have ousted the present Government and replaced it with a Conservative Government in which all can have confidence.



MEDICAL CARE


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, at a recent conference of the Canadian Institute of Law and Medicine, Justice Richard Holland suggested setting up a medical injuries compensation board which would eliminate the need for medical malpractice lawsuits. Under this scheme patients would recover damages based upon the extent of their injuries, rather than having to prove medical negligence in court in order to win a monetary award. I, too, see merit in this recommendation, in view of the rapidly escalating costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums which have come about as a result of many judgments exceeding $ 1 million in personal injury suits.
O)
A second reason is the presumption of guilt stigma which is attached to members of the medical profession charged with malpractice, even if they are innocent. Malpractice litigation is now truly a growth industry as lawyers are more prone to take court action in malpractice suits. The Canadian Medical Association must consider these recommendations and explore their implementation through the justice departments of provincial legislatures.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, for the past several weeks I have received many letters from concerned citizens in my riding of Timiskaming. The majority of these letters are from senior citizens who have written to me complaining about a relatively new Canada Post Corporation program involving the removal of street letter boxes.
In one particular area of Kirkland Lake a street box has been removed in the interests of post office efficiency and savings. However, what the post office does not seem to take into account when it removes these street boxes, are the hardships faced by senior citizens who used to rely on the corner box near their homes.
One lady wrote me and stated:
I am a woman, 76 years of age, and find it is hard, especially in the winter, to mail my letters, because I use a cane. I hate to ask anyone to go out of their way for me. I know there are a lot of elderly people in this district who write letters, so it must be a hardship for them to get their letters mailed.
Surely Canada Post, in its efforts to cut costs and increase efficiency, can retain a degree of compassion when implementing policies such as the street box removal plan. I urge the Minister responsible for Canada Post to ask the President of Canada Post to rethink his corporation's policy with respect to relocating street letter boxes. I urge Canada Post to consider the thousands of senior citizens in Timiskaming and throughout Canada who rely on the post office, and to reinstate street boxes in neighbourhoods where there is a high concentration of elderly people.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an important matter affecting those elderly Canadians who receive workers' compensation benefits following work place injuries. GIS benefits to the poorest elderly are being cut because the Government now treats these receipts as income rather than compensation.
This change was buried in an omnibus tax bill following the MacEachen and Lalonde Budgets, and slipped through almost
March 13, 1984

without notice. The change will mean more disabled workers are forced to subsist on incomes below the poverty line. The Government consistently refuses to increase old age pensions to eliminate poverty among the elderly, but must it begrudge the elderly the miserly sums they do receive? Why must benefits to the disabled be cut back?
This amendment is unwanted. Members on all sides have spoken against it. Even Revenue Canada, not noted for its generosity, has chosen to disregard the law and advises tax filers to ignore the change for most tax purposes.
We, in the New Democratic Party, call on the Government to table legislation immediately to ensure that GIS is not reduced by workers' compensation benefits. We are prepared to deal with such a bill as expeditiously as possible. One Minister has already advised the House that ministerial discussions on this matter are under way, but how long must the disabled suffer while the Ministers dither?



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss an issue brought to my attention by the President of the Architects' Association of P.E.I., concerning funding for an electro-mechanical technology program for Holland College, the community college of Prince Edward Island.
Holland College has made application to receive funding through the Skills Growth Fund offered by the Department of Employment and Immigration. The program the community college wishes to develop includes computer aided drafting, design, and manufacturing.
I share the sentiments expressed by the President of the Architects' Association in that there is a need for the development of technological skills. In an attempt to alleviate the employment problems faced by our youth, it is necessary to provide exposure at post-secondary institutions to equipment which will help accelerate the growth of design and manufacturing sectors.
New advancements in technology will bring within the grasp of small businesses new markets within Canada as well as abroad, and provide employment growth. With increased emphasis placed on new technology, a strong demand for education and retraining of the work force is created. If we wish to keep abreast of this growth, we must provide the necessary tools, equipment, and programs, to train our young people properly and provide an on-hands learning experience to which students all across the country are entitled.
I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) to support this worth-while project for the Province of Prince Edward Island as it is an investment which will pay dividends not only for P.E.I. but for all Canada.
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION



CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have lost all credibility. During the last 16 years the Grits have perpetrated policies upon the Canadian people resulting in one and a half million people being without work; a national debt which is 500 per cent higher than it was in 1968; thousands of farmers in a state of desperation, with 488 having gone bankrupt last year, and a program which will send most businesses in Banff into bankruptcy or receivership.
Now some of the Ministers are preaching solutions to the ruinous policies which they themselves imposed on the people. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) even said: "These programs are not carved in stone. We have to look at them ..." Well, let us look at the land rentals in Banff which are completely under the control of the Liberal Government. One business paid $300 in land rents in 1979. This was increased in 1980 to $10,536, an increase of 3,500 per cent. Another business paid $1,800 in 1979, and faced an increase of 1,600 per cent in 1980, to $28,842.
No business can raise its prices sufficiently to meet such gigantic increases, and the former Minister of the Environment who imposed the rents and the present Minister, refused to change them. Not carved in stone? Indeed! To re-elect the Grits would be like hiring the arsonist to put out the fire he started. Promises to change disastrous programs now, in a desperate attempt to stay in power, means nothing to the Canadian people who can no longer believe a word the Liberals say.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Economic and Regional Development. The Government has allowed interest rates to climb about 1 per cent over the past three or four weeks. This would seem to me to be a totally inappropriate and wrong policy response at a time when unemployment is growing and when business investment, a part of our economy which is most affected adversely by high interest rates, is projected to have no growth at all in 1984. Could the Minister explain this irrational and inappropriate policy response?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Hon. Member knows very well that this is not a policy issue. This is an interest rate movement. There is no one on this side of the

March 13, 1984
Oral Questions
House, and I would hope not on the other side of the House, who is promoting high interest rates.
Let us remember what we have been successful in doing in this country over the past year and how far we have brought inflation down during that period. The question of the Hon. Member is rather naive in suggesting there is some policy implication here. We all know the forces which work in terms of determining interest rates. We have had that painful experience. Let us make sure it does not happen again.


COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point I am making. Why is the Government allowing the interest rates to rise? I heard the Minister of Finance say that it is related to interest rates in the United States. However, the United States economy is strong. The Canadian economy is weak. Its unemployment rates are falling, ours is rising. Its business investment is rising to record levels; ours is flat. Its retail sales are up; ours are down.
It does not make any sense at all for us to have this situation in Canada where interest rates are allowed to rise. Is the Minister telling us there is no alternative, that the Government has no flexibility and no other options but simply to follow the policy of the United States lock-step, and watch our economy fall into the doldrums again?


Donald James Johnston: Well, Mr. Speaker, this seems to take me back to debates which we have had across this floor over the last several years. We have debated the issue of interest rates and the forces which affect interest rates ad nauseam. We all know what kind of external pressures to which we are subject.
One thing we can do to improve our own interest rate situation, which we have done, is to control the rate of inflation. I know the Hon. Member would be the first to agree with that. We have gone a long way in that direction. Let us hope that that trend will continue and that we will keep pushing that inflation rate down. That is one thing, indeed, we can do, we have done, and will continue to do.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT BORROWING
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Hon. Member is paying attention to the debate which is going on today, which is on the borrowing requirement. Surely the Minister realizes that with a deficit of $30 billion or, if I might paraphrase something he said, "if the Government simply borrows and borrows", the result must inevitably be a weak dollar, or high interest rates, or a combination of both? Are we not seeing today the inevitable result of many years of excessive government borrowing and continuing government mismanagement? Is that not the reason why we have a weak dollar and the Government is being forced to let interest rates rise?


Donald James Johnston: I think quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The Government's position on the deficit has been expressed many times by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. Everyone in the western world is concerned about deficits. The Americans are concerned about their deficits, as we are concerned about ours.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They are doing something about it.


Donald James Johnston: That is exactly why the Minister of Finance took the position he did when he brought down his Budget. Those deficits have to be controlled and brought down in a measured way. We all know the impact of borrowing. We all know the more debt we have, the less funding is available to embark on those programs the Government would like to embark upon. The French, the British, and the Americans all kow that, and we certainly know it. That is precisely why the Minister of Finance is attempting to keep the deficit in line and reduce it over a period of years.


SIZE OF GOVERNMENT BORROWING
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for Economic Development, who is supposed to be a voice of quiet intelligence in the Government. Now we can see that he is quiet.
The Minister said on March 9 that people have to understand that Governments simply cannot borrow and borrow. In view of the fact that this Government borrowed $101 billion in the last 11 years, and plans to borrow for deficits totalling $142 billion this year and in the next four years, what are people to understand from that-that this Government is composed completely of hypocrites who never do what they say should be done? Is that what they should understand?


Donald James Johnston: I do not know what kind of an outburst that was, Mr. Speaker. We all know that one cannot borrow, and borrow, and borrow; that is precisely the point the Minister of Finance made. We have come through the most difficult recession this country has known since the 1930s.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why was it difficult?


Donald James Johnston: We know the effect on the deficit of the automatic stabilizers in our system. The Minister of Finance is taking steps to ensure effectively continued and sustained economic growth, which is the best way of getting the deficit under control through revenues which will accrue as a result. Therefore I am not quite sure what the Hon. Member's point is. If he is decrying the size of the deficit, welcome to the club. We have all been concerned about the deficit. We are also concerned about the recession, and the programs which have been absolutely necessary to sustain Canadians through this
March 13, 1984

period. That is in large measure why the deficit is where it is today.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I thought this putative leader had the answers. We certainly have not heard them today.


LEVEL OF JOB CREATION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in an address called "New Financial Impediments to Economic Recovery", Mr. Mackness of the Bank of Nova Scotia points out that job creation, which was very rapid in the early stages of the Canadian recovery, has ground to a halt. Employment has increased at an annual rate of less than 1 per cent over the last six months compared to 5 per cent in the first eight months of recovery, and compared to U.S. job creation which is still surging ahead in excess of 5 per cent.
Why is it that in Canada our job creation is now less than 1 per cent in the last six months while in the U.S. it is 5 per cent? What policies does the Minister suggest which could bring us up at least to the level of the U.S.? What is he doing, rather than what is he saying?


Donald James Johnston: I wish I could do something for the Hon. Member who is wallowing in misery over there, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: It is the 1.5 million unemployed who are wallowing in misery.


Donald James Johnston: The fact is that this country has a record in job creation that is unexcelled.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is wrong.


Donald James Johnston: We knew, and everyone forecast, that the very strong recovery, which far exceeded everyone's expectations, would begin to slow down. I believe most economic indicators are indeed very promising. That Budget was designed effectively to stimulate the private sector and create jobs in small and medium sized businesses, where many, many thousands of jobs have been and will continue to be created. That is what the Budget is all about, and I hope the Hon. Member for St. John's West is around here to watch the results which are, frankly, extraordinary by international standards.


MINES AND MINING
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Mines. Given the Government's concern over high unemployment and the weakness of the Canadian dollar due to capital outflow, and given the desire of all Canadians to reduce acid rain, can the Minister assure this House that, as a corrective measure
Oral Questions
addressing these problems, his Ministry has done its utmost to promote the use of high grade, low sulphur western Canadian coal which will create thousands of jobs, clean up the environment, and save $1 billion from leaving our country?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, not only are we concerned about western Canada coal, but I can tell the Hon. Member that we have a study under way in the Department on the use of non-ferrous smelters, and we hope to be making some further announcements about that in the near future. I have consulted with my colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I can say we are very actively working in support of the Government's objective to deal with the problem of acid rain.


IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES COAL
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister then explain why, in 1983, central Canadian coal users continued importing 16 million tons of low-grade, high sulphur American coal, the use of which threatens some 48,000 lakes in Ontario? At the same time production in one of the richest deposits of high quality Canadian coal steadily declined, throwing men out of work and threatening the economic viability of western Canadian coal mines.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I can point to a number of initiatives where we have assisted western coal in British Columbia. For example, the largest part of our trade with Korea is in coal, and it is growing rapidly. We are making every attempt to export Canadian coal, and I think it is showing some results.


NATIONAL REVENUE
[Stage Direction]
1981 AUDIT OF FISHERMEN'S EARNINGS
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. According to the report commissioned by his predecessor, the Rowe report, during the audit of fishermen in Canada in 1981 the average earnings of Newfoundland fishermen were $7,481, and in Prince Edward Island $8,752. The poverty line in Canada as defined by StatsCan is $9,300 for a family of four, or $11,400 for a family of six.
Why did the Government, specifically his Department, conduct an audit of a group of people whose earnings were below the poverty line?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Hon. Member is looking at this issue from the wrong angle. The way he directed his question would seem to imply that legislations such as the Income Tax Act

March 13, 1984
Oral Questions
which are Revenue Canada responsibilities should not apply to particular groups of individuals.
If the Hon. Member read the Rowe Report a little further, he would realize that Mr. Rowe indicated clearly that when penalties and fines are imposed following an audit, they are imposed in compliance with the legislation, and that when contributions are assessed, it is in conjunction with existing incomes. That is a truism. The figures which the Hon. Member has quoted, therefore, are average earnings and do not apply in all cases, which means that some individual earnings are higher, while some others are lower, and the tax rate for the former is greater than for the latter. His question, therefore, has nothing whatsoever to do with departmental responsibilities or the Income Tax legislation as it exists now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, judgement is the issue here. The Minister does not seem to be exercising that in his answer, and certainly not in his actions.


ROWE REPORT FINDINGS
James Aloysius McGrath: Is the Minister trying to justify to the House and the country an audit of a group of people whose income is clearly below the poverty line, some of whom have had third party attachments on them for as much as 60 per cent of their gross incomes? The rationale for the audit in the first instance was because of a mistake made by the Government, namely, a ground fish subsidy of 2.5 cents per pound which was paid for four years by the Government, on which not T-4 slips were issued.
Given all those circumstances, and the fact that the Government has had this report for over two years, why was a stop not put to that disgraceful audit?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that when the report was published, the audit had been terminated. The Hon. Member knows that. Furthermore, he knows perfectly well that a . . . Mr. Speaker, instead of preparing the next question because he realizes his colleague does not know enough about the issue and that he has to tell him what to say, the Hon. Member should at least have the common decency to listen to the reply and show a little more intelligence in his understanding of the situation.
If assessments were made, this means that there was equivalent income. He is using an average figure as the basis for his claim that there should not be a tax audit. He knows perfectly well that this is a false premise.


DEPARTMENT'S POWERS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. It has become crystal clear that the powers of search and seizure, the powers of collection, the powers of garnishee, and the powers of seizing people's bank accounts, are far out of control and in need of legislative change. If that was not clear, it has certainly become clear as a result of the 30 pages of the Rowe report which deal with the civil liberties of individuals.
Has the Minister read the report? What steps are going to be taken by the Government to correct this very serious problem? Does the Minister agree with the general principle that the Department of Revenue has far too many powers?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report to which the Hon. Member refers. I shall do so at the first opportunity. I hope to be able to respond to him at that time.


NON-APPEARANCE OF OFFICIALS BEFORE CONSERVATIVE PARTY TASK FORCE HEARINGS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In a letter dated February 24 to the Member for Wellington-Duff-erin-Simcoe the Minister gives reasons for the inability of his officials to testify. He says "the anonymity of public servants, and their political impartiality and loyalty" were at stake if they did testify. How does the Minister reconcile that reasoning with the fact that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Revenue for the western region appeared on Cross Country Checkup and gave a speech to the Chamber of Commerce where he made the most controversial of statements? Why can they appear on public radio and give speeches to Chambers of Commerce, and yet not speak to Members of Parliament?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member fails to see that he is daily undermining his own credibility by making statements that are based on pure fantasy.
First of all, he knows perfectly well that, provided Members of the Official Opposition and their caucus are prepared to observe the rules governing parliamentary activities, departmental officials are prepared to give briefings for the benefit of those members and to do so at any time. That is basically the point I made in the letter I sent to his colleague.
I may add that the Hon. Member and his colleagues are acting irresponsibly in making a political football of an issue as important as the administration of the Income Tax Act. They have made themselves unworthy of their privileges and rights by using the taxpayer to play their game of petty politics.
March 13, 1984


HOUSING
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for housing. In his absence I will direct it to the Minister of State for Finance, if I can get his attention. My question has to do with the spectre of high mortgage interest rates which is once again coming to haunt Canadian home owners. I would like to remind the Minister and the Government that those interest rates rose to an appalling 23 per cent just three years ago and thousands of Canadians lost their homes. What has the Government in mind now to prevent those interest rates from soaring out of sight, causing thousands more Canadians to lose their homes?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not share the view of the Hon. Member that there is any likelihood of mortgage interest rates soaring out of sight in the time ahead. On the contrary, indications within the Canadian economy with regard to long term interest rates remain favourable. The recent modest increase in mortgage rates is not, in my view, indicative of any trend contrary to that favourable long term trend which I have indicated.
In any event the Hon. Member should bear in mind that in the recent Budget we have provided for a mortgage rate protection program which will assure a mortgage holder that he or she will not again experience the type of mortgage rates which we had in Canada a year or two ago.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's response reminds me exactly of what his predecessor said when mortgage interest rates were around 12 per cent or 13 per cent in 1980.


MORTGAGE INSURANCE SCHEME-AMOUNT OF PROTECTION FOR HOME OWNERS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Mr. Peter Carter of Royal Bank mortgage and consumer services. He said: "People will only start to claim under the insurance program when interest rates-God forbid-reach the levels of 1981 again". The Minister does not need to be reminded that at that time mortgage interest rates were 23 per cent.
Will the Minister acknowledge that if the interest rates rise by 3 per cent the home owner who has this insurance will still end up paying 75 per cent of the increased mortgage costs out of his own pocket? Will he also undertake to persuade the Minister of Finance that the only real protection for home buyers and home owners is to have the Government require that banks set aside a specific portion of their lending portfolios for mortgages, at long term stable interest rates?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Member opposite must know that the real protection against higher mortgage rates in Canada is the reduction in the level of inflation in Canada. In recent months in Canada
Oral Questions
we have seen a sharp decline in wage rate levels. We have seen wage settlements. We have seen a rapid increase in productivity. We have seen a moderation in cost increases in industry. These are the real factors which create protection against higher mortgage interest rates in Canada.
The Member opposite must also realize that in the Budget we not only provided a mortgage protection plan, but we offered a mortgage-backed securities scheme which should also ameliorate the circumstances in the mortgage market generally, and contribute to a limitation on the rates of mortgage in the time ahead.


TOURISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for tourism. It is clear that the Liberal Government has neglected tourism over the past decade to the point that our tourist deficit has skyrocketed from a staggering $1.3 billion in 1982 to a record $2.1 billion in 1983. This has resulted in the incredible loss of 100,000 jobs last year alone. A lack of cost competitiveness in Canada is virtually pricing the tourism industry out of business, despite the low Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar. Can the Minister tell us what he is doing specifically to alleviate this very, very serious problem in our economy?


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, specifically, we recently launched a television campaign directed toward Canadians, encouraging them to vacation in Canada. I am sure many Members will have seen this campaign, and I think it will have a beneficial result.
In addition, we will be launching a major television campaign in April all across the northern tier of the United States that is within a one day's drive to Canada. I am sure we will see a real turnaround in terms of the number of American visitors who will be coming to Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: I did not know the Minister was that naive. Surely he knows, as John Lawson of TIAC pointed out, that this increase in the advertising budget of $22 million does not get to the root of the problem but simply brings the advertising budget back to what it was a decade ago.


AWARDING OF ADVERTISING CONTRACTS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain to the House and to Canadians generally why his Government has awarded advertising contracts exclusively to Liberal advertising agencies, namely, agencies which are part of Red Leaf Communications, headed by recently appointed Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein? Justify this further porkbar-relling by the Liberal Government.

March 13, 1984
Oral Questions


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the advertising firms that will be carrying out these specific campaigns are firms that have done work for Tourism Canada for some years. They have done an excellent job. They made excellent presentations. We do not switch firms when they do an excellent job, and that is exactly what they have done.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the Minister is aware, the fishing industry on the East and West Coasts, as well as in central Canada, is facing very serious marketing problems in the United Kingdom and the United States because of the seal issue. In view of the fact that the Newfoundland sealers decided last year not to hunt seal pups, and the sealers have again taken the same stand this year, backed up by the Newfoundland Government, will the federal Government, in the interest of protecting the over-all Canadian fishing industry, put a complete ban on the clubbing of white coat seal pups anywhere in Canada?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the House of Commons has, in several instances, unanimously passed resolutions defending our sealers in Arctic Canada, Labrador, northern Quebec, and the Magdalen Islands. They were passed unanimously by the House. I assume that this is still the position of his Party.
Second, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that we are not dealing with rational people on this issue. We are dealing with fanatics who have been spreading lies about our fishermen and our sealers. I would ask the Hon. Member to reflect on what would be the reaction of those fanatical people if you give in on something which they have already destroyed themselves and if we should go to the point of declaring something illegal that, at this moment, is not happening in Canada because they have destroyed the market for our fishermen.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I would remind the Hon. Minister that this is the second year in which the Newfoundland fishermen have voluntarily withdrawn from the clubbing of white coats, and that we did support the position put forth a moment ago, as he stated. But times change. They will change after the next election. We are changing with the times.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER LAUNCH PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister, in conjunction with the External Affairs Department, establish a publicity campaign to inform the world that Canadians no longer engage in the clubbing of white coats, or
seal pups, and will he inform the United Kingdom, and all the Europeans, at the same time that their fish quotas in Canadian waters will have to be reconsidered since each seal eats approximately a tonne and a half of fish per year?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give serious consideration to all of the valuable suggestions of my hon. friend. On the other hand, I am happy to report to him that as of 2.45 p.m. today, the report that I have from my Department, which got in touch with every single important buyer of Canadian fish, is that not one of them will give into that blackmail because they realize that, if they give in on this issue, tomorrow there will be blackmail on the fur industry and other single issue causes, by people who are determined to blackmail. Last year they tried to destroy the market for the sealers and they did not succeed. This year they are trying to blackmail the fishermen. The buyers realize that if they give in to this group this year, next year it will be on another issue. It is in their own interest to resist any blackmail.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. April 30 is fast approaching and workers getting tips are still facing the inequity of having to pay taxes on their total income while the Unemployment Insurance Commission is not collecting contributions accordingly. I know that the Minister had advised me to direct this question to the Minister of Finance, but in his absence, will the Minister of National Revenue tell us whether, in view of the date set for the filing of income tax returns, he has made any recommendations to correct this injustice, which he recognizes himself, and whether the Minister of Finance has responded favourably to suggestions for correcting it?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has not provided me with any answer because I did not ask him the question. However, I must remind the Hon. Member that, as far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned, the declaration of tips is the responsibility of the workers themselves. This means that, before their tax returns have been filed, we do not know in advance the amount of tips they will declare.
The Hon. Member is certainly referring to the proposal made by the Quebec Government and he knows how strongly this proposal is still being challenged.
March 13, 1984

Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Roch La Salle: The Minister of National Revenue is aware that the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations as applied by the Department of Employment are obviously being unfair considering the fact that the Department of Employment and Immigration is assessing the contributions of the worker who receives tips on the basis of his wages without his tips being taken into account.
The Minister is also aware that he is responsible for collecting the contributions and that many Canadians pay income tax without ever being entitled to the corresponding social benefit provided under the Unemployment Insurance Plan. The Minister is aware of all this and I would like him to explain why, since he is aware of this injustice, he has not already recommended and requested quite legitimately from his colleague that the situation be straightened out so that all these Canadians who pay taxes without being entitled to the corresponding benefit under this social program will be treated fairly.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the Hon. Member is asking me this question. The Minister of State for Finance, who represents the Minister of Finance, is in the House, as is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who is responsible for the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Minister of Revenue has some responsibility in the administration of the Acts which, as the Hon. Member is well aware, deal with the Department of Finance and certain other departments. However, it is not up to the Minister of Revenue to propose changes to the legislation referred to by the Hon. Member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns the tourist industry and sports fishing. Has the Minister identified any new programs for the Great Lakes which would enhance sports fishing on the Great Lakes and thus assist the tourist industry?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans works very closely with the provincial Government. Every time that we receive a request for co-operation with the provincial Government, we have a very close relationship. I will be very happy to entertain any suggestion from the Hon. Member.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Mr. Speaker, I would take it that the Minister's response is no. He has received a submission. Has he considered that submission? Can he identify any new programs that would enhance sports fishing on the Great Lakes?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question of the Hon. Member as notice.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Where is the final authority for third party demands when a person arrives at a bank with a briefcase full of blank third party demands, with the signature stamped on a third party demand, a fact which can be documented? Who ultimately is responsible for closing out these peoples' accounts when staff from Revenue Canada come and simply hand out stamped third party demands?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I find the Hon. Member's remarks rather blunt. I suggest that he should follow the advice I gave him recently. When he called my attention to a situation which is specific to his riding, I told him to contact his district officer, discuss the matter with him and obtain first-hand information.
On the other hand, if he is aware of some definite cases, it is his basic responsibility as a Member of Parliament to discuss the matter with the district officer who is responsible for administering the act and would remedy the situation.
If he is aware of definite cases and can refrain from making blunt statements, I would be willing to receive his representations and investigate the matter.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week the acid rain subcommittee of this House met in Toronto to hear briefs concerning automobile emissions. Representatives of the Minister's Department were asked to appear and give their position with respect to present standards and possible changes. Nobody from the Department turned up. Nobody offered any apologies. The Committee of Members of the House of Com-

March 13, 1984
Oral Questions
mons was treated with absolute contempt by the Minister's Department. Would the Minister like to explain why?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to clarify the remarks made by the Hon. Member. In fact there was a member of the Department of Transport at the hearings, as an observer. Second, I had communicated with the Chairman of the Committee at an earlier date indicating that we would not be in a position to appear before the committee until such time as we had an opportunity to examine the studies that were under preparation. These studies were tabled just last week. We will now undertake careful consideration of them and consult with the appropriate bodies, as both my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and I indicated publicly. Certainly there was no intention to have any disrespect for the committee. I will be very happy to appear before the committee. We will when we have something to say and a position to put forward.


MINISTER'S ROLE
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's servant who appeared was far too frightened to say a word.
Was it the Minister's direct instructions that kept anybody from his Department from coming before a parliamentary sub-committee of Members of the House of Commons? Most certainly we did not have any information that the Minister had declined to come or declined to have any of his people there, nor was any reason given. Why did the Minister allow a situation to exist where a House of Commons committee of Members of Parliament that asked for representatives of the Department to come before it was absolutely refused? Such conduct is absolutely contemptible.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South that I think he is jumping to conclusions. It may be the practice in his Party to let prejudice interfere with the facts. I prefer to make decisions based upon a proper examination of the studies that are available.


Mr. McDermid:: It means you are running for the leadership.


Lloyd Axworthy: It was certainly our intention, and it would be my intention very happily so, to appear before the Committee when we are in a position to do so. That means having the opportunity to see what the studies say and determine what kind of standards would be appropriate to alleviate the situation. That kind of message was communicated to the Chairman of the Committee.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. When the Minister served in his former position with respect to the Canadian frigate program, he made a statement. It was contained in an announcement he made in June, 1983. He said that two-thirds of the contract, referring to the total frigate contract, would be supplied by Canadian firms. Now as the Minister for National Defence can he assure this House that of those contracts that have been let for the patrol frigate program fully two-thirds have been awarded to Canadian firms?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. gentleman that, yes, we are meeting the target that had been set at the time the contract was signed. I might point out to the hon. gentleman that I was before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence this morning defending my Estimates. I would have liked to have discussed that issue with the hon. gentleman in the Committee. I do not have all the details, but I will be pleased to provide him with as many details as I possibly can, in another forum.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE LIST OF CONTRACTS
John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that the major contractor for this project is Saint John Shipbuilding which has as its U.S. partner Sperry Inc. It in turn has established a Canadian subsidiary by the name of Paramax Electronics Ltd., and in large measure it is responsible for determining the sub-contractors under the frigate program.
In the event the Minister is as sure as he has indicated here today that fully two-thirds of this contract will be awarded to Canadian firms, would he be prepared to table in the House a list of the contracts that have so far been awarded, along with the monetary value of the same?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to look into that matter in order to respond positively to the hon. gentleman's representations. I might point out to him, though, that Paramax will have its sub-contractors and Saint John Shipbuilding will have its own sub-contractors, relating to their own specific areas of responsibility. Saint John Shipbuilding is the master of the total contract, but it deals basically with the ships and ship engineering, whereas Paramax deals with the weapons system and the integration thereof.
I will be pleased to provide the Hon. Member with as much information as can be made available, taking into account some commercial confidentialities that have to be maintained.
March 13, 1984


EMPLOYMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. On the evening the Minister declared his Liberal leadership aspirations on The Journal, in answer to a question on a comparison between his views on the economy and the views of the Hon. Leader of the Conservative Party, he told Barbara Frum:
1 suspect that on some of those questions there might be a coincidence of issues and values.
Does the Minister stand by that statement? Is that government policy? If he does stand by that, and we continue to have the situation where, by the Minister's own admission, the private sector is not creating the jobs, then how does he propose to create jobs for our unemployed youth today?


Arnold John Malone: A paid political announcement.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to outline how I would propose to create jobs for the unemployed youth today. But as to the specific question with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, the difficulty I have, and the difficulty I had with Mrs. Frum's question, is that I really do not know what are the policies of the Leader of the Opposition. Hence, it made it somewhat difficult for me to determine whether or not there really was a coincidence of values, but I also added that perhaps he had read some of the speeches- mine and perhaps those of others-made on this side of the House, and was trying to develop some ideas based on them.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Speaker:: May I draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of four members of a British parliamentary delegation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let the Minister off the hook so easily. In my own province there is a 25 per cent unemployed rate among young people who have a feeling of hopelessness about the situation. Will the Minister commit himself and the Government to a
Tributes
program of full employment by 1989 for people in Canada? John F. Kennedy did it in 1960 when he said that the Americans would put a man on the moon by 1969. They did it. Is the Minister prepared to rise in his place and say to the young people of Canada: "We will give you hope and we will give you a commitment to full employment by 1989"?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I love targets; I believe in targets. I am also concerned, as has been demonstrated many times on this side of the House, about the plight of young people who are unemployed. Our answer to that is a strong, vigorous economy, with sustained growth for long-term, meaningful, permanent jobs-that is the way that problem is to be addressed-and also to ensure that people coming out of our educational system have sufficient skills and sufficient flexibility to be able to seize the opportunities which we see developing day after day. I know the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has often mentioned the potential of those jobs, particularly in areas of advanced technologies, not only at the high-tech end but as applied to the traditional sectors. Let us put our shoulders to the wheel and ensure that those jobs are there and that people have the skills to fill those jobs.


MOTION TO DESIGNATE MR. KNOWLES HONORARY OFFICER OF HOUSE
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today, I am in the very fortunate position of having to move in this House a motion that has the unanimous support of all three Party Leaders, and it will come as no surprise to the House that this unanimity was easily achieved, since the motion concerns the future of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).

It is nearly 60 years since September, 1924 when Stanley Knowles, as he was then known, as a little boy came to visit Parliament for the first time. We now learn with regret, and at the same time relief, that he will not be running again. I say relief because I believe when the Hon. Member the other day referred to me he indicated that my own past and future were the subject of some apprehension. Nonetheless, we are learning with sadness that he will not be running again. We sought together for a way in which we might recognize not only his outstanding service but associate him in some way with the future workings and operation of this Chamber.
Therefore, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), we agree that we should propose a motion which I will now move with their support. I am happy to see the Hon. Member wearing a rose.

March 13, 1984
Tributes


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He indicated the other day when he was speaking to the announcement of my retiring that he remembered the past when I had shown some interest in his Party. I see a hopeful symbol from our side that in the future he may see an interest in our Party.
It gives me great pleasure to move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the New Democratic Party:
That this House, desiring to record its deep appreciation of the distinguished and faithful service to Parliament and to Canada of the Honourable Stanley Knowles, P.C., B.A., B.D., LL.D., designate him, effective upon his retirement from his membership in the House, an honorary officer of the House of Commons with an entree to the Chamber and a seat at the Table.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg North Centre has gained lustre from the attainments of its extraordinary Member. It goes down with such ridings as Prince Albert, Mount Royal and Algoma East, which became household words because of the stature of those who represented them. If this were hockey, we would retire his riding-


Mr. Broadbent:: Wishful thinking!


Erik Nielsen: -like one retires the sweater of a Richard or a Gordie Howe. But in the hard arena of political life, one cannot retire a riding simply to honour a Member.
We have done the next best thing and, in an extraordinary parliamentary gesture-never before to my recollection has a sitting Member been distinguished by this sort of honour- expressing our rare affection for a man embodying the best qualities of parliamentary life, we are offering him a life membership in the institution which he has graced by his presence. Some time in the future, whenever he shall choose to avail himself of the privilege, the Table of this House shall become, for a time at least, a small corner of Winnipeg North Centre. We look forward to that experience, as I am sure does the Hon. Member whom we so justifiably honour in this fashion today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is with immense pleasure that I rise to second the motion moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) just a moment ago. The House is in the process of uniquely honouring a unique Canadian. Throughout his 38 years the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has graced the political process in our country, I think for two reasons. One is that he has been a man passionately committed in his political life, not simply to the abstract principles of social democracy, but to the details of reform for pensioners, to the details of reform for the poor, to the details of achieving equality for women. He has been a man who has seen that the parliamentary process is used, and passionately used, to bring about concrete change and improvement in the living conditions of ordinary people.
Second, and perhaps of greater importance in terms of the reason all Parties in the House are honouring him today, Stanley Knowles has seen the importance of the civilizing process of Parliament itself and has accepted this, I think more deeply than any other Member of Parliament during his time. He has well understood the unwritten rule of parliamentary democracy, which is that the deeply felt divisions that exist in society would be expressed violently ultimately if it were not for the civilizing process of parliamentary, democratic change. Throughout his life, Stanley Knowles has well understood that and has had that important lesson to teach the rest of us. His passionate commitment to the rules of this House has not been a fetish concern with irrelevant tradition. It has been a concern with the fundamentals of democratic change. That is what Stanley Knowles is all about.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Prime Minister most directly for this initiative on his part. I was not able to be here about a week ago when other things were said about the Prime Minister's retirement. If I had been here, I would have made some deeply-felt, positive remarks about the Prime Minister. I would have been more sparing on those matters on which I disagree. I want to stress that this is an act of unqualified generosity on the part of the Prime Minister which has received the support which it ought to have from all Members of the House. For that I thank him on behalf of my colleagues.
I also want to refer to his observation that the man we are honouring today is wearing a rose. The Prime Minister suggested that, just as Stanley Knowles referred to the early days when the Prime Minister truly was a wise person, perhaps in his latter years Mr. Knowles had changed his political views. I simply want to say to the Prime Minister that Stanley is elderly, but he is not senile!
I conclude more graciously by once again saying thank you to Members of all other Parties in this House who have joined with us in honouring this truly distinguished Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to express pleasure in joining with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in wearing a beautiful rose today. I may even take the opportunity to say that the rose I wear today was presented to me by a person who no doubt presents one to the Prime Minister from time to time, namely our very good friend Joyce Fairbairn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am happy to be associated with what was said about the Prime Minister on March 5. Of course, I am extremely grateful for the proposal he is making to the House at this time. I have to be careful not to make the kind of long speech we used to be able to make. However, let me say that it means a great deal to me that so many people are making kind
March 13, 1984

remarks about the job I am trying to do as a Member of Parliament.
Many people have written to me. What they have written has been very helpful. I am particularly grateful for the book about my life prepared by my good friend, Dr. Susan Mann Trofimenkoff. In addition, a very interesting book was prepared a few weeks ago by Dr. Gerry Harrop, formerly of Saskatchewan and now in Nova Scotia. In his book he describes my work with the phrase that I have been "an advocate of compassion". To have that suggested as a description of my work as a Member of Parliament means a great deal to me. Perhaps I should go on to say that if that is true, that there are some of us who work hard with compassion for the people of this country, I recommend that form of activity to another 50, 100 or more Members of Parliament. It is good for us as Members of Parliament to work for a better life for the people we represent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am, of course, extremely grateful for the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and others to try to give me a chance to live again. Members know of my difficulty after my years of hard work. I have damage to my brain because of a stroke I suffered, and the last two and a half years have been difficult for me. For the first year and a half I dared to hope that I could run again. However, when one tries to work with brain damage like this, one realizes there are some things one cannot do. Perhaps my troubles are more difficult than I realize with the speech I am making now!
Let me say that it helps a great deal when people are kind to me. 1 appreciate it. I thank the Prime Minister for the suggestion he has now made, namely that I have the opportunity after the next election to return here to the Table and be here from time to time. It will give me the feeling that I am still alive. I am still interested in the job I have done in past years. It means a great deal to me if I can report to my doctors that I am feeling a little better. Maybe I can say it is partly as a result of the proposal that has now been made by the Prime Minister.
Those must be my words. Perhaps I might say a word or two not normally permissible under the rules pertaining to speaking. I would like to conclude in this way: Pierre, I want to thank you so much for what you have done for me. You have given me a chance to live. I deeply appreciate it. I will try to do my best. Thank you ever so much.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried unanimously.
Motion (Mr. Trudeau) agreed to.
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the committee requests a comprehensive response.


AGRICULTURE-PRESENTATION OF THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, on which I am once again privileged to serve as Chairman.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 46, I wish to table a document bearing the title: "Response of the Government to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts Report of November 17, 1983 with respect to Canadair Ltd."


CITIZENSHIP ACT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an Act to amend the Citizenship Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to protect foreign-born Canadian citizens from the politically motivated administrative acts of some Iron Curtain countries, such as Czechoslovakia, whereby, before being granted a visa to visit their country of birth and their relatives still living there, these new Canadians are being required under duress to take an oath or some other declaration of allegiance to their native land. With the protection which this amendment offers, Iron Curtain countries will no longer be able to blackmail their erstwhile nationals into renewing their allegiance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
March 13, 1984
Order Paper Questions

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved:: That the First report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments be now concurred in.
He said: I have had discussions with the other House leaders, Mr. Speaker, and I think I can say that we all support this motion. Even the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) supports it.
Accordingly, would you kindly ask the House to put this motion to the vote?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 321, 443, 444, 450, 487, 488, 557 and 577.


Mrs. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the Government, what was the longest period that a question remained on the Order Paper unanswered after having been repeatedly asked in each new session of Parliament and in each new Parliament?
2.	(a) Has question No. 234, on the subject of Air Canada passes and the Canadian Transport Commission, been on successive Order Papers for approximately seven and one-half years (b) to the knowledge of the Government, was it one of the longest-standing questions left unanswered to date and, if so, for what reasons?


John Leslie Evans: The information requested, if existing, might be available in the Index and Reference Branch of the House of Commons. See also Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, Fifth Edition, Citations 357 and 363.


Mr. Howie: Is there a contemplated date for completion of the Maritimes Forest Research Centre at Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, what is it and what is the current estimated cost of the project?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: The
Maritimes Forest Research Centre is part of a program involving shared common facilities with three other establishments. The research facility portion of the complex is scheduled for completion in February, 1986, at a cost of $22.5 million.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1983 were any new rules for cutting wood on Crown lands at the Acadia Forestry Station and Canadian Forces Base Gagetown implemented and, is allocation of such rights now made by tender?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Since April 1, 1983 all cutting of wood on Acadia Forestry Station has been done by timber sales agreements which are issued after tender. Prior to that time, cutting was done by timber permits which were issued following an application from an individual. Since April 1, 1983, all new cutting and clearing on the military manoeuvre area of Canadian Forces Base Gage-town has been done by timber sales agreements issued after tender. On the remainder of the base, timber permits are still used for the sale of timber and are issued to traditional operators for cutting on their traditional cutting areas.


Mr. Howie: To date what was the total cost of the Canada Tomorrow Conference and what were its purposes and objectives and did it achieve them?


Mr. Roiland Dion (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: The Government of Canada sponsored the "Canada Tomorrow" Conference to begin a process of consultation among Canadians who are developing, implementing and being affected by technological change.
The total cost of expenditures and commitments related to the "Canada Tomorrow" Conference was $651,000. Included in the figure are preparation for the Conference, the commissioning of research papers, administration for the conference and the production of the Conference follow-up materials: a summary, to be made available to the general public; and, a record of proceedings, collection of commissioned papers and hour-long videotape summary, to be sold to interested parties.
The Conference was successful in defining the critical issues of technological change. It was the first Conference to feature such extensive participation from the different sectors and was the beginning of an ongoing process of exchange.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of the Environment agree to purchase Mignon Island in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) at what cost (b) for what purpose (c) on what date was the transaction completed?
March 13, 1984


Hon. Chas L. Caccia (Minister of the Environment):: No.
However, the Department of the Environment agreed to purchase the Mingan Islands in the Province of Quebec, (a) The cost was $5,000,000. (b) The purpose was to establish a national park, (c) The transaction was completed on July 8, 1983.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of the Environment agree to assist the Banff water supply system and, if so, what was the cost of the assistance?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: As
owner of the Banff water supply system, the Department of the Environment is responsible for its funding. The current estimated cost of the funding is $3,800,000.


Mr. Ogle: 1.	With reference to the annual report of the Canadian International Development Agency under "Special Contributions" did the Agency make such contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency and, if so, did such contributions rise from nil three years ago to $400,000 in 1980-81 and to $520,000 in 1981-82?
2.	For what purposes are these contributions used?
3.	Are these contributions consistent with the Agency's mandate?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada along with other donor countries has been a member of the Technial Assistance and Co-operation Fund of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 1962. The Fund's mandate is to promote the transfer of theoretical and practical knowledge on the utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and to assist developing countries in improving the efficiency and security of their activities in the atomic energy field. Particular fields of activity covered by projects administered by the Fund are general atomic energy development, nuclear physics, nuclear chemistry, prospecting, mining and processing of nuclear materials, nuclear engineering and technology, the application of isotopes and radiation in agriculture, medicine, biology, industry and hydrology and safety in nuclear energy.
In the statistical annex of CIDA's Annual Review 1981-82 the line "special contribution" is a mistake. Special contributions to the Technical Assistance and Co-operation Fund have not been made since 1978. However, a Canadian "special contribution" for technical assistance was given to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an independent intergovernmental organization under the aegis of the United Nations, in the total amount of Canadian $300,000 payable in three equal installments, one in 1977 and two in 1978.
2. This "special contribution" was used to support several projects in developing countries in the fields of agriculture and medicine, these projects having been approved by the IAEA but for which no funds were available under the Agency's (i.e. IAEA) technical assistance program.
Borrowing Authority Act
The amount of $ .32 million for 1979-80 shown in the Annual Review represents Canada's regular annual contribution to the Technical Assistance and Co-operation Fund of the IAEA. This figure should show on the above line "International Atomic Energy Agency" and in line with $ .40 million for 1980-81 and $ .52 million for 1981-82.
3.	Membership in the Technical Assistance and Co-operation Fund of the International Atomic Energy Agency falls within CIDA's mandate to support multilateral technical cooperation efforts.


Mr. Howie: 1. In (a) the current fiscal year (b) each of the two preceding fiscal years, with respect to the Canada Council (i) what total amount was expended by the Council (ii) how many persons were employed by the Council (iii) what amount was expended for staff remuneration?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canada Council as follows:
1983-84*	1982-83	1981-82(i)	Total expenditures	$77,405,000	$72,005,329	$62,828,982(ii)	Total person years	235	230	224(iii)	Staff remuneration: Salaries and wages Employee benefits	$ 7,171,000 831,600	$ 6,469.720 806,101	$ 6,009,387 666,443$ 8,002,600	$ 7,275,821	$ 6,675,830
* Projected figures for current fiscal year


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone).

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Just before the House adjourned at one o'clock, I had risen at the end of the speech made by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) to ask a question. I understand that he will accept questions and we have not had a 10-minute question period after his speech. I wonder if we could have that period before you recognize the next Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: A 10-minute question and commentary period is allowed after the speech made by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). Does the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) agree to this provision?


Arnold John Malone: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in a number of points which the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) made, but I am particularly interested in what he has said on other occasions as well dealing with moving coal that has very low sulphur content from the Kootenays, British Columbia and presumably Alberta to markets in eastern Canada for hydro purposes and the like. I am interested in those remarks for three reasons. The first reason I am interested in is that if we are to do something serious about acid rain, we will have to use the kind of coal to which the Hon. Member refers rather than the coal with high sulphur content which we are buying from the United States.
Second, I agree with the Hon. Member that the coal to which he refers is a Canadian product. If there is no great difference in cost, particularly when adding in the cost of reducing the sulphur content of the American coal to prevent acid rain, I would be very interested in seeing his coal brought to market in the east.
The third reason I am interested, and I must say this very strongly, is that we in Thunder Bay have developed a major coal terminal. If we were to move coal through that terminal the way I think we would, that coal terminal would become almost as large as the one in Vancouver. Certainly jobs on the railways in Atikokan, Thunder Bay and throughout the country would be created if this happened.
I think we on this side of the House are very interested in the kind of proposition made by the Hon. Member. I would ask him if he can give us a little more detail than he has furnished up to now regarding the expected costs of this operation, bearing in mind that some very large savings can be made, particularly in terms of environmental savings and savings through the creation of jobs. If those jobs are not created, we will have to use the UIC and other forms of federal assistance to support the people who will not have those jobs. If we can create more jobs, it will be a great advantage. I would ask the Hon. Member to give us a little more detail on this subject.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to answer the question put to me by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). There has been an extensive study done on this matter by the United Mine
Workers of America, District No. 18, being the Submission on Canadian Use of Western Canada Coal of June 15, 1983. That study was presented to the Ministry of Transport which has been looking at it. From the information which was supplied to us through a conference of coal producers and others, that Department is looking at the possibility of a requirement for a subsidy in the neighbourhood of about $23 a tonne.
At the present time about three million or four million tonnes of western Canada coal is coming from Byron Creek and Alberta and going to Ontario. That coal is mainly being shipped to eastern Canada for blending in order to stop the kinds of things we are talking about with regard to acid rain. As the Hon. Member knows, we are shipping some coal from the west at the present time but another 16 million tonnes of coal with tremendously high sulphur content is coming in from the United States.
As the Hon. Member has stated, this scheme would do away with a large amount of unemployment. We would also have the opportunity of blending coal to meet the needs of Ontario Hydro and steel mills in Ontario. As well, we know at this time that some contracts contain minimum and maximum clauses, and even if we were dealing with the minimum clauses in those contracts, we could immediately begin, to ship in the neighbourhood of another five million tonnes of coal from western Canada, whether it be from British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan.
Dealing with the specific questions asked with regard to acid rain, those answers are not available to us. We do know that it makes sense to deal with the cause rather than the effect of using dirty coal. As I suggested, the coal we are using produces sulphur emissions of 800 per cent whereas the coal in western Canada has a sulphur content of .05 per cent. The coal that is coming in from the Appalachians has a sulphur content of anywhere between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. The ramifications and opportunities are tremendous.
In the communities of the Kootenays and in Alberta resolutions were put before the committees requesting that a study be done on the cost of transporting this coal, and that the study look at the possibility of the cost being shared equally. If we are talking about a $23 subsidy on the transportation of coal, $7.50 would be charged to the consuming province, $7.50 would be charged to the producing province, and the third $7.50 would be charged to the federal Government, which would help to solve the acid rain problem. That is the kind of study we would like to see put forward. I hope I was able to answer the Hon. Member's question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I appeal to Hon. Members that they keep both their questions and their responses brief and to the point in keeping with the guidelines.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member if he could supply a copy to our office of that particular study which he appears to have in his hand. I would be very interested in receiving it. That is the United Mine Workers' study.
March 13, 1984


Sidney James Parker: I would be very happy to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If there are no further questions, we will now proceed with debate. The Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais).


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the Chair realizes that Mr. Speaker did recognize the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone). I had forgotten that. I do now recognize the Hon. Member for Crowfoot.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The job of French translation and interpretation will be made much easier now if I can say something.
I would like to address the question of the borrowing in which our country has become involved by starting out with the perspective that this country is unique in the world. It ought not to have the economic problems it does. This is a resource-rich nation, one which has been blessed with virtually every resource one could possibly imagine. We are wanting in almost nothing. We have an educated population, we have standards of health, transportation and communication which should advance this nation very much into the forefront of the industrialized nations of the world. Yet, Sir, it is against this background that we recognize that Canada, with all of this enormous natural wealth, is borrowing at a rate parallel to that of Brazil, Mexico and other Latin American countries. Our debt, Sir, is one of the highest of the industrialized nations. We are a country which borrows, borrows and borrows.
In this particular Parliament, we have had presented to us Bill C-30 for $12 billion; Bill C-59 for $14 billion; Bill C-lll for $6.6 billion; Bill C-125 for $7 billion; Bill C-128 for $4 billion; Bill C-143 for $19 billion; Bill C-151 for $10.71 billion, and now we are debating Bill C-21 for the highest amount, that is, $29.55 billion. That is a total of $102 billion of borrowing in one Parliament. While I recognize that that amount is to be spread over a four-year period, the truth of the matter is that we are borrowing more in this particular Bill than the sum that made up the total budget of the Government when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power. We are borrowing more than double that amount.
Most people in the private sector of Canada are intuitively aware that borrowing is not automatically wrong. However, when we borrow for the purposes of making money it has much more credence than borrowing just for our common pleasure. It makes sense for a farmer to borrow to expand his land base or to buy machinery and for a store owner to borrow to expand his operation because they are borrowing on an economic principle, which is to make their equity grow.
This Government is now, Sir, borrowing to pay for the debt of its past borrowings. One-third of the tax dollars collected are used to pay the service of our national debt. Every time a taxpayer anywhere in Canada pays $3 to the Government of Canada, one of those dollars is used to pay interest on that
Borrowing Authority Act
accumulated borrowing. We have become a part of a treadmill of debt from which this Government has found no way to remove itself.
We are now some $180 billion in total debt as a nation. One of the difficulties, which I find, Sir, is that while the notion of democracy is something which is near and dear to the hearts of most Canadians, and while the concept of democracy implies that the people govern themselves, we are now dealing with numbers so large that on these issues the people, in essence, simply give up. They do not know what a billion dollars is and they do not know the implication of the increase from $15 billion of borrowing to $29.2 billion of borrowing. Therefore, in some attempt to simplify it, or at least to make it understandable, let me underline just how much a billion dollars is. A billion dollars means that if you spent $100 a minute for every minute of every hour for 24 hours a day for seven days a week, it would take you 19 years to spend a billion dollars. That, Sir, is the magnitude of that number.
Yet, Sir, Canada is locked in in an undisciplined way to the American economy following the difficulties here, which are also present in that nation. That nation has a debt which will approach $1.8 trillion by March of 1985. The amount is so staggering that people cannot use the latex of their minds to stretch around its circumference. But that debt, Sir, means that if $1,000 bills were stacked one on top of the other, it would make a column going up into the sky that is 120 miles high. As a Member of Parliament from Alberta, every time I fly between my constituency and Ottawa, I am flying at a height of approximately 40,000 feet. That seems to me like a long way up. Yet, that distance is just a little more than seven miles. If we ran into that column of the debt of the United States there would be still 117 miles of debt above us. All I can say is that we are dealing with numbers that are enormous in scope.
North America must get off the treadmill of borrowing, at least borrowing to the extent we are now. Generally speaking, we have taken the perspective that we can borrow in a healthy economy up to about 2 per cent of our Gross National Product. Canada today is borrowing between 5 per cent and 8 per cent of our Gross National Product. The ratio of debt to the strength of our economy is such that we are certainly extending ourselves beyond the capacity of our GNP to grow. That is the important fact to bear in mind, because when we borrow to improve our standard of living today, we are mortgaging the future of tomorrow's generation. If we borrow beyond the capacity of the Gross National Product to grow, future generations will be born with a debt. A new citizen born today inherits a debt of about $1,700 at the moment of birth. This treadmill must be broken, because this borrowing of $29 billion is such that it creates a real hardship for our citizens today and for those to come tomorrow.
A speaker from the Government side projected earlier today the view that the purpose of the borrowing was, to a large extent, to provide make-work projects through Canada Works,

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
New Elorizons projects and community development programs, and is therefore justified. I suggest to him-I believe it was the Eton. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker)-that he read the latest issue of Time Magazine, that of March 5, 1984, which talks about the deficit and borrowing in the U.S. The simple conclusion one can draw from that article is that there are three specific areas in which borrowing does significant damage to a free enterprise economy: the effect on interest rates, employment and inflation.
We have to recognize that it is not only governments that borrow money. The private sector, farmers, fishermen, businessmen and manufacturers, all seek ways to increase their capital. However, when the Government goes to the market and asks for $29.2 billion, it has the effect of driving up interest rates for everyone else. That is precisely the situation we are in today. Interest rates, while lower than a year ago, are still artificially high, certainly when compared to the average over the past decade. The real creators of wealth, the private sector, are attempting to build their businesses and create jobs, but they cannot do that efficiently because the Government has taken all the cheap money for Government services, which is the least efficient use of capital. Because interest rates are up there has been a decrease, as the statistics show, in the establishment of new businesses, with a resulting negative impact on employment in Canada.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member across the way took the position that when the Government borrows money, we are able to supply make-work projects. I, like other Members, will apply for the money for make-work projects in my constituency when it is there, but I hope the day will soon arrive when we no longer have make-work projects, because it does not do us any good to pay a student to paint a hall somewhere after which he is out of work again. What we need to do is to build permanent factories, create permanent jobs, which in turn creates the wealth from which the Government collects tax dollars. That is the way you pay for the social needs of this country. We have to build a bigger pie.
I do not understand for a single moment how the little island of Japan, with a few resources such as fish, tin and nothing else except an educated people, has the second largest economy in the world. Sir, I started that sentence wrong. I said I do not know how. Well, I do know how. They do it through productivity; their people work. But what do we do here? We create every stumbling block you can imagine to discourage people from working. We put interest rates up so high that no one is going to borrow money to develop his business. We have Revenue Canada which acts as though it were the Gestapo, chasing people to try to gather the money for the Government of Canada to spend. When you see the frustration of constituents in trying to deal with the Government, trying to get through the red tape and inefficiencies, knowing that when they pay their taxes $1 in every $3 goes to pay for past borrowings, it is no wonder the economy is grinding down.
It makes you wonder what the Japanese would do if they ever got hold of this country. Here we are, Sir, blessed with an educated people, one third of the world's fresh water, tremendous natural resources, and we cannot put our act together. It seems to me the message is clear: there is something wrong with the Government because the management of this country is obviously faltering.
It would be interesting, Mr. Speaker, if we could get more Liberals to speak on this issue. We have $29 billion in borrowing authority being sought, and hardly any of them stand up to comment. To repeat, economists generally agree that we can safely borrow up to about 2 per cent of our Gross National Product. We can borrow more when we have an expanding GNP. But here we are hovering around 5 per cent to 8 per cent of the GNP and the money is not being used for productive purposes.
It behooves me to say we are on the Turner turnpike. It was the former Minister of Finance, John Turner, who started us on this road. He introduced the greatest spending of any Minister of Finance to that date in history. It was John Turner who gave us the largest debt we had until that time. It was his Budget which compelled succeeding Ministers of Finance to take the same road. Therefore, while there are those who would appreciate not having a Liberal leadership convention, who believe that John Turner should simply be anointed leader, the truth is that this country is in this desperate economic position because of John Turner. He started us down that road, and the Government has been going in that direction ever since. We have failed to pay our debts. As a nation, we believe falsely that the next generation could pick up this debt. Some day the pillars will crumble, the economy will collapse, and the future generation will have to pay the debt. People in private life recognize that.
Governments have two hopes. The first hope they have is that there will be a period of extended inflation. That is one way to cure a debt. Certainly it is an unsatisfactory hope to have. The other hope is that there will be a total collapse of the economy. I should add that there is a third hope, which is that the bills will be paid. In 16 years there has been no effort made by the Government to take the position of paying its bills. The debts continue to grow, and today we are just short of $200 billion in total accumulated debt.
I see you are giving me a high sign, Mr. Speaker. It would be most unfortunate if 1 were cut off now as I am not yet through the first two pages of my comments. I am just warming up to what the Government is doing to us. We must bear in mind that Canada is now one of the world's most indebted nations. We rank with Brazil and Mexico. We are indebted on a larger percentage of our total wealth than are most other nations in the world.
Earlier in my speech I said that by March of 1985 it is projected that the United States will have a debt of $1.8 trillion. That is a column of $1,000 bills 120 miles high. Members on the Government side may shrug and suggest that that is not the debt in Canada. There are well over 200 million people in the United States and only about 24 million in Canada. Canada's per capita debt is 50 per cent higher than
March 13, 1984

that in the United States. Based on a per citizen average, our debt is much higher than theirs.
I have caught sight of your signal, Mr. Speaker, and I will sit down soon. It is interesting that for four years the United States has made every effort possible to turn around its debt situation. That is largely a measure of the campaign which is going on now. My final comment is that Canada must get control of its debt. It must decrease the amount that it is borrowing, or an unnecessary peril will befall all of tomorrow's children of this great and blessed land. They should not have to bear that burden.


Mr. Ferguson:: Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the opening comments of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) when he stated that we are wanting in almost nothing. Those were his actual words. I agree that this is a great nation with a tremendous future, tremendous human and natural resources, good government, good social programs and a safety net put in place by a Liberal Government. We have a safety net for society for the difficult times brought on by a world recession, one which served us well prior to the recovery. To date it has produced something like 424,000 jobs in Canada.
Could the Member explain why, during the two years prior to the Diefenbaker years, the percentage of debt compared to the GNP was 2 per cent lower than in the Tory years and then dropped off dramatically in the later sixties? Even this year it is only 1 per cent above those Tory years of the late fifties and early sixties.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, neither the past nor past administrations are important. The economy is important and so is how wisely we steward that economy and how well we create jobs. Whatever the Hon. Member might be attempting to project, save the extreme world-wide recession of the 1930s, we have never had an unemployment situation in the country which matches the one we have now. Employment opportunities will be redressed when the private sector of the nation begins to put in place permanent, long-term jobs. That will only take place when we back away from government involvement in the private sector, when there is trust in Revenue Canada, and when the borrowing on the international markets is not competing to such a significant extent to drive interest rates up as to curtail the investments of the private sector and to hold down the opportunities of employment in the country.
I know the Hon. Member from his good constituency of Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson). I believe he would be one of the first to recognize and admit outside the House that it is time we began to encourage efficiency and permanent employment by a stimulus of the private sector. That will come about, irrespective of what the past may have been, by Canada's addressing itself to a policy which recognizes that to be the engine of our economy and by attaching ourselves to a policy which makes us stronger and more economically independent of any one nation. Until that is done we will not be a leader as Japan and others have been able to be.
Borrowing Authority Act


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask a question of my hon. friend and colleague. The Hon. Member mentioned that to repay the billions of dollars we are borrowing we are taking $1 out of every S3 collected. That is an excellent way to put it. Because of this we are unable to carry out some programs. We are unable to give women between 50 and 65 a decent living and we are allowing them to exist on welfare. This not only prevents us from doing certain things, but it requires the Government to do certain things.
I refer particularly to that excellent railway line between Dinosaur and Stettler which serves scores of farmers in a wonderful grain growing and cattle raising country. There is now talk of closing that railway and leaving those farmers with the enormous expense of having to travel extra miles. This will ruin the lives they have planned for themselves.
If we are to get rid of this borrowing and live within our means does the Hon. Member think we would have to close excellent railway lines such as the one from Dinosaur to Stettler?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I will go even further than my good friend and neighbour, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I will say that the railway line ought to remain open from Dinosaur to Fertile junction. It serves 108 miles of line through 10 very vibrant communities. Should that railway line be abandoned, it will decrease the net income of more than 1,000 permit holders along that line. As their net income is decreased, so is their capacity to pay tax. It will add to their expense because they will then have to make long hauls. Some of those hauls will be in the neighbourhood of 50 to 55 miles from the more central points. When net incomes are decreased and less revenue comes to the Government of Canada the instinct of the Government is to borrow more money. This becomes a perpetual treadmill.
Obviously any railway has to stand on its own merit. There has been a rationalization across the Prairies of many of the old railway lines. I do not argue with that. In my riding there has been abandonment of more lines and miles of railway than in any other riding on the Prairies. In all probability it is a railway line that will become profitable by 1985 on the basis of the new rates, coupled with the new production of grain, which has been increasing at a rate of 40 per cent in the last five years. That amount will double in the next five years largely because of the new development with solonetzic soils in that area. I can document the fact on the basis of information from resource people in the area that, without equivocation, it will be a paying railway line that ought to stay in place. I say that it will make money for Canada, which will decrease our need to borrow. It is an excellent idea that the Hon. Member for Bow River but forward, and I appreciate it.


Mr. Parent:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I misunderstood what the Hon. Member said. We are dealing here with a principle. I believe he said that the Government should get out of the lives of businesses and let them do their work, which is creating jobs

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
and so on. What would the Hon. Member do about tax credits which are given to small and large businesses with regard to their capital costs? Would he also eliminate that type of subsidy, if you will, granted by the Government to business?


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member commenced by asking me the question on the basis of principle. I will first answer it on the basis of principle because it will be necessary to separate what I say from any specific case he may raise. The answer, purely on principle, would be yes. It would be necessary to get away from subsidies because, by their very nature, they create inefficiency. If he wants to extract that statement and use it against me in some future election, he can do so at the risk of breaching his own principle.
Let me go further and say that we all recognize that since certain regions of the country are more disadvantaged than others, there are systems which are put in place from the municipal to the federal level that do not simply take the bottom line into account. This is done because we care about people. Therefore, there are railway lines that extend to places that are not efficient. There are mines operating in places that are not efficient. However, when the question is asked purely on the basis of an economic principle, the answer is yes, let us not provide subsidies but, rather, let us make businesses stand on their own feet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The time for questions and comments has expired.


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one point with respect to Bill C-21, which deals with the borrowing authority of the Government. This entire debate relating to our borrowing authority boils down to one question: is the Government's approach to encouraging economic recovery the proper approach? In other words, from a global point of view, will the expenditures of the Government as provided for in the current Budget encourage the recovery of our economy? I believe that our Budget will lead to economic recovery.
There are various ways in which we can look at this problem. I find it far too easy to single out certain items in the Budget and indicate that they are not sufficient or wrong. It is far too easy for us to ignore the medium or long-term effects of the benefits of a Budget, particularly the one we are studying today.
Naturally, we are looking toward a reduction in our deficit, as is any Member of the Opposition. We would like to see the deficit eradicated as soon as possible. There is more than one way to approach this problem. One approach is to slash expenditures and cut various programs, with the eventual hope of arriving at a balanced set of books. We do not believe in that approach. We believe that the only way to balance our Budget is by improving the productivity of the country to the point where revenues will increase in an amount sufficient to meet our expenditures. Increased productivity is also necessary in order to improve our competitive position in the world. We face problems if we cannot sell our products around the world.
The main purpose of our Budget is to increase productivity. We intend to do this by proposing several measures. First, we will attempt to simplify the tax system. As Hon. members are aware, that system has become so complicated that even our expert tax lawyers will no longer give an opinion on it. Second, we will attempt to initiate steps that will increase confidence in the country, including that of the private sector and of investors whom we will try to entice to Canada. At the same time we want to establish some confidence in the workers of the country. In that respect we will improve our pension system.
One of my objectives when I came here five years ago was to examine the possibility of improving the lot of Canadians over the long term. I recognized full well that we had become far too dependent on the state and that this could not continue over the long term.
I am very proud to have served as vice-chairman on the task force on pension reform, and am deeply grateful to the Government for accepting our recommendations, which will help Canadians to help themselves. They provide the means and the mechanism by which Canadians can look after their own problems in old age. In the next ten or twenty years I think the items contained in the Budget with respect to pension reform will be of great, great benefit to this country.
By encouraging our youth, which we are doing through measures in the Budget, I think we are at the same time improving productivity. By increasing the security we are offering to home owners through an insurance scheme which will guarantee interest rates that home owners will be paying we are increasing confidence and productivity.
Some of our sales tax changes will improve the climate for business. We are proposing some tax assistance for employee profit participation plans, which is another way of improving productivity. We are proposing tax assistance for employee stock option plans, which is yet another improvement to productivity.
In short, the fact that the debate has come this far is testimony that Members opposite, to my mind, have either not read the Budget or, if they have, have not understood it. I think that because we are asking for borrowing authority based on a Budget which is reasonable and predicated on arriving at the same end as that proposed by Members opposite, it is a waste of time to discuss the amounts involved in it, because these have nothing to do with what will be spent. That will come through in the Estimates. I rest my case, Mr. Speaker.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have only one question for the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais). I noted with some interest, a reference he made, I presume, to himself and to his Party. This is as close to a direct quote. I believe he said "We, just as much as anybody in the Opposition, want the deficit decreased."
In light of that statement, why is it that during every fiscal year borrowing has increased save in 1979 when the Conserva-
March 13, 1984

tive Party was in power? Why is it that each year the amount has increased, if we are to believe that Members opposite as much as anyone else want the debt to decrease?


Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, I think the question put by the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) has to be taken in relative terms. When he says that the deficit has increased every year, 1 do not think he is correct. In some years, for instance in 1979, 1980 or 1981, it decreased as a percentage of the Gross National Product. I think the deficit has been increasing since then because of the recession we have been through. There is nothing wrong with that. Governments are there for that purpose. I do not think the Hon. Member is correct in saying that the deficit has increased year by year without fail.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member spoke about increased productivity. We have had an excellent record of job creation since the recovery began. Has this job creation reflected on export surpluses? Is there any trend toward increased exports in 1984, bearing in mind that there has been a dramatic increase in permanent job creation and in increased productivity?


Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken I believe the December figures show that our trade surplus was of the order of $2 billion, which is the highest figure in history for any given month. That very clearly equates to jobs and it is an achievement we have to keep up. That is really what I think our Budget is doing. It is essential and very important that we continue to create jobs. I see the Hon. Member for Crowfoot has another question.


Mr. Shields:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais). He just indicated that the surplus was $2 billion for exports. Does he have any idea how much of that is attributed to the export of heavy oil to the United States because Canada does not have the refining capacity for heavy oil?
Possibly while the Hon. Member is on his feet, could he also indicate to us why it is that in Canada there has not been the up-turn with regard to the creation of jobs that there has been in the United States and that Canada's unemployment figures are still rising? We have still not replaced the jobs we lost in the early part of the depression that we have just experienced.


Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to the first part of the Hon. Member's question. I do not know how much heavy oil was included in export sales to the United States.
As to the second part of his question, my information is that we have created some 440,000 jobs in the last year. However, our work force is increasing at a faster rate than we are creating jobs. But we are proposing to create 1.5 million jobs within the next six or seven years. Hopefully, that will bring unemployment down to a level which is more respectable.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, If there are 1.5 million people unemployed today, and taking into account the number of
Adjournment Motion
young people entering the labour force each year, amounting to close to 300,000 to 400,000, if we are going to create 1.5 million jobs in the next six or seven years, that would indicate, would it not, that we will have higher unemployment at the end of seven years than we have today?


Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that the percentage of unemployment in the year 1987 will be something like 8 per cent, compared with 11 per cent or 12 per cent today. I am not sure that the figure of 400,000 youth, which the Hon. Member says is entering the labour force each year, is correct. If it is, it means we will be creating more than that many jobs each year.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to say that I have just one more question, but I have already said that and then changed my mind.
I have a question for the Hon. Member, who is attempting to defend the Government's borrowing, and I give him credit for that attempt. How does he justify or what does he presume is the reason that the per capita debt in Canada in 50 per cent larger than that in the United States?


Louis R. Desmarais: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that we are not comparing apples with oranges. The manner in which they calculate the debt in the United States may not be at all the way in which we calculate it here in Canada. I would like to get a little more advice on that subject before I answer the Hon. Member's question.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen)- Emergency Measures-Ministerial power to establish civilian internment camps, (b) Position of Minister of Justice; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell)-Immigration-Head tax imposed on Chinese immigrants, (b) Request that Government pay compensation; the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker)-Canadian Pacific Railway-Working conditions of employees at Cranbrook, B.C.

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, here we go again! For the eighth time since the last election the Government is before Parliament asking for more borrowing authority. This time the borrowing Bill is the largest in Canadian history. Just a moment ago the Hon. Member opposite asked if they were not doing something right. They are doing everything wrong.
In the first session of this Parliament the Government came to us seven times for additional borrowing authority. That is truly a remarkable record of fiscal management, accountability and responsibility.
On May 10, 1983, during debate on the last borrowing Bill I noted that the Government had approached the House only three weeks after bringing in a Budget which added $31 billion to our existing gross national debt of a staggering, and I say staggering, $134 billion. With this Bill it wants to increase that burden by an additional $14.7 billion. As I said, here we go again! Three weeks after the Budget, the Government is seeking to borrow an amount which is almost equal to the entire gross debt of $31 billion when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. Now the Government wants $29.55 billion.
This borrowing should be exactly halved to make any sense whatsoever. It should be no more than $15 billion. Right now there is $5 billion in their till. It is more than enough to take these wastrels to November 1 at least. What an accomplishment this Government has! What a legacy the Prime Minister leaves to his successor, to all Canadians and to our future generations! Our children are buried in debt, inundated. That is what it is all about.
As I said, the Government does not really need the money because a new Government Leader, unfortunately a Liberal, will take office shortly after June 17, and this Government's Budget will no longer be the Budget of the Government. Leadership candidates in Liberal ranks are already making statements about government waste and profligacy. The two of them walked right into that trap the other morning. We heard the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) take them apart inch by inch and piece by piece. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), of all people, said that the Government's response to problems was to throw money at them. The Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development (Mr. Johnston) questioned universal programs. It was not us, it was the Government. We are the Party of free enterprise with a social conscience.
What could happen to the country? The new leader could go to the people in August, which of course would mean the election of a new Progressive Conservative Government. Or he could wait, prevaricate and finally go in 1985, and obviously the new Leader would not need money then because he would have to bring in a new budget anyway. The most we on this side of the House could countenance is $15 billion.
Bill C-21 provides the authority to borrow up to an additional $29.55 billion. Of the $29.6 billion projected deficit, only $25.55 billion must be borrowed, after taking into account non-budgetary sources of $4.05 billion. It was not long ago that C. D. Howe said, "What is a million?" The new C. D. Howe of this era is P. E. "What's a Billion" Prime Minister. What is a billion? the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) gave his definition of it. I should like to give a few examples to Canadians as well in terms that even a Prime Minister with no interest in economics whatsoever could understand.
A billion minutes ago Christ was walking on earth. A billion hours ago our ancestors lived in caves. A billion dollars ago was last week in terms of the way the Government sees things. What about $31.5 billion? Laid end to end in a line, that many dollar bills would stretch for three billion miles, or the equivalent of 304 round trips on the Trans-Canada Highway, or six round trips to the moon. On the other hand, 31.5 billion one dollar bills, stacked one on top of the other, would reach a height of 108 miles. Stacked separately, the Government could put 317 piles of dollar bills as high as the CN Tower in various cities and towns across Canada. Simcoe South could use one of those piles because it did not receive a cent from the Special Employment Initiatives Program, the slush fund of the Liberal Party. This is probably why the Government wants those extra $15 billion to $19 billion. All these towers could stand as monuments to Liberal fiscal irresponsibility. The House does not have to take my word for it. Hon. Members just have to read the reports of the Auditor General over the years of uncontrolled, runaway, profligate spending by the people across the aisle.
Bill C-21 is just another indication that the Government has given up on the concept of accountability. It needs no more than $15 billion, and it throws a red herring at us of $29.55 billion, part of a so-called $4 billion contingency fund. We are not told how this money will be spent. Will it be for one of those job-creation programs, which in reality is a job-replacement program? Will it be for another local initiatives program where every Liberal riding gets another poke at $500,000? The cracks are widening across the way. The Government would like to show us as being opposed to social programs when in reality we are the champions of them.
We are considering the largest borrowing Bill in the history of the country. The requirements in the Bill are equal to 91 per cent of forecast personal savings this year. The cupboards will be bare when the private sector comes looking for funds to expand, invest and create new jobs. We will be so poor if we let them go at it one more time that we will not be able to raise
March 13, 1984

umbrellas. One more go with this outfit, and I just do not know what will happen to our wonderful country of Canada.
Even this is not the total picture. The phalanx of Crown corporations do not require special authority from Parliament to raise funds in financial markets, nor must they tell Parliament what their financial requirements will be. Deficit financing is the legacy of the present Prime Minister's Government.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) stated the Liberal position quite clearly on February 22, 1983, long before we were thinking about this debate, when he told the House that "a deficit is no more and no less than an increase in future tax liabilities". He went on to say:
The present economic situation being as it is, I believe that the best way to stimulate the economy and maintain the income support programs that are necessary in our economy is to use the deficit.
That is the philosophy of the Government. The Liberals have certainly used the deficit; however, the only thing that has been stimulated has been the deficit itself. By their policies our dollar is softer than pita bread dough.
As Hon. Members are aware, interest rates are now rising rapidly. Last week one-year Treasury bills moved from 10.44 per cent to 10.95 per cent, an increase of over 50 bases points or about one-half of one per cent. The present net federal debt matures within about 2.5 years and its essential following interest rate debt. The effect of last week's increase alone increased the cost of carrying the $150 billion net debt by $750 million. This "little" increase totally shattered the Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), in my opinion.
On a national accounts basis, spending has climbed from $12.6 billion in 1968, a year that I would like to forget, to an estimated $107.5 billion this year. That is an increase of 773 per cent. Most of that increase has occurred since the Liberals were re-elected in February 1980, believe it or not. Relative to fiscal 1979-80, spending has risen by 97 per cent on a national accounts basis. There has been 97 per cent increase in spending since that day in 1980 when the Prime Minister stated, "We will not allow the deficit to rise any higher from any new program we announce". Let us keep that high-sounding promise in mind as we review the situation today.
By the end of this fiscal year the gross debt will be $190 billion. It was $31 billion when the present Prime Minister took office. The net debt this year will be $150.7 billion compared with $17.7 billion in 1968. The Budget of three weeks ago will add $110.8 billion to the net debt over the next four years. Remember, we have an increase in excise tax coming in October. The net national debt will have quadrupled to $261.5 billion in only eight years. Is it any wonder they have no qualms about walking in here and asking for an extra measly $29.5 billion? Government spending is now 26 per cent of GNP. How silly can we get? The cost of servicing this shameful debt in fiscal 1983-84 is $18.1 billion, rising to $24.7 billion by 1988, an increase of 17 times the cost at the time when the Prime Minister took office.
Borrowing Authority Act
In 1984-85, service costs will reach $20.4 billion, or $800 per capita, or $1,900 per taxpayer. As has been pointed out, this is double that in the United States. Is it any wonder that Revenue Canada must stoop to such depths to wring every dollar from Canadians and then some? The cases on my desk alone are horrifying.
The only difference between this Government and Jesse James is that the latter used a gun. People knew exactly what he wanted and how he planned to get it. With this Government, most Canadians do not have a clue where we are going or how we are going to pay the cost of getting there. As I said, this Bill does not tell us one thing about how the money will be spent.
The enormous cost of servicing the debt interferes with private sector borrowing. In the 1983 calendar year, federal Government borrowing accounted for 58 per cent of the net new security issues placed in Canada. This forces interest rates up for the private sector borrowers who must compete for what little is left after the Government gets its share. As long as this continues, there is no way that the private sector can bring about an enduring economic recovery. It is obvious that the Government cannot do it. The result is the economic quagmire in which we find ourselves.
In its submission to the Macdonald Commission on the economy, the Bank of Montreal points out the danger to private sector-lead growth stemming from the Government's deficit financing policy. It says that the most likely way to achieve higher rates of business investment over the medium term is to foster a decline in real rates of interest, a task that will be difficult to realize without a reduction in the federal Government's ever increasing claim on a limited pool of savings. It says also that without a reduction of the structural deficit, the resultant higher real rates could negate many of the tax incentives aimed at promoting business investment. John Bulloch of the CFIB pointed out another aspect of the problem in a speech last year when he said:
We still have to face the fundamental fact that we are looking at core deficits in our society that cannot be financed unless we curb its costs. To try to tax people for that amount would blow us out of the water as an economic power in terms of competing with the United States.
Note the references to core and structural deficits. The huge debt has become a fact of economic life in Canada. It seems that these ever-increasing borrowing Bills are here to stay, at least until the next election. That is what 16 years of this Prime Minister's style of socialism has done for us, started by the man who has the desire to replace him. It is too late for a new Liberal leader to make any difference. What is needed is a new Progressive Conservative Government committed to reducing the deficit, getting spending under control and restoring confidence-a word that Members opposite do not know the meaning of-among the business community. In its 1983 year-end economic assessment, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce noted:
In order to undertake long-term investment, business must be convinced that inflation and interest rates will not surge again. A clearly defined Government commitment to spending restraint and deficit reduction would go a long way

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
toward providing an economic environment conducive to long-term business investment.
What is happening? We are standing here criticizing $29.55 billion more, directly the opposite. This Government policy will heap abuse on our future generations. Business would be hard pressed to get a commitment from a Government that comes to Parliament seven times in one session looking for more and more money.
What are those programs doing? They are a disaster for the country. Nor does the investment community have much faith in a government that continues to live so far beyond its means. Everyone knows what happens to the neighbour down the street who does that. It does not take very long. We are lucky that it is not a lot worse. They do not want to hold the currency that continues to be debased by excessive government borrowing. Interest rates remain high as the Government attempts to support the dollar, driving job-creating capital investment elsewhere. If you do not believe me, look at some of the big corporations of Canada to see where they are putting the money. Where are the oil rigs, et cetera? This is the situation today because the Government has not balanced its books since fiscal 1969-70, and it shows no sign of doing so in the future.
In the past 20 years, as was pointed out by one of my colleagues, only the Crosbie Budget contained measures to reduce the deficit in a significant way. The Liberals, by contrast, cast money at every problem they encounter. What happened to the promise of no gasoline tax over 18 cents a gallon, and I say gallon? Canadair and de Havilland for example, have cost Canadian taxpayers $2.6 billion to date. That sum of money would have bailed out every small business that declared bankruptcy in 1982. It has been proven beyond doubt that in the past two years, only the small business sector has created jobs. They do not understand that because they have never been there.
Today the federal Government spends money at the rate of $274 million per day, $11 million per hour or $190,000 per minute. Just think of how much was spent during the time that the Prime Minister was walking through the snow last week. It is a safe bet that he was not contemplating the economic mess that he is leaving to his successor. If his successor is the one I am thinking about, he is the father of deficit financing in the Liberal Party. Woe to Canada if that should ever happen.
Perhaps he was thinking about Petro-Canada, which is yours, mine and ours, or about the National Energy Program, which western Canadians do not think of as theirs. Perhaps he was thinking of the state of affairs in the fisheries, now state-controlled, the seal hunt, or the forestry sector of the economy working at a little better than half speed.
Maybe he was wondering how he could throw more money at these problems since they do not want to go away on their own. Crown corporations are a crock of that well known stuff that you and I know all about. There is no cost control, no firings for inconsistency or incompetence. Never. Who in CIDA got fired over the project in Haiti with the $25 million waste? Was the Prime Minister considering his successes with
VIA Rail, Canadair, de Havilland, Challenger, Maislin and Dome? How much does Dome Petroleum owe in back income taxes? What about the state of our Armed Forces and the reduction of our commitment to NATO? I will bet that no part of that $29.55 billion even crossed his mind in those years. I doubt he gave these problems much thought. They have never been a priority of this Government in the past. From 1980 until today, a period in which the Canadian economy has experienced the worst depression since the 1930s, the Prime Minister has been out of the country a total of 187 days. His salary and expenses are somewhere around $130,700 per annum. The cost to the Canadian taxpayer in salary alone is $66,946 for his absence, not to mention private jets, gifts, meals and so on. In the same time period, the President of the United States had been out of his country a total of 36 days. He is looking after the shop.


Mr. Tobin:: He is on vacation in Florida.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: You had your chance yesterday. If you would stand sideways, I could see the people between your ears. Today the United States is showing a strong recovery while Canada lags far behind. Perhaps if the Prime Minister had given more of his time to pressing domestic matters and less to globe trotting, we would not be in the shape that we are in today. Perhaps the Government would not be before us seeking almost $30 billion to pay for the misguided policies of the past. I would like to equate them to that slippery slide to socialism. Those policies have resulted in Canada having one of the largest deficits in the western industrialized world, and only Italy will have a proportionately larger deficit than Canada in 1984.
I have a great deal more to say about the OECD and where we stand in the western world, Mr. Speaker, but I see that you are indicating that my time is up. All I can say is that I do not intend to support any action that will make more money available to Liberal slush funds, and I urge all Hon. Members with any backbone at all to stop this crazy deficit spending and send this Bill back to its creators with a hearty amen. Canadians expect more.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I have both a comment to make and a question to ask. While I have not been sitting in my place in the House for the whole of the Hon. Member's speech, I listened very carefully to the last part of his speech while watching the television in the lobby. I would like to make the comment that it is with a great deal of sadness that we listened to a Member opposite making a speech about the Budget and, in an apparent fishing expedition in his own mind, trying to find any and all ways of levelling criticism at the Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is sad that the Hon. Member should foolishly, I think, choose to describe as a waste of time and money the activities and the peace initiatives undertaken by the Prime Minister all around the world on behalf of all Canadians.
March 13, 1984

I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister's peace initiative is one which has enjoyed the non-partisan support of the House. It is a peace initiative endorsed not only by Members on this side of the House unanimously but one which has been endorsed by Members of the NDP and endorsed quite strongly by the Hon. Member's own Leader, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney). It is an initiative which has received the very strongest of all possible support from the former Prime Minister and former Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who has said repeatedly these last few months that the initiative is one that he believes has been undertaken by the Prime Minister in the most sincere way possible, that it is an initiative of Canada and of all Canadians and is one which he says deserves the support of all Canadians. I was pleased to hear the new Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Central Nova, echo in the House and elsewhere in Canada those sentiments. My comment, Mr. Speaker


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must-


Brian Vincent Tobin: My question, Mr. Speaker, is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has made a comment. Again, I appeal to all Hon. Members in the House to make their questions or comments brief and to the point. The Hon. Member is going a little bit overboard in this case. Perhaps we should allow the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) to respond, and if there is time, we will then return to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief. Of all people, I do not think that the Hon. Member across the way should talk about a fishing expedition when he knows what has happened to the fishing industry in his province, when he knows how many unemployed there are in his province and when he knows that the only relief for those unemployed is the porkbarreling under the Local Employment Initiatives Program and a few other programs which have been implemented there for re-election purposes.
As far as the Prime Minister's peace initiative is concerned, I did not say one word against that and never would. I applaud the peace initiative taken by the Prime Minister. That has nothing to do with 187 days of travel. That peace initiative consisted of a few goods days well spent, and we still applaud it. I would like to say one thing to my hon. friend. If that initiative was so successful, why did the Prime Minister tender his resignation?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was about to question the Hon. Member's integrity regarding this debate, but nothing I could say could more vividly exemplify his narrow partisanship than the kind of deficient answer he has given. I knew that the vision was narrow but I did not know that it could be focused on a pinpoint. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this chance to comment on that spurious attack on a great peace initiative.
Borrowing Authority Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I recognize the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) on debate. Speeches are now to be 10 minutes long.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. Before I begin, I wish to say that my father, Clancy Fisher, is currently a guest of the Canadian people and is enjoying a little stay at the University Hospital in London. I cannot think of very many better ways to see the Government spend its money than by making him comfortable in that marvellous institution. If we are going to talk about government spending today, I would like to dedicate my remarks to that great Canadian, my father, and wish him all the best on behalf of all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I see that it is a non-partisan sentiment. I know that my father is watching today and that he will thank the Tory and NDP Members for the kind words they have just passed along.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are debating a borrowing authority Bill. We are talking about government spending, and that takes us right to the heart of the political viewpoints and philosophies of each of the Parties in the Chamber. I think that in this pre-election period, it is important for us to note the general direction in which the given Parties would take the country. We do not have to turn to campaign rhetoric, to third-Party endorsements, or to some special economic analysis. We may turn right to the statements made by the individuals themselves in the Chamber. That is where we see how each Party would guide Canada if elected in the next general election. That is an analysis that I would like to undertake in the next few minutes.
Based upon its track record, I think it is clear that the Liberal Party believes in a partnership with the Canadian people. Members of the Liberal Party believe in a balance between what is needed and what is affordable. We believe that we should stimulate the economy in tough times, we should reach out to people who are in the greatest need, and we should use the country's resources as a blessing to cushion us when the rest of the world is having difficulty. That is the position taken by the Liberal Party.
The position taken by the Conservative Party is somewhat different. That position was revealed clearly by the remarks made by the last speaker. As we analyse those remarks, I think we will notice that Conservative Members love to wallow around in their love of money. It has gone beyond a desire for frugality and has become an obsession with Members on the other side. They love to pick out areas in which they think the Government can cut back and then to trumpet these from coast to coast. Again, we are in an analytical mood today. Let us note that Members of the Conservative Party cannot wait to hack and tear at the basic fibre of this marvellous country.
Let us look at what the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said as quoted in The Toronto Star of February 21, 1984:

March 13, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
Crosbie told reporters that in order to get deficits down: "You have to be tough, mean and nasty and do all kinds of unpleasant things. That's why I'm not going to outline what they would be now. That's for a government to do.''
What a marvellous position to be taken by a man who is a former Minister of Finance and who claims that he will be the next Minister of Finance!
Let us move one step further to another voice in the Tory Party, that of my neighbour, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). He said, as reported in Hansard on March 6, at page 1828-and you do not have to take my word for it, you can look it up-the following:
-there must be broad spending cuts-
-spending must be reduced in the broadest possible way-
-by cutting right across the board so that everybody would feel they had some
involvement in the reductions that were being applied through an over all
discipline.
Then he went on to say in that same speech that that is the way you do it in business. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the way you do it in business. I once worked in a business where they did it that way. The place went under within months. It is the dumbest possible approach to say that you can take that kind of meat axe and cut right across the board. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), another neighbour of mine, attacked the very heart of our support for the business and cultural communities in his speech on the Budget. He went after the CBC, VIA Rail, the post office, the energy grants, Canadair and de Havilland, and the Atomic Energy of Canada. He stopped only because his time ran out, and in each case it was attack-slash, attack-slash, attack-slash.
There was yet another example of what the Hon. Member for St. John's West was going to do in an article in The Toronto Star two weeks ago. The headlines were massive and shocking. He said at that time that he would introduce a means test to make sure that seniors and families did not get access to every government program that they have a right to enjoy.
All of this Tory attack is creating a clear image for the rest of the country. Again, do not take my word for it. Read what the observers themselves have to say. The Toronto Star on February 18 had this to say about the Hon. Member for St. John's West:
No wonder he isn't willing to tell Canadians before the next election how his Party would reduce the deficit.
So where is Crosbie going to cut? Is he going to cut the $10.4 billion going for pensions for the elderly, the $2.3 billion of family allowances, the $3.4 billion spent on welfare payments to the poor? Or will he cut into the $5.8 billion going to provincial governments for equalization. Or will he slash Ottawa's $7.7 billion share of the country's medicare and post-secondary education costs?
Within days the answer came from the Hon. Member for St. John's West. The answer to those questions was, yes, he would do that, and at least every Canadian in Toronto read the quote in the newspaper. They know where the Hon. Member for St. John's West and the frontbench Members opposite would take this country. Jamie Lamb of the Vanvouver Sun had the same kind of denunciation. He said on February 20:
As a result of Mr. Mulroney's activities last week, the public may begin to turn away from him. They may even choose the .. . policies of a party that at least plays at statesmanship, in preference to the trite trumpetings of rank opportunists.
That is what he said about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), and he is perfectly correct. Contrast that, Mr. Speaker, with what we heard from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) today when he summarized his career as politics of compassion. Do we want to be ranked with the opportunists or do we want to be with those who have compassion? I say that compassion wins in that argument. Look at this Government's record. Over the past recession, this Government, along with Sweden, has preserved the social network in this country. We are one of the two countries in this world to preserve and expand the social network. We did not abandon it in the Tory slashing kind of way. We built it up when it was needed. We added to the guaranteed income supplement for seniors. We increased job-creation funds. We extended special help to businesses in trouble. We expanded resources for the Farm Credit Corporation. We renewed the Small Business Bond Program. We introduced a Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan for home owners. That, in the eyes of the Tories, is the wrong course. In the eyes of the Canadian people it is the right course.
It is the right course to offer people help when they need it with the rich, prosperous, productive land we live in. It is the right course to give our communities resources to those most in need. That is the Liberal approach and that is the approach 1 agree with. That is the approach of the politics of compassion about which we heard today. I say, begone to the rank amateurs, begone to the opportunists, begone to the people who want to slash and hack at the fibre of our country. Let us in the course of the next election turn again to those people, the Liberal Party, the people who want to build, preserve and add to our productivity and to the social network we have for the needy people in this country. I am proud to stand on that analysis and I believe it is an analysis that will drag down that bunch across the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Questions, comments? Debate.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, what we have before us this afternoon for consideration and debate is a simply shocking one-page piece of legislation. We in the law always used to say that when you have a bad case you just shout harder and you pound the table more than ever before.
Bill C-21 is a simple, unabashed, straightforward case. It is a straightforward request by the Government for parliamentary authority to go out and borrow $29.55 billion. I noticed that my hon. friend, who is just now leaving this House, did not once refer to the amount of $29.55 billion. It is more than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) had included in his total Budget. I wonder if any person in the House can envisage just what the amount, the extent, the equivalent of $29.55 billion really is. That amount includes a $4 billion contingency fund. It is not earmarked to any source of production or social legislation. It is $4 billion by way of contingency which, by the
March 13, 1984

record of this Government, will undoubtedly be spent and this Parliament will never know on what.
I am sure all Canadians have difficulty envisaging an amount of $29.55 billion. It was the amount of $4 billion which triggered the ringing of bells not so long ago which almost brought this Parliament to a halt. This borrowing is in an amount which each of us is trying to depict to our listening and reading audience. It is an amount which represents over 90 per cent of what all Canadians together, all across this land, will put away in savings in any single year. It is an amount, Mr. Speaker, approaching $3,000 for each Canadian taxpayer. It is, in short, Mr. Speaker, a staggering sum of money which simply cannot be justified. Cut it in half! Deficits were once the domain of accountants and economists. The ordinary Canadian paid little or no attention to what deficit financing was, until John Turner came along. In fiscal year 1971-1972, the deficit of this nation stood at $702 million. Four years later, just four years, that deficit was approaching $5.5 billion. Canada has not looked back since, except once. The sole exception was the fiscal year 1979-1980 when the Progressive Conservative Government addressed the problem of our national deficit and trimmed it by almost $800 million.
I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The House will now proceed to Private Members' Business.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
["Mr. Speaker, practically all of the discussion this afternoon dealt with racing. More than that is involved in this Bill. The Bill provides for horse racing, greyhound racing, fight, game or sport. We are opening the door to people with dogs to begin having dogfights. Dogfights can make a lot of money, but where do they lead?\nWhen I was a boy, I had a dog called Jumbo. He was the best fighter in the whole Drumheller Valley. One coal miner, every time he got tight and wanted to make some money, borrowed Jumbo. Jumbo could beat any dog in the country. He made a lot of money on it. However, poor Jumbo came home, and my brothers and I were the ones who had to look after Jumbo's torn ears and bleeding mouth and legs.\nI do not go in for dog fighting at all. I do not think it is very good. Since this Bill will provide for dog fights, I think we should throw it out.", 'March 13, 1984\nAdjournment Debate']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items preceding Order No. 8 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.


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



Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly) moved: that Bill C-210, an Act to Amend the Criminal Code (greyhound races), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with this opportunity to speak to Bill C-210, which I tabled in the House on December 20, 1983. The aim of this Bill is to amend Section 188 of the Criminal Code, and its title is: An Act to amend the Criminal Code concerning greyhound races.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, we do not often see private businesses prepared to invest $12 million without asking the Government for financial assistance. As far as job creation is
Greyhound Races
concerned, 600 new jobs could be created in a project of this kind, which would promote the dog breeding industry in Quebec and several other Canadian provinces.
In terms of economic potential, Mr. Speaker, establishing the first greyhound track in Quebec on the South Shore, less than an hour's drive from a major urban centre with a population of three million, would have an impact, and people are inclined to forget this, on the use of public transportation on the South Shore. Second, Mr. Speaker, it would also have considerable bearing on the development of tourism and the necessary infrastructure, such as hotels, restaurants and all the accommodation, goods and services required within the immediate vicinity of a greyhound track.
Another important point, Mr. Speaker, would be the tax revenue this would generate. An undertaking of this size would generate tax revenue in the form of amusement tax and business tax in connection with race track operations. This would make it possible to generate greater regional activity in other areas. For instance, the town of St. Hubert alone could collect between $600,000 and $1 million in taxes. With one race track, the Provincial Government could collect over $20 million in taxes the first year.
On December 22, 1978, the Government of Quebec passed a Bill regulating lotteries, races, advertising contests and amusement parks, which, in addition to horse racing, allows all other kinds of racing, including greyhound races.
Mr. Speaker, the reason we must act quickly is that the United States might get ahead of us in this field. Only last weekend, Mr. Speaker, I read in the weekend press that a greyhound track was scheduled to open in the Vermont region at any time. As far as support for the plan in my region is concerned, it is coming from the Societe pour le progres de la rive sud, the town council of St. Hubert-a large town in my riding which 63,000 inhabitants-where the first greyhound race track could be located. There are also the Association touristique regionale du Richelieu, local business councils and so forth. It is unjustifiable that only men on horseback be given a monopoly over the racing industry in Canada. Greyhound races are not a new phenomenon in sports and leisure, Mr. Speaker. England is known as the world capital of horse racing and has over 150 greyhound tracks. Japan, France and Australia have some as well. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, on the continent in which we live, only our country, Canada, has a limited number of such tracks. That is most unfortunate because Canadian Racing Association surveys indicate quite clearly that the demand for this type of entertainment is very strong.
Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious to me that we cannot accept horse racing and bar greyhound racing without being openly unfair to greyhound racing enthusiasts, for reasons which are not immediately apparent, not to mention the fact that many Canadians take holidays to go and spend a lot of money in the United States, either in Florida or in New England. To those
2070

March 13, 1984
Greyhound Races
who might be tempted to say that this would be direct competition against existing race tracks, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that those two sports attract a very different clientele. 1 might mention one track at Wonderland Park, Revere, where horse racing revenues were considerably higher in 1979 than in 1978, although the two tracks are only 4,000 feet apart. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to statistics concerning pari-mutuel betting in Canadian race track operations in 1980. The gross amount of bets increased by more than 11.73 per cent over 1979. The total amount was $1,583 billion in 1980 against $1,724 billion in 1982, the latest year for which figures are available. Attendance has gone up by more than 4.73 per cent. The gross amount of prizes won increased by more than 12.36 per cent, provincial taxes by more than 15.03 per cent. There were 3.16 per cent more racing days and the average bet in each race also went up by 7.67 per cent in 1980, all that over 1979. Besides, Montreal's Blue Bonnets race track has opted for five racing days a week, with the result that the number of bets will go up, not down, which is exactly what is expected.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by relating a significant fact concerning greyhound training with live animals. I am referring to the 1976 State Racing Rules of Greyhound Racing, page 16, paragraph E: "Live animals for training strictly prohibited and subject to permit cancellation". Here is an article written by Mr. Laurendeau in La Presse:
Greyhound training has been updated in the past ten years and they now use an artificial lure-Jack-a-Lure-which has gained widespread acceptance. The greyhound's reaction is natural: as a born runner, it will go after any moving object. The State of Massachusetts has been supervising greyhound racing since the beginning in 1935 and the use of live lures is strictly prohibited. Penalties are provided, including suspension of the operator's permit. The United States National Greyhound Association management, made responsible for greyhound registration by the central Government, say that they have never heard of live lures being used to train greyhounds in the industry within the northern states. Only very isolated cases have been reported, mostly in Texas. As a matter of fact, according to the National Greyhound Association, the trend has been reversed over the past ten years (especially in the last four or five years) in favour of artificial lures. The situation is similar among Canadian breeders (mainly in Ontario and Quebec). The Greyhound Owner and Breeder Association claims that its 300-odd members use only artificial lures for training purposes. The Quebec Society for the Protection of Animals is to be commended for campaigning against animal cruelty. However, you somewhat hastily conclude that such treatment would be meted out by those who want to start greyhound races in Quebec.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the unanimous consent of the House to amend Section 188 of the Criminal Code and make it possible to hold greyhound races in Canada.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad some of us were awake in the House today when this Bill was brought forward. A few months ago we were caught napping in here and the Bill of the Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont) was referred to committee without anyone making any speeches on it.
When I first heard about this Bill relating to greyhound racing, Mr. Speaker, I viewed it with a bit of alarm. I just could not imagine greyhounds racing down the highway. I thought this would pose a threat to the other traffic. Then I thought perhaps they would put in an oval track. However, it would be a little difficult if a couple of them went into the corner at the same time. Then I thought perhaps they would do this greyhound racing on a drag strip. It occurred to me that a vehicle as large as a greyhound would have great difficulty attaining any kind of speed in only one quarter of a mile. Then someone told me this greyhound racing referred to dogs and not to busses.
Being a prairie boy I am not terribly familiar with this type of dog. Out there we do not go in for strange looking long, tall, skinny dogs. We like real dogs such as huskies, shepherds or labradors. We do have dog racing out on the Prairies but we attach a whole bunch of them, usually huskies, to a sleigh and then someone chases them across 20 miles of snow-covered forest track in weather that is usually 20, 30 or 40 degrees below Celsius. I never found any attraction in watching an anorexic-looking dog chase a mechanical rabbit around a track for about 30 seconds.
I have been to Florida on one occasion a number of years ago but I was much more interested in spending time on the beach soaking up sun than going to dog racing. On another occasion a number of years ago, on a visit to Melbourne, Australia I saw people walking the streets with funny looking dogs with muzzles on. I was told they were racing dogs, but again it was something which did not offer any great attraction to me.
I must admit I find it difficult to be terribly serious about this bill. I know the Hon. Member has put a lot of thought into it. I listened to his comments. However, I really could not support a Bill of this nature. I think it is obvious from my comments so far that I find it difficult to get terribly serious about the introduction of dog racing into the country. I oppose it simply because we have enough gambling in the country. Within the last year or so we passed a Bill in the House, which was objected to by both Opposition Parties, which instituted a new form of gambling, which we are hearing about in the news in the last few days. That is just beginning to be set up. I am referring to the sports pool through which people will bet on hockey games on weekends.
To begin with, there is enough gambling in the country. People go to the racetrack and buy all of these silly lotteries. Some people are fortunate enough to win, but an awful lot more spend far too much on it. About a month or two ago when Lotto 6/49 was at its peak and everyone was going crazy over it, I was driving down the highway listening to CBC radio from Montreal. They were interviewing people who were lined up to buy these tickets. I heard a woman say she had already spend $240 that week on Lotto 6/49 tickets. One should not judge by the sound of a voice on the radiio, but I had the uneasy feeling that this woman could not afford to spend $240
March 13, 1984

on Lotto 6/49 tickets, or any other lottery tickets for that matter.
I believe the people who are setting up the sports pools are going to find that the lotteries market in Canada is saturated. I spoke a number of times with the former Minister who put the lottery Bill through Parliament. He assured me that the Department has done market surveys and feels it is going to bring about $80 million a year. To use an old line, "I am from Missouri and I am waiting to be shown". I really doubt the Government will make any money on that sports pool. Aside from the fact that there is too much gambling in the country, I do not think another form of gambling will succeed.
Another thing that concerns me about legalizing dog racing in Canada is the threat it offers to horse racing. In introducing the Bill, the Hon. Member for Chambly tried to offer a counterpoint to that. Horse racing is a fairly large industry in much of the country. In my home Province of Manitoba and in my constituency there are a number of people involved in horse racing. In the City of Winnipeg, the Assiniboine Downs racetrack has been in place for over 25 years. It is one of the more successful racetracks in the country. Even so, it has great difficulty staying alive, Mr. Speaker. In the Province of Manitoba horse racing is one, if not the largest, tourist attraction. Adding something which might threaten an already precarious industry is not in the best interest of what is already in place.
In the last year I met with a couple of people from my constituency who are active in the horse racing industry. They breed and train horses for the track. They told me they are finding it very difficult to stay alive. This is common to horse breeders throughout the province. If anything, they need help. They certainly do not need more competition for the entertainment dollar or the parimutuel betting dollar.
I do not have much more to say on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I will simply restate my position that we in this corner of the House oppose this piece of legislation for the two main reasons which I have pointed out. There is enough gambling in the country already, and we must be concerned about the existing horse racing industry in Canada.


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much I can add to this debate that has not been said by the last speaker with regard to the benefits and costs of adding more racing in Canada. Anyone who has attended racetracks in Canada has experienced the enjoyment, pleasure and thrill of watching a finely tuned and well developed animal charging around the track. You can go out for supper, watch the ponies, as they say, with the wife and kids, and really enjoy an evening out. You can put down a few dollars and maybe even make enough to pay for supper and an evening of fun and entertainment.
In addition to the enjoyment of horse racing in the country of the public in general, there is the support which horse racing gives to the agricultural base which it sustains in part. Direct or indirect employment is enjoyed by 50,000 people as a consequence of harness and thoroughbred racing in Canada.
Greyhound Races
We should keep that very clearly in mind at a time when the agricultural community is being beset by many problems. At least this is one community to which we do not want to cause further distress.
That brings me to the point of dog racing. While dog racing may be a very enjoyable pastime for those who go to Florida where it has great acceptance, it is not the kind of sporting activity that we need in Canada because of the dilution factor it will cause the horse racing business here. Currently, Canada is beset with too many betting opportunities. There are too many lotteries and too many people putting down their diminishing supply of disposable income to buy tickets that have less chance of winning than being struck by lightning. It is tragic to see what people are spending their money on in lotteries today.
The Government of Canada has reneged on its past offers to get out of that business and leave it to the provinces, to help instead of hinder the lottery business and its effect on legitimate racing. It has got back into that business. There are more opportunities to bet and fewer people being sustained by these lotteries. There are people selling tickets and contributing absolutely nothing else to the economy of the provinces or the federal Government. The effect of this proposal for dog racing is diluting it even further.
Statistically, dog racing supports about one-tenth of a person for every dog that races, whereas in the horse business there are five people supported by every horse that is registered in racing. There is a far greater economic benefit to sustaining our harness and thoroughbred racing industry than there could ever be in adding dog tracks. Specifically, as far as the taxes are concerned, which was the point raised by the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont), the horse racing business in Ontario paid $62 million in direct taxes in 1982, taxes taken right off the handle that is bet at the tracks. In Quebec the taxes paid in 1982 were $31 million. That is a lot of money coming into provincial coffers.
What is not disclosed in those figures is the fact that that industry is in difficulty. The handle is dropping and the attendance at the track is dropping because of the economic downturn. This is no time to be adding more competition to that industry. In New Jersey and New York, where there has been a proliferation of race tracks, such as Meadowlands and other well known tracks, an examination would show that tracks are now closing. They are being turned into shopping plazas and other commercial developments. This is a tremendous loss of jobs to the community. There are far more jobs at the track than can be provided at a shopping centre.
I suggest that the Hon. Member for Chambly is doing his constituency and the area a great disservice at a time when Blue Bonnets needs less competition in the Montreal area. After all, Quebec is now down to four race tracks in total, and all of them are struggling. Blue Bonnets does not need further competition.

March 13, 1984
Greyhound Races
The greedy provincial governments should get their hands a little less in the pockets of the racetrack business and turn back a little more to the track so as to keep them healthy at a time of economic downturn. These 50,000 people who are supported by the industry need all the help they can get. I am talking about farmers who grow the hay and straw needed by the horses, about the farriers who shoe the horses and, I suppose, even the people who make the horseshoes. I am talking about the vets who look after these horses and who sustain their living that way and about the people who work in the restaurants and in the administration and operational facilities at the tracks. I am talking about such part-time workers as parking lot attendants. I suggest there are 50,000 jobs which will be seriously and adversely affected by the introduction of a new and a very much less productive form of racing.
I believe the House should pay due recognition to the contribution that the horseracing business provides to the country in the form of jobs and tax benefits to the governments. We should be sustaining and supporting that industry rather than introducing more lotteries, dog racing and other types of racing.
There is also the thought that using greyhounds in this way, having them run around the track frantically trying to grab an elusive fur-covered electrical rabbit, is not the proper way to treat animals. I do not think that I would want to run around and grab one of those in my mouth only to discover suddenly that it was not what I thought.
1 believe this is an unwise move for the area in question. It is very unwise for the Blue Bonnets race track, for harness racing and for thoroughbred racing in Quebec, Ontario and throughout the country. If I can speak for myself and this Party, we oppose such legislation.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I have the same views in mind as those of the last two speakers. However, I am concerned about some of the statements made by the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist).
I have two good reasons why I do not support this Bill. The first reason is that I believe we have reached the saturation point in gambling in this country. Perhaps it is time to step back, even from a moral point of view, since the state is encouraging too much gambling and causing abuse to some people in this country. We should not be a party to that kind of abuse. Personally, I do not believe that the state should prevent individuals from doing certain things, because they must decide for themselves what to do. But in this case, we have come to a point of saturation where perhaps we are causing some of this abuse. While it is a fine line to draw, I believe we have reached the saturation point in this particular area.
At this point I have some difficulty with the question of the sports lottery. In my opinion it was a relatively necessary way to raise money for sports in this country. I was in the House, as were a number of us here today, when the Government of
the former Leader of the Opposition made an arrangement with the provinces to transfer the Canadian lottery to them. We were told that transferring that particular property to the provinces would be for an amount of approximately $75 million a year.
The former Minister of Sports is not present in the House to verify this, but it was assumed that the Tory Government of the time would try to collect approximately $70 million a year for this purpose. I am told that when the conference of provincial Sports Ministers and the federal Minister of Sports was in session, an edict came from the Prime Minister at the time that $25 million plus some indexing at that stage was adequate. Of course, we were quite shocked at this. It was another attempt by that Government to give more to the provinces and take more from the national scene. I think the federal Government has a responsibility to raise money, and I can justify raising it in national sports, which is what we are doing at this point in the sports lottery. However, I can see other evidence of a deteriorating situation having to do with lotteries of one kind. Bingo, which I think is a pastime for a lot of Canadians and has also been a way for churches and other charitable organizations to raise funds, is an activity that is being undermined. Small groups and churches are being affected by super bingo, and bingo is being commercialized to the point where there is a threat to many people and small groups who are, for charitable purposes, running bingo. I believe we have reached the saturation point. I would not want to see this extended any further.
The way I see it, this Bill is not acceptable for another reason. We have one industry that has developed a tradition over the years where many Canadians, I am told in the order of 40,000, are involved in horse racing and the businesses associated therewith. We have developed a lot of good Canadian breeding stock. There is a very solid and well-grounded fear that were we to introduce greyhound racing at this time, we would not do it as an extra industry but at the expense of an industry that is well established and part of our agricultural and national economy. As I said before, apparently some 40,000 jobs are at stake. I do not think this would happen if the state of that industry were satisfactory. But I am told the industry last year had a net decline in its revenues. For instance, the amount of betting went down, and so on. Therefore, one could assume that if one introduced another racing sport, such as greyhound racing, one could expect there to be a considerable decline in horseracing.
It seems to me this kind of development is fine when you have a very large market, as there is in the United States, where it would not make that much difference if greyhound racing were added to other industries, such as trotting and horseracing, etc. But in Canada, when you have an industry that is not in good shape, that is having difficulty-and I can show figures where this is the case-the effect would be to undermine an industry which is rather important to our economy.
March 13, 1984

I realize the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont) who introduced the motion is thinking of an industry where the type of dog used is very graceful and is lovely to watch. But basically this would not be, certainly for a long time, an industry that would be indigenous to this country. We do not have very large stocks of greyhounds bred and raised in this country. It is not a dog that is common to Canada. In order to move into this field in a large way-which I think is what the Hon. Member would expect to happen-we would have to import stock. Again, we would be importing stock at the expense of an industry which is indigenous and which has a large capacity for breeding fine animals for racing of one kind or another, whether that be horse racing, trotting or whatever other form that may take. At this point it would be a mistake to pass a Bill which would tend to raise the level of betting. The promotion that would go along with it would do that. The saturation point has arrived. I believe many Canadians are wondering whether gambling is becoming too important and whether some families are not suffering from the excesses in this activity. At the same time greyhound racing would undermine a well-established, long-term, developed industry which is not at its peak and which is not in a very healthy situation at this point.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do not pass the Bill at this time.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on Bill C-10 introduced by the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont). I note he has already left the House.


An Hon. Member:: He has gone to the dog races.


Dave Nickerson: He has gone to the dogs, like the Liberals.


Benno Friesen: I guess he is not too encouraged at the prospects of this Bill passing today. I am glad to note there is not any great wave of enthusiasm for the legislation.
When I see legislation like this, one of the first questions that comes to my mind is, what is the motive behind it? Is it a Bill that is being sponsored by dog lovers of Canada? Is it because of this incredible love for dogs that we have legislation like this? I can hardly imagine that the most avid dog lovers across Canada would be euphoric about this piece of legislation. It cannot be because dog lovers want this Bill. Is it because people interested in dog racing are trying to help the employment picture? We have heard figures mentioned today of the number of people who would be employed if we introduced dog racing into Canada. I cannot be that optimistic that the people interested in introducing dog racing are really thinking of the unemployed when they talk about this new industry for out country. We have to get to the bottom of it. We are really not talking here about dog racing and the prospect of providing another form of wholesome entertainment for Canadians. What we are really talking about is broadening another industry, namely the gambling industry. That is what is at the heart of it.
Greyhound Races
Some time ago a fellow told me that a gentleman in Canada has the franchise for jai alai. I said to myself, why would anyone be interested in a franchise to introduce jai alai into Canada. Is it because Canadians would flock to arenas to watch jai alai? Again, the answer is no. It is because it opens up another avenue for gambling? This is the point on which I disagree with my colleague from Selkirk-Interlake and my colleague from Ontario who spoke previously. Both gentlemen mentioned that gambling, lotteries or other forms of gambling have reached the saturation point. I do not think that is ever the case. I do not think those people who have a proclivity to gambling ever reach a saturation point or that the market ever reaches a saturation point. There is always another way to diversify investment in gambling. If caught by the gambling fever, one never restricts oneself to only one form of gambling. If it is cards or any other kind of gambling, one looks for another avenue, because that is what the game of chance is all about. If one only plays cards or the horses, one has restricted oneself to a single form of chance. People tied to the whole business of getting rich by chance always look for another chance, so the industry never reaches a saturation point. All we have to do is to go to Third World countries to see the multiplicity of gambling opportunities and to realize that there is never an end to the opportunities for gambling.
What I see so wrong about gambling, particularly when the Government is involved as it is in the lottery business, is that for it to be successful it has to create as many losers as possible. Most people have to lose in the gambling operation. That is true whether it is horse racing, dog racing or the lotteries. The Government is supposed to be supporting people, making them winners and making them feel successful, and it is getting them to lose money. We have had the Super Loto, the $14 million one and the Great Grand Chance where there were close to 70 million buyers of tickets. Most of those people lost; all but one lost. I cannot understand why a Government, which is supposed to have a wholesome outlook toward its citizens, would want to make people lose as much as possible and still promote the idea of winning. There is something immoral about that. It is robbery of a kind.
Finally, I want to say that gambling never restricts itself to the gambling industry. My friend from Scarborough mentioned that the race-tracks in New Jersey were in very difficult economic condition and faced ultimate shutdown. I said to myself, "Why are the race-tracks in New Jersey in that tough shape? Could it be that Atlantic City has opened up and people have unlimited opportunity for gambling there, which is siphoning off the business from race-tracks in New Jersey?" Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I that the people in Atlantic City who are gambling are not there with a pure sense of purpose, necessarily, that it is not simply a nice, clean, economic investment. It never fails where gambling becomes an industry-and I emphasize that-that the mob is somewhere involved sooner or later and sooner or later there has to be police control.

March 13, 1984
Greyhound Races
If this is such a harmless, innocent pastime, the greyhound racing about which we are talking today, where people spend an evening watching dogs racing, that is one thing. However, if it becomes the threshold or the door for introducing gambling, which then becomes the threshold or the door for the gangster mob, that is another level of crime for our country.
The innocuous way in which the legislation comes to us looks innocent enough, but the multiplier effect of the harm it does to our country and its citizens, we really do not know. Once people become infected, we really do not know what will be the end result.
As I said at the outset, I am glad there is no swelling tide of enthusiasm for this particular Bill. Obviously Hon. Members are committed to making certain that it does not pass. I suppose the Hon. Member for Chambly feels that he has done his duty to whoever approached him to present this legislation as he has already left the House and knows that it will not pass. The very fact that we entertain this kind of legislation is a sign of the time that we look for easy solutions to our economic needs. Instead of being creative and working, we want fancy, new and immediate solutions to our money problems. It does not work. Even if we win, we tend to lose. If we follow the record of those who won grand prizes, we tend to lose even if we win, and therefore I am glad this legislation will not pass.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will go against what is apparently the grain and support this Bill. I think it is a great Bill. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Dupont) for bringing it to the attention of the House of Commons.
I am particularly disappointed in the attitude of mind which has been displayed by certain members of the horse-racing fraternity here this afternoon. It would appear to me that they are trying to protect their area of privilege. They do not want any competition. I wish we could bring suit against them under the Combines Investigation Act because these are the types of practices in which they are engaging. They are going around telling everyone what a great thing horse racing is, how it contributes to the national wellbeing and how many jobs it creates. However, they do not want anyone else to start up in a related business or to give opportunity to people who might be unable to go to a horse race track to engage in the same type of activity.
My personal opinion, having been to dog tracks in Europe and in the United States, is that dog racing does not necessarily detract from horse racing. I feel their arguments are invalid on that score. It seems to me that in states like Arizona dog racing and horse racing exist side by side. They are not a threat one to the other. In fact, if anything were to be the case, people very often start off being active in the sport of greyhound racing and graduate to horse racing. I do not buy the arguments of the horsy set at all.
I would like to refer to the moral argument which has been argued very capably by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). I do not want to get into the
moral argument of whether we should be for or against gambling this afternoon. However, I would point out that if gambling on greyhound races is immoral, then gambling on horse racing is equally immoral. If we buy that argument- and I personally do not-and think that gambling on animal racing is immoral, the course of action we should therefore take as a consequence would be to ban horse racing.
I would not want to see that happen, we cannot use the moral argument to say that we should not engage in greyhound racing when we have horse racing all over the country. It would appear that horse racing is very much the sport of the rich man or the rich woman. Of course, it is known as the sport of kings and that if one is to engage in it, one certainly requires a kingly income. It costs a lot of money if one is to be the owner of racehorses. However, if one is interested in that type of activity and does not have a kingly income, then of course, were dog racing to be allowed, one could get into it much more easily and cheaply. I have known quite a few greyhound owners. Very often the greyhound in question is the household pet. It costs very little to maintain greyhounds. You can do it with only a few dollars a week. If you are prepared to engage in the training yourself, you can have an awful lot of fun with the animals.
If you want to get into the business of operating a track, if it is a horse racing track it will require an investment of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. These facilities can only be built in major population centres. Dog tracks, on the other hand, can be established for only a few thousand dollars. They can be built in localities where there is no way you could operate a horse racing track. In the Northwest Territories, for example, it would be crazy to have a horse racing track. However, I am sure that certain towns there could have a greyhound track operating for part of the year. It would not cost that much and could probably operate quite successfully.
I do not like the idea put forward this afternoon by people who believe solely in horse racing. They are trying to keep to themselves a good thing that they have going, not wanting to let the guy who is not as wealthy have access to the same type of enjoyment.
My final argument this afternoon in support of the exciting sport of greyhound racing is that it is a lot of fun. It is not only fun for the spectators and fun for the owners of the greyhounds, most of all, it is fun for the dogs which go around the track and chase the hare.

Mir. Andre Bachand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to everything that has been said in the House concerning this Bill. Horse racing in Canada is a very large and important operation which is now much too vulnerable from an economic standpoint for the House to authorize pari-mutuel betting on dog races.
March 13, 1984

If I may, I should like to set the issue in its proper context. As a sport, horse racing has been the biggest attraction in Canada for more than a quarter of a century. It has been estimated that, in 1983, 13 million people went to the races, and many more millions of Canadians attended horse shows, rodeos and other such events. Toronto's Royal Winter Fair is the world's largest indoor agricultural exhibition. Its horse show attracts more competitors than the National Horse Show of New York and more prizes are handed out.
Horse shows are still an integral part of all sorts of fairs, whether they are small community fairs or major exhibitions, and many young people are handling animals for the first time when they come to show a pony or a horse. In fact, horse and pony 4-H Clubs are growing in popularity. Many people seem to think that only the wealthy can own horses. However, this is not true. Farm people have always been as interested in horses as the aristocrats. In years past, farmers used to have at least one work horse or one riding horse on their farms and many of them still do.
Races were often arranged on the spot during small fairs. Local people raced the horses that they were using every day. Nowadays, many city people own horses. Even if they see them as show animals or as pets rather than as work horses, they board them with farmers, and then those horses owned by city people are an integral part of Canadian farm life.
There are well over 750,000 horses in Canada today. Horse raising is an important industry. It is estimated that Canadians have over $2.5 billion invested in horses, $2.5 billion invested in land, buildings and equipment used for their upkeep.
Canadians also spend about $2 billion a year for feed, transportation and other services needed by horses owners. As already mentioned, horse racing accounts for about 40,000 jobs. This industry represents $1.6 million in bets every year in Canada.
The sector is now faced with major financial problems. According to the latest figures, the daily betting average is decreasing on many race tracks. To this date, compared with the same period in 1983, betting has decreased by 17 per cent in Barrie, 3 per cent in Dundas, 8 per cent in London, 8 per cent in Windsor, 3 per cent in Winnipeg, 20 per cent in Orangeville, 5 per cent in Saint John and 3 per cent at the Blue Bonnets track in Montreal.
If we add the rate of inflation to these percentages, we can understand why race tracks are really having problems.
I mentioned the Blue Bonnets race track because Montreal used to have another major race track some years ago, namely the Richelieu Park which no longer exists. Last year, Blue Bonnets recorded a 4 per cent decrease in betting after registering a 14 per cent decrease in 1982. Under these conditions, how long can this race track continue to operate?
The basic problem is that the industry is saturated. If we now allowed the practice of pari mutuel in dog racing, we
Greyhound Races
would be signing the death warrant of many local race tracks and eliminating the livelihood of a whole network of people who are now earning a living in the horse racing industry.
Still, this can be prevented simply by rejecting this Bill, or at least by waiting for economic conditions to improve before approving it.
Until now, we have focussed on the economic aspects of the Bill, but other elements must be taken into consideration. For instance, we have to remember that, in Florida, most greyhounds are trained with live rabbits. They set the dogs loose to chase rabbits in the fields, or they tie up the rabbits and use them as baits to make the dogs run. Animal lovers both in Canada and the United States have already indicated their opposition to this practice. I should mention however that racing rabbits are in fact mechanical devices.
Although racing dogs are fairly well treated, many people object to their running in races. The reason is that dog racing is not part of our traditions. In Florida, certainly, but not here. And many of us object to dogs chasing a mechanical rabbit. We feel that dogs should have better to do than that. I fear even that if we allow dog racing to develop in Canada, our own and our children's perception of dogs would change for the worse.
There are countries where bullfighting is a well attended and respectable sport. There are countries where cockfighting is also popular. For a great many people, a trip to Florida would not be complete without a visit to the cynodrom.
Once again, that is a sport which is foreign to our traditions and is not very popular here. Of course, the public outlook may change. Our attitude may evolve in such a way that it will be possible to introduce betting on dogs, but for the time being, as our horce racing industry is facing a questionable future, I urge the House to defeat this bill.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, practically all of the discussion this afternoon dealt with racing. More than that is involved in this Bill. The Bill provides for horse racing, greyhound racing, fight, game or sport. We are opening the door to people with dogs to begin having dogfights. Dogfights can make a lot of money, but where do they lead?
When I was a boy, I had a dog called Jumbo. He was the best fighter in the whole Drumheller Valley. One coal miner, every time he got tight and wanted to make some money, borrowed Jumbo. Jumbo could beat any dog in the country. He made a lot of money on it. However, poor Jumbo came home, and my brothers and I were the ones who had to look after Jumbo's torn ears and bleeding mouth and legs.
I do not go in for dog fighting at all. I do not think it is very good. Since this Bill will provide for dog fights, I think we should throw it out.

March 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, I rose in the House to ask a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) regarding the famous Gazetted Order in Council that deals with emergency planning orders. That Order in Council is entitled 1981, 1305 and was passed in June, 1981. It empowers the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to establish civilian internment camps; in effect to systematically depopulate federal penitentiaries in order to use them as civilian internment camps.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) rose to answer my question, rather than the Minister of Justice. That in itself offended me because the question was put to the Minister of Justice in his role as the protector of our civil rights. My question to him dealt with his role as protector of those civil rights. However, the President of the Privy Council rose to say: "He will," referring to me, "realize that, with a minimum of understanding, he cannot come to that conclusion". The conclusion to which he refers is that the Order in Council had the effect of freeing people who had been convicted of a criminal offences in order to make room for people who had not been convicted of a criminal offences. That is a very simple conclusion.
The President of the Privy Council wishes to infer that I was misreading the particular Order in Council. For the benefit of the record, I will read it verbatim from The Canada Gazette of June 10, 1981. The Order in Council in question states in column 1, "The Solicitor General and His Powers"; in column 2, "Powers, Duties and Functions"; No. 6, "Establish, administer and operate civilian internment camps"; and No. 7, "Facilitate the selective reduction and transfer of prison populations to provide for the establishment of civilian internment camps". I think that is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, and I have not distorted the quotation. That is exactly how it is stated in that Gazetted Order in Council.
I again turn to the Minister of Justice, the protector of our civil rights, to get an assurance from him that he will give us his opinion on that particular Order in Council. He had the effrontery to stand in his place and say to me: "Every proposal put forward by the Government in statutory form or for regulation is vetted by officials of the Department of Justice precisely for that kind of criteria".
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the heading on this particular Order in Council is not listed as being statutory but as being under other than statutory authority. If one checks with the law officers of the Crown, the Library of
Parliament or any other authority, one finds that whenever an Order in Council is other than statutory, it refers to Crown prerogative. When Crown prerogative has been established by Order in Council, it entitles the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to do as he wishes under the powers described within that Order in Council. That in effect gives the Prime Minister dictatorial powers for the purposes of that Order in Council. I have not even raised the question of the powers assigned to the Prime Minister under this Order in Council.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) is present. I want to know what the Minister of Justice means when he says that there are limitations under statutory provisions. The fact is that this Order in Council is not a statutory provision and the fact is that it has no limitations.
Second, the Minister of Justice said that officials have vetted the Order in Council. They may have vetted it but they have certainly not changed it. If I am wrong, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to stand and say that that Order in Council as it was gazetted in 1981, because of the ease of its misinterpretation, has been vetted by the officials and therefore has been changed in order to preserve our civil rights. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give me that assurance, I will not raise this subject again. However, I am sure he will not do so because I am convinced that that Order has not been changed.
I am sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre has an understanding of what it means to feel that one's civil rights could be abused. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to rise in his place and tell us that this Order in Council clearly does not mean what I have read into the record. If it does not mean that, I would like to know what it means.
I would like to have the assurance that if this Order is ever enacted in the administrative sense, that we as Canadian citizens, will be protected, because I assure him that there are over 400 people in the Province of Quebec who remember having been arrested in October of 1970. Without ever a writ having been issued and without ever having been charged, they were arrested and incarcerated. There is recent memory of what has happened with these kinds of powers and I want some assurance that we, as Canadian citizens, are going to be protected from an over powerful and overzealous government.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been told on a number of occasions and must by now be fully aware that the emergency planning Order empowers no Minister to do anything other than to make plans. Yet he continues in his attempts to distort the truth by posing questions and making statements which are based on utterly false premises. It has been clearly stated in this House and elsewhere-and I repeat it again today-that separate and distinct statutory authority will be necessary before any of the plans made under the Planning Order can be implemented.
March 13, 1984

It must be further pointed out that any planning related to civilian internment camps is based on the assumption that the need would only arise in time of war, and that particular need has never been seriously questioned, even by the McDonald Commission, Mr. Speaker, which indicated, and I quote:
-in any emergency of the kind contemplated by the War Measures Act some potentially dangerous persons will have to be put under restraint.
That is from the McDonald Commission, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member will also realize that safeguards against the abuse of emergency powers, exercised even in war time, will be covered by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which did not exist, I might add, Mr. Speaker, at the time of the Quebec crisis. This provides for injunctive or compensatory relief in respect of limitations to human rights which the courts decide have been unreasonable or not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.
Finally, if the Hon. Member has to query the advisability of releasing convicted persons to accommodate detainees, he must be fully aware that no internment camps exist now, nor are any being established, otherwise the measures he questions would not be necessary. He really should make up his mind. Does he want us to build internment camps now so as to have them ready if and when required? Does he want us to plan to use the prisons as provided in the Planning Order? Or does he want us to allow potential enemies of the state to roam at will among us during times of war or armed conflict?
I add again, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of the FLQ crisis in 1970, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms did not exist. It was this Government which pushed for and brought forward those important changes to our constitutional law. This Government certainly is not, in light of that, a government which would set up secret internment camps to intern Canadians in any but the most extreme conditions of war, and I believe the Hon. Member clearly knows that by now.


IMMIGRATION-HEAD TAX IMPOSED ON CHINESE IMMIGRANTS. (B) REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT PAY COMPENSATION
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, on Chinese New Year I presented the case of two elderly constituents of mine who had paid a head tax to come to Canada. I asked the Canadian Government, as a symbolic gesture, to undo past wrongs and compensate Chinese immigrants who were forced to pay a head tax because they were Chinese. We cannot change past laws but we can recognize unjust discrimination and apologize as a nation.
On February 24, I asked the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) to consider an official Government apology to Chinese immigrants who were forced to pay the discriminatory head tax between 1885 and 1923. I aslo asked if the Government would compensate the survivors of those who paid the head tax. The Minister of Justice acknowledged that we cannot change history but he would look into this matter. I presented this request as a moral, not a legal case.
Adjournment Debate
The Chinese Immigration Act was racist because it discriminated against people of Chinese origin. It applied to no other immigrants and was followed up in 1923 by the Chinese Exclusion Act which effectively stopped all Chinese immigration until 1947. That was contrary to the spirit of our new Charter of Rights.
Canada's immigration policy was only one of the injustices that these early pioneers suffered. They were exploited, poorly paid and restricted in where they could live and work. They lived very lonely lives, separated from their families. It was not until 1947 that they were given the right to vote. The CCF, later the NDP, was the only Party to protest these injustices over the years and to insist that Asian immigrants must have full voting rights. The Liberal Party in B.C. took the opposite position.
Since I spoke in the House there has been a great swell of interest in this issue across Canada. I have received copies of over 600 head tax receipts and heard case histories which must be recorded in the Canadian Archives. Chinese organizations have joined in the request for an official apology and some form of recognition, whether symbolic or financial.
I want to read into the record an excerpt from a letter from the president of the Chinese Canadian National Council to the Minister of Justice. He said:
We are writing to express our joy at the announcement you made in the House of Commons on February 23, 1984 that the Government will consider apologizing to Chinese Canadians and compensating those who were forced to pay a head tax between 1885 and 1923 to immigrate to Canada.
This is a dark page in Canadian history the injustice and horror of which still live vividly among many Chinese Canadians, especially the older generation who personally experienced the harsh measures.
As such, your announcement in the House the other day must be welcomed and congratulated. It is our opinion that the courageous and insightful step as suggested by the honourable member from Vancouver East, that which you are contemplating, not only puts a dark page in our nation's history in the proper perspective, it also reflects genuinely the spirit of equality before the law as stipulated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The proposed compensation and apology, besides other viable and reasonable measures, will remove once and for all the stigma attributed to Chinese Canadians due to the harsh measures in the past. It will bring new pride to-and is the best assurance for-Chinese Canadians that they are full and equal members in this great nation of ours. '
I again ask for a positive response from the Government, Mr. Speaker, to present an apology with some form of compensation and recognition. We must be very sure that this kind of discrimination never again happens in Canada.


Mr. Al MacBain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised the matter of the head tax to which Chinese immigrants were subjected under federal legislation between the years 1885 and 1923. Even a cursory reading of Canadian legal history reveals the discrimination practised against Chinese immigrants and Chinese Canadians.
Chinese people, like so many others who arrived at that time, began immigrating to British Columbia about 1858 in search of gold. It was only some 20 years or so later that much

March 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate
larger numbers arrived in response to the need for labour to build the Canadian railways. This Chinese presence, which only too clearly conferred significant benefits on the economies of British Columbia and Canada as a whole, met with hostility and fear among the general populace and discriminatory legislation was passed by both British Columbia and Canada. While a good deal of this provincial legislation was struck down by the courts, or disallowed by the Governor-in-Council under the Constitution Act, a good deal still remained. It denied to Chinese Canadians the vote, eligibility for elected office, jury service and eligibility for certain professions.
Federal legislation reflected equally hostile attitudes. Under an 1885 statute Chinese Canadians were not permitted to vote. In that same year the infamous Chinese Immigration Act was imposed which required a $50 head tax on Chinese immigrating to Canada. That was subsequently amended raising the tax to $100 in 1901 and to $500 in 1904. Although that tax was repealed in 1923, a new Chinese Immigration Act limited the categories of eligible Chinese immigrants to such an extent that few were able to enter Canada while that legislation remained on the books. Only in 1947 was that Act finally repealed.
These remarks, however brief and incomplete, I believe sufficiently paint a not particularly attractive side of Canadian history. In recent years we have all been made more fully aware that aboriginal peoples and Japanese Canadians in Canada have also suffered from past legislative and administrative acts of discrimination.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to report to the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) that the matters raised by the Hon. Member will be looked into as she has requested.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-WORKING CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYEES AT CRANBROOK, B.C.
Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, on February 24 I directed a question to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) regarding a change of working conditions for employees at Cranbrook, British Columbia with regard to the six and five program. CP Rail was included in the public service restraint program which enabled hundreds of millions of dollars to be saved in the rollback of contracts which were in place to come into the guidelines of the Public Service Restraint Program of 6 per cent in the first year and 5 per cent in the second year.
The President of the Treasury Board stated that he would be happy to look into the matter and, if it turned out it was not consistent with the law passed by Parliament, he would see that appropriate action was taken. In fact, CP Rail has asked for a material change in working conditions. I have a letter that was sent to the general Chairman of the workers. It states:
We challenge C.P. Rails decision to reduce our earning power, to cancel one agreement under which we now work and alter another while the restraint program. Bill C-I24, is in effect. It was C.P. Rail who said there could be no
negotiation on rule changes this year because it would cost the company money in violation of Bill C-124.
CP Rail cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that they are going to reduce the earning power of these employees. Who in fact is governing the country? Is it CP Rail or is it the Government of Canada?
On Friday, March 9, an arbitrator heard this proposal and is going to make a final and binding decision on whether CP Rail has these entitlements. I urge the President of the Treasury Board to bring down a report on this. When an arbitrator is involved to this degree we must remember the decision which the arbitrator has already made with regard to legislation, something that CP Rail may be in violation of.
The blue ribbon committee was guided by the chief executive officer of CP Rail. As a result of his involvement in that, not only did his company save hundreds of millions of dollars, he was awarded a position in the Senate. Now John Turner is coming forward, with the possibility of becoming the new leader of the Liberal Party and perhaps the next Prime Minister. He was another director of CP Rail.
When will the Government begin to govern and tell this company that it has a responsibility to its workers and to this country? For it to materially change the working conditions of these workers at Cranbrook, British Columbia, at a time when this additional burden is not placed on other workers is wrong. I urge the President of the Treasury Board to come forward now and to put a stay on this until such time as he can come in with a report.
I think it is wrong that a Member of Parliament who travels to Montreal as an observer to attend that meeting is denied by CP Rail the right to listen. Is it that worried about what it is doing and what is taking place that it would deny a Member of Parliament the right to be an observer at a hearing that involves workers in his riding who come under the restraint program, and which may have serious ramifications with respect to the working conditions there?
Before I went there I obtained a legal interpretation. Let me quote it as it is important to note. It states:
The decision of the Ontario High Court of Justice in Re Toronto Star Ltd. and Toronto Newpaper Guild ((1976) 73 D.L.R. (3d) 370, enclosed) decided under the Ontario Labour Relations Act (R.S.O. 1970, c. 232) establishes the principle that where parties are compelled by law to submit to arbitration, it is not merely a private proceeding. The public has an interest in its functioning. Therefore, it is within the discretion of the arbitrator to decide whether proceedings will be public or not. Although the legal framework for a railway arbitration is not identical, it is submitted that the Toronto Star case provides a basis to argue that it is up to the arbitrator to decide whether the public may attend, and there should be good reasons for closing the hearing. The court notes that the request of one party without supporting argument is not sufficient.
I suggest that is a blatant abuse of the Canada Labour Code. It is a blatant abuse by CP Rail of its employees. I urge the President of the Treasury Board to come forward immediately and either put a stay on what is happening and come down with a decision, or reverse the decision and tell the company that it must wait until the six and five guidelines are lifted.
March 13, 1984


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the matter raised in the House by the Member from Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) during the Question Period on February 24, 1984, to the effect that CP Rail in Cranbrook, British Columbia, had invoked a material change in working conditions to reduce the wages of employees, I am pleased to inform the House that Treasury Board Secretariat officials have been in touch with CP Rail officials on this matter.
The member rightly pointed out that CP Rail is under the restraint program and as such the compensation plan of the employees cannot be modified other than by a wage increase of 6 per cent in the first year and 5 per cent in the second year.
I am informed that operating considerations have necessitated a change in the manner in which trains transporting coal within the Province of British Columbia operate. As a result, approximately 30 persons have been declared surplus and are entitled to exercise seniority and other rights under the terms of their collective agreements.
There are two employee groups affected by the changes, the trainmen and the locomotive engineers. The changes in Spar-wood are affecting employees living in Cranbrook, but it should be noted that these changes are being handled in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreements in question.
Pursuant to the provisions of the groups' collective agreements-Article 47 of the United Transportation Union covering trainment working in the Prairie and Pacific regions and Article 30 of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, which are entitled "Material Changes in Working Conditions", the employer is required to give advance notice of the operational change he wishes to introduce in accordance with its provisions. The article stipulates that the company may not initiate any material change in working conditions without giving as
Adjournment Debate
much advance notice as possible to the general chairman concerned, along with a full description thereof and with appropriate details as to the contemplated affects upon employees concerned.
Furthermore, I am advised that no material change can be made by CP Rail until such time as an agreement is reached between the company and the bargaining agents involved or a decision has been rendered by an arbitration board.
In order to minimize the effects of the material change on the employees in question, the parties have held six meetings since October of last year and have agreed upon all but four items with respect to changes in employees' working conditions. I would like to add that the parties have agreed to refer the four outstanding items to binding arbitration. An arbitration board heard these four matters on Friday last, March 9, and a decision is expected shortly. None of the four matters in question deal with rates of pay.
Based on the information provided to Treasury Board Secretariat staff by CP Rail officials, the reported change in operations has been dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the collective agreements in question, and CP Rail's operational change does not appear to contravene the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act.
Since the member has also written to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) concerning this matter, a reply in greater detail will be forwarded to the member shortly when additional information is provided to the President of the Treasury Board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.26 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, March 14, 1983