1984-03-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I, along with many thousands of Canadian business people, was deeply disturbed by the news reports that Canada Post is entering into an agreement to work hand in hand with Consumers Distributing to act as an active agent for that company. This is indeed unprecedented, unwarranted, and unfair competition for the private sector which has enough problems as it is trying to keep afloat in these difficult times.
If this scheme is allowed to proceed, Canada Post in almost every community in Canada would give Consumers Distributing an unfair advantage and unfair access to all the retail markets without significant community investment and contribution in terms of taxes and employment. Canada Post has all it can do to improve the postal service, and should leave the distribution of consumer goods to those who can do it best, the private sector. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government to take the necessary steps immediately to direct Canada Post to countermand such an agreement with Consumers Distributing and other similar hare-brained schemes which may surface in the future.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians and especially on behalf of Quebecers, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our compatriot, Gaetan Boucher. At the Winter Games, Gaetan managed to win three Olympic medals, including one bronze medal for the 500 metres and two gold medals. There has never been any doubt as to Gaetan Boucher's athletic skills since he has been able to compete with athletes of his stature.
Mr. Speaker, I also would like to take this opportunity to praise the efforts of Sport Canada which for a number of years has been helping young Canadian athletes across the country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that Gaetan Boucher is an inspiration to young Canadians who would all like their country to be proud of them some day. Three cheers for Gaetan Boucher, the world champion!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that it takes an average of 10 months for a veteran to get a ruling from the Canada Pension Commission upon applying for veterans' benefits. This is not acceptable. It is too long for a veteran in distress to have to wait. Add to that the length of time for the Pension Review Board to make a decision and you have a total of 19 months. That is an average amount of time. Many wait much longer. That is more than one and one-half years. I am told that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates takes five and one-half months. Add to this the more than two months that the War Veterans Allowance Board makes them wait, and I maintain that it is unconscionable to make our veterans wait that long for a decision.
I also think, Mr. Speaker, that a more compassionate attitude should be extended to our aging veterans, and much more consideration should be given to their health problems, many of which are due to their being burnt out from direct results of war experiences.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my statement is with respect to Canadair. The Canadian Government is picking up a $3.5 billion debt on behalf of that Crown corporation. That is enough money to double the income supplements of every poor pensioner in the country and have $1 billion left over. This is a staggering sum, Mr. Speaker. Canadair has been staggeringly mismanaged. The new company could also lose money since it has orders for jet engines which it must continue to buy.
The Liberal Government has given Crown corporations a bad name in spite of the fact that there have been successes in

March 14, 1984
Canada with Crown corporations at both federal and provincial levels. We have a mixed economy in Canada. The future role of the Crown corporation is indeed a challenge to the left, as well as being open to obvious criticism from the right.
I advocate three things. The first is that this mismanagement not go unpunished. The second is that Crown corporations be open to public scrutiny. Messrs. Strong, Bell, and Austin are strong individuals but are not really accountable to anyone. There should be a special parliamentary committee for Crown corporations which would have the powers of an American congressional committee. Finally, we should integrate Crown corporation strategies into a national industrial game plan. Then we will not have $3.5 billion spent to produce an executive jet. I find that a strange priority. It is a real blight on Crown corporations in Canada.

[ Translation]


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I was very pleased when I found out that Quebec had finally decided to focus more attention on the North Shore, and I am referring to plans for establishing an aluminum refinery in Sept-Iles. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that Quebec and the federal Government co-operate on this project and ensure that it will come to fruition.
I know that the company concerned has already met federal officials and that the Canadian Government has confirmed and is prepared to take part in the project if it receives a request from the Kaiser Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that all parties in the House will be able to give their approval very shortly so that we can bring a new industry into the region, in order to put the economy back on the rails, and not only in Sept-Iles but in the entire region, which in addition to Sept-Iles includes Schefferville, Gagnon, Fermont, the people of Port Cartier, and the people on the lower North Shore, who all stand to benefit.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to follow the example of my colleague from Verdun and welcome our famous guest. I want to congratulate him on his outstanding performance which has made all Canadians feel very proud. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I mention this extraordinary performance.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Minister responsible for student employment that the Government recently appointed a Minister of Youth. However, to give young people hope for the future, we must have budgets that are commensurate with the number of young people who will be looking for work this summer. As far as the Summer Canada Program is concerned, Mr. Speaker-and I know my colleagues are already aware of this-the interest expressed in it by young people vastly exceeds proposed funding.
Today, I want to urge the Minister to make additional funding available so that these young students will not be disappointed when they start looking for jobs this summer. In the circumstances ... I hear Hon. Members complaining, I am sure I do not know why, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of these young people, I would simply ask the Government to be responsible and compassionate, and to provide additional funding so that this summer, young students will be able to earn a few dollars to help them pay for their education. Mr. Speaker, that was the gist of what I wanted to say today, and I hope my colleagues were listening carefully.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF OLYMPIC ICE SKATING CHAMPION, GAETAN BOUCHER
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the Hon. Member for Verdum (Mr. Savard), and I am sure all members on all sides of the House will want to support me, when we recognize a great Canadian who has made us all very proud with his accomplishments at the Olympics. I am speaking of the two gold medal and bronze medal winner, Gaetan Boucher, who is here with his father and family today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association has recently reported that already in this year, 1984, four new foreign built supply ships have been registered for use in our East Coast offshore operations. Canadian shipyards could have built those vessels, and the benefit to Canada would have been in the order of $55 million. They were not built in Canada because of the availability of cheaper financing abroad, and muddled federal policies here.
Consider the obstacles facing the Canadian shipbuilder. Not only must the builder contend with direct and indirect subsidies offered by foreign competitors, the builder must also face
March 14, 1984

the fact that the Canadian Government, the Government to which he pays taxes, will rebate up to 80 per cent of the importer's leasing costs or customs duty. A shipowner sourcing in Canada is not eligible for any rebate whatsoever. The result in 1983 was a record importation of foreign built vessels to Canada.
If the Government is serious about job creation and the preservation of a viable Canadian shipbuilding industry, let it act now to encourage sourcing in Canada. No industry should have to fight its own Government in the international marketplace.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's No. 1 industry continues to decline and the Liberal Government continues to ignore the problem. Yesterday the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Caccia), the Government's excuse for a Minister of Forestry, said that he was too busy to attend the inaugural luncheon for the Canadian Forest Industries Council.
Much of our traditional forest resource has been depleted. Twenty-five million hectares of logged-over lands have not been adequately restocked. Some of our traditional markets are drying up. Logging and sawmill communities suffer from widespread unemployment and economic insecurity. But the Minister does not have enough time to meet with industry representatives.
Long term forestry agreements have not been signed with the major forestry provinces. In 1984-85 British Columbia has to make do with an $11 million extension of an agreement, instead of a new agreement which would have seen over $100 million provided in federal-provincial funds.
This neglect of our basic industry must stop. As a start, the Government should establish a separate ministry of forestry with a full time minister, not a part time person who is out to lunch whenever forest industry representatives come to call.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I, like so many other Canadians, am disappointed at the lack of agreement between the First Ministers and native leaders at the constitutional conference on March 8 and 9. One would suppose that after all the negotiations and study, some agreement could have been reached on the four agenda items under discussion at the conference, namely, equality rights, aboriginal title and rights including treaty rights, land and resources,
Oral Questions
and self-government. Because of the failure, the federal Government should initiate action on its own to spur the provinces into addressing aboriginal issues in a more substantive way.
The federal Government deserves support for its March 9 announcement on removal of sexual discrimination from the Indian Act.
It is hoped and anticipated that provincial Governments during their annual premiers' conference will place native issues at the top of their agenda.
In addition, it would be appropriate for the federal Government to move to correct an historic injustice by granting a posthumous pardon to Louis Riel. The Government could proceed on this matter through a Bill I introduced in the last session, and which I will be reintroducing again, I hope today.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. He will know from his experience in this House that Members of this Party have questioned the Government's decision to be involved in the Challenger program, since 1976. In the 1982 Shielding Report, which the Government commissioned, we find:
-the business of selling executive aircraft is undisciplined, ruthless, and checkered by practices which any government should abhor.
Why does the Government continue to damage the job opportunities and the future of those working for Canadair by insisting on carrying on in a business checkered by practices that any Government should abhor?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member ought to check those allegations and make the most of his opportunity to listen to the Minister responsible for Canadair and affiliated companies who is appearing before the ad hoc Standing Committee to explain the situation of Canadair and of other companies controlled by the CDIC. He would find out for himself that concrete steps have been taken to ensure the profitability of Canadair and that the Challenger's development and sales outlook are very promising.


EXTENT OF GOVERNMENT FINANCING
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if we cannot get the President of the Treasury Board to explain why

March 14, 1984
Oral Questions
he allows appropriations to go through the way this Government directs, will the Minister advise us, if the business of Canadair is only 40 per cent involved in the Challenger and we have already spent $2,146 billion on the Challenger program, why, in the name of employment, would the Government continue to finance the aircraft? After all, most of the parts for the aircraft are made in the United States, the technology is American, the repair and marketing facilities are in the United States, and even the Shielding Report states that the aircraft has little significance to the repertoire of Canadian manufacturing or technology capabilities. Why the money? Why the estimate?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: In
my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member does not understand what the Challenger program is all about. He is talking about jobs, which is a priority for this Government, although we know it is not one for the Official Opposition. Technological advance and the development of an aircraft such as the Challenger are important as well, not only for the Canadian industry but also for the future technology of our country. Again I would urge the Hon. Member, as I did a moment ago, to attend the Standing Committee which is now considering the Canadair file and looking into prospective markets for Canadair's Challenger aircraft. He will get answers to his questions and, in addition, have an opportunity to learn more about the positive aspects of the Challenger program.


REQUEST THAT CORPORATION BE DIVESTED OF PROGRAM
Donald Alex Blenkarn: The Minister knows that Canadair has a good staff. It is excellent at building airframes, working on surveillance drones, and with its waterbomber program. However, the Challenger program is a loser, and has been a loser from its inception.
Why does the Government not insist that its friends, Bell and Austin, organize a proper sale of the Challenger program to some other company so that this company can continue to do its worth-while aircraft work and keep the jobs here in Canada?


Mr. Blais:: Shame on you!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Why does it want to destroy Canadair to build a fancy toy for those who can afford it?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the immediate reaction of the Opposition is to reject any initiative aimed at promoting job creation and furthering technological progress in Canada. The Hon. Member for Joliette denies this, so he is at odds with his colleagues from Mississauga South who has just spoken. Get
your act together and come up with a policy. We know that your Leader is unable to spell out his policies, but if some Members of the Opposition do have policies and ideas, they ought to combine their efforts and suggest a few policies which their Leader might follow.


COST OF CHALLENGER PROGRAM
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I want to impress upon this House that we are not criticizing Canadair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board, and I want an answer from him because he is responsible for Estimates. In the recent Estimates there is $310 million for the Challenger program. The truth of the matter, and the Minister knows it perfectly well, is that Canadian taxpayers have already invested $2 billion in the Challenger program. There is another $1.5 billion committed to that program. Will the President of the Treasury Board come clean and bring forth Estimates showing that the total cost of the Challenger program is $3.5 billion?


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the Estimates tabled in the House which are now being studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, involve a decision not only of myself but of Cabinet as a whole regarding financing for the coming period for Canadair and de Havilland. The Minister responsible for the Canada Development Investment Corporation has been before the Finance Committee providing all the information he can in response to the questions of my hon. friend and his colleagues.
I think my hon. friend should be telling us how he can say that he and his Party support Canadair and not the Challenger when, in the words of his colleague, the Challenger program is 40 per cent of Canadair's business and when, on other occasions his colleagues, like the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre and the Hon. Member for Joliette, have said that the Challenger is an excellent program technologically and that they are just upset about Canadair management. As my hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue, said: "Get your music together because you are certainly not playing in tune today".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Scott Fennell: I am fully aware that the Minister is in front of the committee. We spent four hours with him yesterday. He did not deny the fact that the cost of this program exceeds $3 billion.


Mr. Roy:: But how many jobs?
March 14, 1984


JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPENDITURE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, how can the President of the Treasury Board justify to Canadian taxpayers the spending of $1 million a day to provide executive jets, toy jets for corporate executives, which the Government's experts state would not cause great disruption in Canada or in the world if they were not produced?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend would like us to follow the same procedure with Canadair as his Leader followed with Iron Ore in Schefferville.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is what the workers at Canadair want. I know it is not what Canadians want. If the Hon. Member wants to destroy not only the Challenger Program, but Canadair and the thousands of jobs there, as well as the thousands of jobs in the hands of sub-contractors, he can argue that, but he will be rejected on this by the Canadian people, as his Party was in the last election when it wanted to do something similar with Petro-Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIABILITY OF CANADAIR
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, there are certain people in this House who want a Crown corporation to be running, but they want it to be running efficiently, in the interest of the workers directly affected, and in the interest of the taxpayers of Canada. The $2 billion plus bailout is ten times the amount of money the Government is prepared to allocate in new funds for youth employment this year. It is fully equivalent to all the money set aside for job training and job creation for the total number of unemployed, in the Budget this year. What conditions has the Government laid down in terms of the performance of Canadair to give the workers directly affected in Montreal, and the rest of the people in Canada, reason to believe that that company is now a viable entity?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Hon. Member would find a very direct and explicit answer to his question in the report which was tabled by the Minister concerned in the Standing Committee yesterday. In this report, which is now being examined, the Canadair and CDIC authorities tell Members of Parliament and Canadians at large about the viability of the project and explain how the CDIC and Canadair plan to make the Challenger program a viable one.
Of course, we are most concerned with protecting employment, but we also insist on having a program with commercial-
Oral Questions
ly viable elements and a marketing potential which will allow us not only to protect existing jobs, but also to use innovative technology so that these jobs will still be there in 10 years from now and will have expanded.


CORPORATION'S MANAGEMENT-ACCOUNTABILITY FOR EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question I did because the only answer that was given in the committee yesterday by the Senator responsible was in terms of trying to convey the impression that we should have greater confidence because, by splitting the company and the people of Canada absorbing the debt at an atrociously high cost, potential customers for this airplane would know that the company is in a more financially viable position. Potential customers always knew that a Crown corporation backed by the taxpayers of Canada was in that position. Nothing has changed.
Given the past record of very incompetent management that misled the Government, telling it that the company had ten times the number of orders for the aircraft than it actually had at one time, will the Minister tell us why we should have a greater degree of confidence in the existing management of Canadair? Also, what procedures does the Government to implement to give a greater degree of ongoing accountability for this spending of public money?


Pierre Bussières: As
concerns the first part of the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind him that the fact that the financial situation of Canadair, will improve with CDIC assuming part of the corporation's debt is extremely important from a business standpoint; I think that the Hon. Member does acknowledge this basic fact.
As for the second part of his question which deals with incompetent management, to use his own words, I would like to tell him that this is basically the reason why, a few months ago, the Government decided to create this new corporation to which it assigned explicit terms of reference for strengthening management practices in companies such as Canadair and de Havilland. The evidence given by the Minister concerned and the CDIC officers before the Standing Committee shows that the management methods of these companies have been strengthened and that their operations will be better managed in the future.
Concerning the last part of the question, which dealt with how these companies could be made more accountable to Parliament, I believe that the fact that the CDIC and Canadair, de Havilland, or other corporations regularly appear before Standing Committees as they are now doing, is an indication that there already is an appropriate mechanism to ensure that these companies are held accountable to Parlia-

March 14, 1984
Oral Questions
ment for their management. Furthermore, a Bill is soon to be introduced in the House to authorize the changes made to CDIC and related corporations. This Bill will also introduce amendments which will enable the House to hold these corporations accountable to a greater extent for their management.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that up to this point none of the procedures have been changed in terms of the accountability of this Crown corporation or of any other Crown corporation. The Minister knows that an annual appearance before a committee of the House is a totally inadequate way for Members of the House to assume their responsibility for the spending of public money. The Minister knows that this situation has not been changed when it is precisely what should be changed when dealing with this Crown corporation and with others.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW CORPORATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a final supplementary question dealing with the viability of the new entity which will now be financed with hundreds of millions of dollars by the people of Canada. Will he assure the House that if the new Canadair becomes financially viable, as we hope it will, the Government will not, having used taxpayers' money to fund it, turn it over at some point to the private sector which will reap long-run benefits if profits should start to come in?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to come back to the first or one of the first elements of the preamble of the question asked by the Hon. Member. While he said that appearing once a year before a Standing Committee of the House was not enough to make these corporations accountable for their management to Parliament, I would like to point out to him that, in the last few months, there have been opportunities of examining the accounts of these companies both before the Standing Committee where the Minister concerned is now appearing and before the Public Accounts Committee. Yesterday, I tabled in the House a reply given by the Minister before the Committee on Public Accounts which considered the situation at Canadair. I believe that in a year there are more than one opportunity of examining these issues and the Hon. Member should keep this in mind.
As far as the viability of Canadair is concerned, I can see that the Hon. Member is very optimistic and has already been convinced by the arguments put before the Special Committee by the Senator who is responsible, since he is already forecasting profits for Canadair. I congratulate him for being so confident in the new management mechanisms which the Government has introduced to ensure Canadair's viability.


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall make a point of order relating to Question Period at three o'clock.
Now that the Minister of Agriculture has finally entered the Chamber, I would like to ask him a question. The Minister has pointed out that all farm organizations, tax accountants, tax lawyers, and the Canadian Tax Foundation, have agreed that Section 31 of the Income Tax Act dealing with small and part-time farmers must be changed to be in tune with the times. As well, on July 18 and July 20 when the Minister talked with his provincial counterparts in Brudenell, he told them that they did not need to set up another task force but only needed to make representations to him which he would pass on. I wonder why the Minister of Agriculture has failed to convince the Minister of Finance of these things? The Minister of Finance has obviously not taken the Minister of Agriculture's advice, because the Minister of Finance has now set up another task force.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would like to check further, he would find that I told the provincial Ministers who attended the conference in Brudenell to go back to their Premiers and get government support for a change. I do not think that I heard one of those Ministers say that he had the support of his Government. I did hear from the Ministers individually, but I did not hear from the Government of Ontario, for instance. I did not hear Premier Davis say that he wanted that change made, and I did not hear any of the other provincial Premiers say that they wanted that legislation changed. The lawyers, accountants, and organizations mentioned by the Hon. Member, will have the opportunity to present their views to the committee which is being set up and which, I understand, will report back very quickly.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Minister of Agriculture made some very interesting comments but, unfortunately, no reference whatsoever was made in the confidential minutes of that meeting indicating that the Ministers were to go and see their Premiers. They obviously thought that they represented the farming communities.


AMENDMENT OF SECTION 31-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance, but he is not present in the House. Perhaps the Minister of State for Finance might be able to comment on why the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance did not take the advice of the Minister of Agriculture and all groups which have already made representations to have Section 31 of the Income Tax Act modified.
March 14, 1984


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know from the recent Budget that provision has been made to hear the opinions of different sectors of the economy, and particularly the agricultural sector, regarding the application of Section 31 of the Income Tax Act. We shall conduct those consultations over the months ahead. I should welcome the views of the Hon. Member as much as I should welcome those of all Canadians who have an interest in this subject.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Under the current provisions for war veterans allowance, single veterans over 65 years of age receive a war veterans allowance top-up of approximately $54 per month over and above their combined income from the OAS and GIS. Will the Minister assure the House that the budget announcement of an increase of $50 per month for single GIS recipients will be reflected in a $50 per month increase for war veterans allowance recipients? Will the Minister also increase the war veterans allowance top-up for married veterans to the same level as that for single veterans?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the provisions which were included in the Budget to provide for a $25 increase in the GIS as of July 1, and a further $25 increase as of December 1, will be passed through to all veterans simply by increasing the ceiling. Thus, the full benefits of the budgetary provision which is extended to all Canadians will be applied to veterans as well.


PERMISSIBLE INTEREST INCOME LEVEL
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said the provision would be applied to all veterans. Does he include those veterans who are not drawing a war veterans allowance and who are under the age of 65? Perhaps he could enlighten us by answering that question.
Veterans who are receiving war veterans allowance are only allowed $100 in the way of interest income per year before they start losing an equivalent amount from their war veterans allowance. In view of the current Financial situation, would the Minister now make a commitment to raise this meagre amount of $100 to $1,000?


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could clarify the matter. The $50 increase which is being provided to those who are over 65 years of age under the GIS will automatically be passed through to the recipients of war veterans allowance by increasing the ceiling by a similar amount. Of course, increasing that
Oral Questions
ceiling for single people who are over 65 years of age will also affect those who are under 65 years of age.
With respect to increasing the interest deduction, as I have indicated to the Hon. Member, I will be proposing a number of legislative amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act as a follow-up to the study which was conducted over the past number of months, and a provision to increase the interest earnings deduction will be one of those proposals.


AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Raymond Dupont (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
We are all aware of the presence in the House today of a great Canadian whose extraordinary achievements have placed Canada and speed skating in the limelight of the whole world. To prepare himself for such performances, he has had to leave his own country to train and compete abroad. Could the Minister brief us on the setting up of permanent infrastructures for our athletes in Canada?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: On this Olympian day of rejoycing, Mr. Speaker, in the presence of the best Canadian athletes who represented us in Sarajevo, I should like to remind the House that the Government of Canada announced last week that our athletes would no longer have to leave Canada to train in foreign countries. Indeed, we have managed to sign an agreement with the University of Calgary for the construction with the cooperation of that university of an indoor speed skating oval on the campus at a cost of some $35 million, so that our athletes may train here in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Moreover, we are proud of Gaetan Boucher's and Brian Orser's outstanding achievements which have helped amateur sports as well as all Canadian athletes. I must say that Sport Canada, the government which I represent and all Canadians are delighted for this opportunity to help our athletes. Needless to say we will make sure that similar facilities are available in Eastern Canada, so that Canadians may win many more gold medals in the future.

March 14, 1984
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will recall that a year ago he rejected the recommendation of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence that Canada should publicly disapprove of the Guyana Government's human rights policies and practices and should reduce aid to Guyana.
In view of the growing numbers of Guyanese who are clamoring to enter Canada, and especially the rising number of arrivals claiming to be refugees, will the Minister condemn the growing racial and political violence of the Burnham Government of Guyana, and halt aid to Guyana until that Government agrees to end its oppressive policies?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in espousing the cause of human rights in Guyana as has been done by the Hon. Member. We have drawn in the past and in the future we will continue to draw this matter to the attention of the authorities in Guyana. At the present time there has been no decision, nor is it my intention to terminate aid to that particular country-


Mr. Stevens:: Shame!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which is presently a member of the Commonwealth Caribbean to which we have directed special attention.


VISA REQUIREMENT FOR GUYANESE IMMIGRANTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question on the same subject is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the rapidly worsening state of human rights in Guyana and the great danger to legitimate refugee claimants who can now apply to Canada only from within Guyana, will the Minister undertake to reconsider the visa requirement imposed this week? Will he also institute a special program for Guyanese in Canada like the ones previously established for Poles and currently for Guatemalans, and will he also guarantee that for the time being no Guyanese will be involuntarily returned to Guyana?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the Hon. Member's question is no. Just having applied the visa requirement, I do not think we should immediately begin to reconsider it. I will consider fully the other representations made by the Hon. Member.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the other day the Minister of Justice told me that he had not been told of any allegations of criminal offences committed by Unemployment Insurance Commission employees, so today I want to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration if he has had any reports passed along to him by the Department or the Deputy Minister which indicate allegations of criminal offences by a number of Unemployment Insurance Commission employees in several district offices across the country?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I did not catch the first few words of the Hon. Member's question. In terms of the substance of the question as I heard it, the answer is no, at least so far, and I certainly have not received any verbal communication of the representations he has described.


POSSIBLE BREACHES OF LAW
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, because there seems to be a pervasive attitude that civil servants who abuse their positions of trust are dealt with quite differently than if they were ordinary citizens, could the Minister please report back to the House on the number of possible criminal breaches that have taken place by Unemployment Insurance Commission employees, and the number of criminal prosecutions that have taken place as a result?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the full extent of the Hon. Member's insinuation. In terms of specific information that we have available, of course I will make it available to him in the appropriate way.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. The Minister will be aware of the conclusion of recent negotiations by the Cape Breton Development Corporation with a Japanese steel company and Brazilian Steel for the sale of Canadian coal, not only far below the cost of producing and delivering that coal but also far below the current Canadian export price.
Because this is creating new pressures and difficulties for the rest of the Canadian coal industry, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of this, and how much of the $134 million which has been passed on to that company from the taxpayers in the current year was used up to capture new markets at the expense of other coal companies.
March 14, 1984


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the particular transaction. The Minister responsible might be in a better position to answer. The Minister responsible for Devco is in the House. It comes under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the Minister was listening with keen interest so perhaps you could permit him to answer the question. I will put it to the Minister of Regional and Industrial Expansion.
I know the Minister is aware that the Cape Breton Development Corporation has recently completed negotiations for the sale of coal with Nippon Steel of Japan and Brazilian Steel at prices far below the cost of production at the plant, and delivery, and also far below current Canadian export prices. This creates all kinds of new pressures on the other coal companies in Canada. How much of the $134 million of taxpayers' money paid to this company in the current year has been used to subsidize Nippon Steel and Brazilian Steel?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the sale price of the coal to Japan was less than the cost of production. We do not get involved in the individual transactions undertaken by Devco. The Hon. Member, like all Hon. Members on his side of the House, is always after the Government to cut losses of Crown corporations. I think Devco should be congratulated for trying to be aggressive and open up new markets around the world. I will check and find out for the Hon. Member whether the sale price of the coal was less than the price of production.
I am sure the Hon. Member knows, from his days in business, that in many cases in order initially to penetrate a market, you sell at a different price than you would for a long-term contract.


DEVCO'S USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister is not aware that Devco is operating below the cost of production, why would it be that we paid $134 million a year to that company, if it were not operating below the cost of production? No one has anything against that if the cheaper coal is available to Nova Scotia for the production of power. When the company goes out on the export market and uses that money to plan the demise of the rest of the coal industry, we ought to be concerned.
In light of this latest development, would the Minister examine the criteria under which grants are made to Devco, to ensure that public money is not used in this way, and examine in light of his criteria the latest negotiations which led to the sale of Cape Breton coal to Brazil and Japan?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the first part of the Hon. Member's question. First of all he asked about one specific
Oral Questions
contract to sell to Japan. The last time we had an inquiry from one of the members of the Opposition concerning a specific contract with Japan where the product was allegedly sold at a lower price than it was sold to the power company in Nova Scotia, the allegation was incorrect. As a matter of fact we made a substantial profit on the last sale from Devco to Japan.
A comprehensive review of Devco is about to be undertaken with respect to all aspects of it. We think that there are so many exciting prospects for some of the mining projets in Devco that we want to ensure it is going to bring the maximum return not only to the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, but also to all the people of Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment who will be aware of the concern expressed recently in Quebec, and elsewhere, by waiters and waitresses about the inconsistency between the policy of his Department and that of Revenue Canada regarding tips. Can the Minister indicate whether he intends to respond to that concern by making a commitment to change the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide that waiters and waitresses will receive UI benefits which take into account their tips in the same way they are now being regarded as revenue by Revenue Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of course of great concern, and I am in the process of making arrangements to discuss with the appropriate Minister in Quebec the proposals or suggestions the Government of Quebec has to make in this regard. My concern would be that, whatever is done, if there is something to be done, it will be done in a way appropriate for the whole country. I would certainly not want to respond with any actions which could be interpreted or would in substance be anything that could seem to be an extension of snooping or untoward prying into the lives of waiters and others who receive tips as a substantial part of their income.


NATIONAL REVENUE-TREATMENT OF TIPS AS INCOME
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was not just asking that something be done with regard to the request by the Government of Quebec. I am asking that something be done about this situation right across Canada. In the absence of a commitment from the Minister to do something about this, perhaps I could ask the Minister of National Revenue, until he and his colleague get their heads together and decide what they are going to do about this, would he kindly ask his Department to lay off waiters and waitresses and stop treating them one way in one Department and another way in a different Department.

March 14, 1984
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is confusing the isssue. He should take another look at the Income Tax Act and the provisions of the Act which oblige these people, like all Canadian citizens, to declare their full income, whatever that income may be. Since our basic system is a voluntary one, Canadians who receive income in the form of tips, as in the example given by the Hon. Member, are responsible for declaring and paying tax on such income.
The Hon. Member was asking whether these amounts should be recognized for the purposes of various social measures, but that is an entirely different matter which concerns other departments, and my responsibility is to administer... I see the Hon. Member is not really interested. I suppose he is merely interested in asking a question and not necessarily in the answer.
I suggest the Hon. Member take another look at the Income Tax Act. If he wants to blame me for enforcing the Act, that is his business. However, it is my responsibility to apply our voluntary system, and I ask everyone who receives income in this form to declare it on their returns.


FUNDING OF UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in a preelection year we can expect an expenditure blitz; the problem has been caused over a decade. This morning in The Globe and Mail we saw that major universities are intending to put quotas on enrollment for young people. They cannot get jobs, and now they will not be able to go to school.
Given the Minister's responsibility for science and technology, can he tell us why he has been part of a Cabinet which has cut money for universities and why he thinks that is a good public policy in the present climate?


An Hon. Member:: That is wrong.


Donald James Johnston: That is just rubbish, Mr. Speaker. There has been no cut in university spending. If anything, this Government is committed to the view that the future of this country rests with the people.
[ Translation]
Brain power or "matiere grise" as they say in Quebec.


An Hon. Member:: He does not have much of that.
* *
*


EDUCATION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology who has read the Page Simons report on Canadian Studies and will know that in 1982 we were producing approximately half as many graduate Ph.D. engineers and biological scientists as we were in 1974. Can he tell the House why the Government is not treating that situation as a serious problem which deserves immediate redress? Why do we not see in the Budget, or in the Main Estimates, anything which would correct that problem for the future?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the question, the Hon. Member is concerned about the lack of students in certain disciplines, which clearly is a matter of concern to all of us. I would like to assure him that the Government has gone a long way to increase funding for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council which has those particular disciplines as one of its target areas. The funding for that Council in 1983-84 has been increased to approximately $282 million. This has been the focus of some very substantial government funding which represents the concern we all have that these particular disciplines be pursued because they are so fundamental to the future of our industrial economic development.


Donald James Johnston: That is where we are going to put additional funding. That is exactly the policy we have followed, and we will continue to follow. Mr. Speaker, I just mentioned that we increased our Council's budget by an amount that is exceptional compared to past funding. So when the Hon. Member says that we are not interested, that is just not true. In fact, this is probably our main concern: to increase human resources in Canada.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


TOURISM
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A government bulletin issued by Tourism Canada, dated February 10, states that "in 1983 Canada had a record travel deficit that will easily top $2 billion", and it goes on to say "an important cause of this deficit is the much higher price of gasoline in Canada compared to the United States", that difference being 45 cents a gallon. In view of these facts, added to the ones I brought to his attention before, would the Government not now give serious consideration to cancelling the Canadian Ownership Tax of four cents a gallon on gas and oil at the pump, a completely unauthorized tax for the last ten months, and which has brought the total of federal taxes added to the price of gasoline since the last election to 50 cents a gallon?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I know this is a serious and valid question. The Hon. Member
March 14, 1984

will join me in saying that both he and I give a good example to Canadians because we travel in Canada. I had the pleasure of seeing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McDermid:: I knew you could not keep a straight face.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the Hon. Member at Mont Tremblant last weekend, and he was travelling on good Canadian gasoline for which he had paid, no doubt, a larger amount than would be necessary and possible if only the Provinces, which take by far the largest amount of taxation, would begin by reducing some of the provincial taxes. After that we might consider what role we could play here.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER TAKE ACTION
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government owes the country an example in this regard, and tourism is a primary responsibility of this Government. Tourism is suffering a deficit of over $2 billion a year and countless jobs could be provided if that deficit did not exist. I ask the Prime Minister if he would not now, as a way of winding down, give serious consideration to domestic issues such as this one, which are of tremendous importance to the average Canadian man and woman, and to the jobs additional tourism, if it were made available and possible by a lower gasoline price, would provide to Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated my sympathy and understanding for the question, but it seems to me the Hon. Member has spoiled it by two false premises in his second question. The Hon. Member says it is primarily federal responsibility. Would he indicate in his supplementary question what section of the Constitution says that? The Hon. Member is quite mistaken in projecting his own future dispositions to mine when he says that I am winding down. He may be winding down. I do not plan to wind down.


George Harris Hees: I would like to assure the Prime Minister that I will not be winding down for many years to come.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada. The conjugal units placed at federal institutions were originally intended for visits by wives of long term prisoners. Has this program now been extended to common law wives?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, from its original concept the program was meant to
Introduction of Bills
include visits by people in relationships which the Hon. Member describes as common law. That is not a change. That has been a permanent feature of the program.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pertaining to a question to the President of the Privy Council and Government House Leader on government business. The issue of the CDIC Bill was brought up in Question Period. Is the Minister prepared to tell the House whether he is going to bring that Bill forward?


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the time for that matter. Normally questions regarding government business are placed on Thursdays.


LOUIS DAVID RIEL ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my understanding the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) wishes to move his Bill. The Chair would like to make some observations. Before putting the motion of the Hon. Member for leave to introduce a Bill intituled an Act to Grant a Pardon to Louis Riel, the Chair ought to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member that, although this Bill can be introduced and read for the first time, debate on second reading stage should not be entered upon until Royal consent is obtained, because the granting of a pardon is the prerogative of the Crown. I am quoting from May's Twentieth Edition and would like to insert the following passage into Hansard at this point. It reads:
-if the matters affecting the royal interests form the main or a very important part of a bill, it would be courting waste of time if the permission of the Crown to proceed with the Bill were not ascertained at the outset. In such cases, accordingly, the communication from the Queen is signified at the earliest stage of debate-usually the second reading.


William J. Yurko: for leave to introduce Bill C-228, An Act to grant a pardon to Louis David Riel.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.

March 14, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of granting permission for the Hon. Member to have leave to introduce the Bill please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a matter of custom and practice that Private Members normally have leave to introduce a Bill so that we can see what it says. We are experiencing the beginning of a division on something which Members have not even seen. No matter what the subject matter of a Bill is, it has always been traditional in this place for Private Members to be granted consent at least to introduce their Bill so we can see it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is the servant of the House. The Chair very distinctly heard noes when the Chair asked if there was consent. In the circumstances, the Chair has to ascertain whether or not the House approves or disapproves.
Those in favour of granting consent to the Hon. Member for leave to introduce the Bill please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay. The Hon. Member for Edmonton East.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, the Bill which I introduced today is intended to grant a posthumous pardon to Louis Riel. He is a hero of western Canada whose memory is revered from one end of the country to the other by the issuance of stamps, the building of statues, the naming of roads and institutions, and the designation of days of recognition. I ask the Government to make this a government Bill and then, accordingly, to request the Queen, through appropriate procedures, to grant such a pardon. Surely this is the least the Government can do after the abject failure of the First Minister's Conference on Aboriginal Rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member cannot debate the Bill at this point. A brief explanation of the Bill is all that is permitted.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 406, 413, 512, 543, 546 and 636.


Mr. Greenaway: As of December 31, 1983, by province, were any audits of farmers initiated by the Department of National Revenue in 1983 and, if so (a) how many (b) what total amount of unpaid tax was assessed to farmers (c) were any extra personnel hired to carry out the audits and, if so, how many?


Pierre Bussières: During the nine months ended December 31, 1983, the Department completed audits on (1) farmers, (2) farmers whose chief source of income is not farming, and (3) hobby farmers who have full-time occupations yet carry on farming activities. The following statistics include all three:
(a) No. of Audits (b) Estimated Additional Taxes
Newfoundland	5	$ 18,656Prince Edward Island	61	397,957Nova Scotia	75	222,225New Brunswick	61	121,841Quebec	646	2,539,879Ontario	1,027	4,765,217Manitoba	464	2,198,325Saskatchewan	1,759	4,771,256Alberta	814	5,248,208British Columbia	292	1,980,881(c)	No additional personnel were specifically hired to carry out these audits; staff assigned farm audits are also assigned audits of taxpayers in other categories.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Will tenders be called for the construction of the Emergency Measures Shelter in Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the present status of planning for the project?
3.	Were outside consultants, architects, or planners engaged and, if so, what (a) are their names (b) amount was allocated for their services?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Location and design/construction schedules for Regional Emergency Government Headquarters, New Brunswick not finalized.
2.	Treasury Board has approved the project. Site location now under discussion with officials of the province.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable, (b) not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Did the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission establish Women's Employment Counselling Centres and, if so, how many and where were they located?


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Seven Women's Employment Counselling Centres have been established since 1981 as part of a pilot project. The centres operate in Halifax, Chicoutimi, Toronto, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg and Calgary. Other similar centres, not part of the pilot, operate in Regina and Vancouver, making a total of nine WECCs across the country.
March 14, 1984


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information was available, what proportion of the employees of the Correctional Services were women?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: In so far
as the Correctional Service of Canada is concerned: As of December 31, 1983, 22.9 per cent of the total staff complement were women.


Mr. Howie: Are any persons employed by the Program Evaluation Branch of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and, if so, how many and what is the estimated salary expenditure in the current fiscal year and, in each of the two preceding fiscal years, what was the salary expenditure?


Jean-Guy Dubois: Persons employed by the Program Evaluation Branch	- 46
Estimated salary expenditure in current fiscal year	- $ 1,814,517
Salary expenditure 1982-83	-$1,891,539
Salary expenditure 1981-82	-$1,380,196


Mr. Stewart: With reference to the answer to Question No. 126, in the fiscal year 1983-84, what amount was budgeted for the Work Adjustment Training Program?


Jean-Guy Dubois: In the fiscal year 198384, the amount of $1,680,000 was budgeted for the Work Adjustment Training Program.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Borrowing Authority Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 13, 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.
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, when I concluded my remarks yesterday I was pointing out that John Turner had set the course for the Government's continued deficit financing. Since then Canadians have learned that such deficits are not cure-alls. The Ontario Economic Council points out very forcibly that such huge deficits crowd out desirable investments. When the federal Government borrows 90 cents of every dollar put aside by Canadians, it starts a strong competition for the remaining 10 per cent. The higher interest rates, which automatically follow on supply and demand, lead to increased inflation. We as a people have gone through that cycle once before. We do not want to do it again, Mr. Speaker, nor can this economic recovery about which we are hearing stand a further round of high interest and inflation.
These high deficits are a reflection of over-spending. Federal government spending for the upcoming fiscal year will exceed $98 billion. This represents a year over year increase of 10.5 per cent. The Minister followed the six and five program of restraint, so he says, by promising to hold the line at 4 per cent in his February Budget. It takes a rather elastic line indeed, one that has lost all of its strength and control, to allow a stretch from 4 per cent to 10.5 per cent.
Bill C-21 is the inevitable result of a government's refusal to live within its means. Every home owner in this country knows how discouraging it is to pay on a mortgage year after year and not see any reduction on the principal of that mortgage. When individual citizens or organizations borrow money and go into debt, they must repay their loans as well as interest that has accumulated on it. Governments are really no different, except that some governments close their eyes and increase taxation. It is that simple for them. But tell that to the taxpayers of St. Catharines. They know what a thousand dollars is worth. They believe that their tax dollar is going into Public Works, National Defence, social programs and so on. But not any more. That $1,000 per taxpayer in St. Catharines is his annual contribution to the public debt service charges.
It takes no great intellectual wizard to understand that these service charges will crowd essential programs. We want the Government's spending madness to stop now.
To put it quite simply, I would be treating the taxpayers in my riding with contempt if 1 voted for this legislation. It is

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
irresponsible and we have had enough. Cut the request in half, I say.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised-or not surprised, I suppose-that there is no one on the other side who is prepared to defend this fantastic attempt to have the House grant the Government unlimited power to borrow when it has once again just shown how incompetent and how consciousless it is when it comes to the spending of public money.
We were discussing Canadair during Question Period. For example, this Bill is not needed to permit the Government to issue guarantees to Crown corporations. Not is it needed to permit Crown corporations to borrow. We are only dealing with the Government borrowing for its own direct purposes. The Government is asking the House to give it the authority to borrow $29.5 billion, more than the Government's alleged deficit, which is supposed to be $29.6 billion in the year beginning April 1. It says that it will have to borrow $25.55 billion on the financial markets. It will borrow $25.55 billion on the financial markets. It will borrow $4.05 billion from the pension funds and the like of the Government. It wants to borrow more than it says its deficit will be. It behooves any Member of the House who believes in parliamentary control to oppose that attempt. Incidentally, I see that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) is here today. I was dumbfounded to read in the newspapers yesterday that he had been having conversations with John Turner. Say it isn't so, Herb, say it isn't so. I have my money put on you to become leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and I do not want you chickening out in this shameful manner, particularly to a right wing extremist such as Mr. Turner. I hope there will be an announcement from the President of the Treasury Board. I hope that it is a leadership committee meeting that he is holding there, across the aisle. I suppose he was speaking to Mr. Turner about his experience with respect to bankruptcies so that he could apply the knowledge to Canadair.


Mr. Tobin:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Never send a juvenile delinquent on a man's issue. Do you realize that the Government has thrown away $2 billion on Canadair?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Tory nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: Two billion dollars is the equivalent of the whole public debt of the Province of Nova Scotia. The hon. gentleman over there, from whatever riding he is-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


John Carnell Crosbie: -should realize that he is better seen and not heard. It does him a lot of damage when he is heard. Two billion dollars was thrown away on Canadair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. May I request that we have some order in the House? The Hon. Member's remarks may not please everyone, but he has a right to say what he wants to say.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, let the record note that a Liberal boar from the porkbarrel is interrupting me with loud shouts.
The Ottawa Citizen today pointed out:
But even if the 'new' company starts turning a profit, interest on the old debts will push the total taxpayers'-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Are you enjoying yourself, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am surprised you can get your snout out of the trough long enough to make a sound-other than the grunt that comes from them all. That is the quack quack government. The lame duck government.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are quaking with their quacks.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I want to know if a press release has been issued by the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) authorizing this speech in advance of its being delivered.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order. I believe the House is quite raucous. We can have more order than this. That was not a point of order. Let us hear what the Hon. Member who has the floor has to say. On the other hand, I would remind the Hon. Member that he could make his remarks a bit less inflammatory, which could help him have more calm during his speech.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your fairmindedness and impartial advice. We are the Party of freedom fighters. We are not the Party that has to say yes every time our Leader says yes or no when he says no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hallmark of the brothel keeper is to be a Liberal. It is not the hallmark of our Party. Let me get back to my remarks. The Ottawa Citizen points out:
But even if the 'new' company starts turning a profit, interest on the old debts will push the total taxpayers' tab to about S3.5 billion-roughly $160 for every man, woman and child in the country-
This is all in aid of 1,200 jobs to produce executive jets. There is something wrong when the Canadian taxpayer has to be asked to pay $3.5 billion in total, in advances of both principal and interest, to any company for that kind of purpose. The article points out that it involves enough public money to double the income supplements of every poor pensioner in the country and have $ 1 billion left over. If the same amount of money that is being spent on Canadair were spent to double the income supplement of every poor pensioner in this country, there would still be $1 billion left over. It is more than the Government budgeted this year for all the unemployment insurance contributions, direct job-creation schemes and training programs combined. That is how the Government spends public money. That is another reason for us to refuse to support this Bill.
March 14, 1984

Of course, there are many reasons for refusing to support the Bill. Let me point out another very likely inaccuracy in the figures that the Government is presenting to us. It wants us to believe that its deficit this year will be $29.6 billion. That is a huge amount, but it refuses to tell Members of the House what interest rate projections it is using for this and the coming years when it estimates what the interest payments will be on that debt. It says that it cannot tell the Members of the House what its forecasts of interest levels are because this would indicate to the market what it thinks and would therefore affect the market. It fails to explain why the United States gives these forecasts for nine years ahead without affecting the market. But we cannot do so in Canada.
Other economic forecasters will do that. Chase Econometrics, for example, give their projections of what interest rates will be for this year and for 1985. The Government fails to explain why it is that in the United States of America they can give forecasts for nine years ahead without affecting the market, but in Canada we cannot do so. Other economic forecasters do that. Chase Econometrics, for example, gave its projections on what interest rates will be for this year and for the next five. Its projection is 9.9 per cent on the average this year, then 11.3 per cent next year, and 11.2 per cent for the following year. The Conference Board of Canada gives projections. Data Resources does, and so does Informetrica Ltd. The University of Toronto gives projections but the Government of Canada does not. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Because the Government's forecasts would be a laughed out of the country if it did that.
My analysis is that the Government of Canada is forecasting that interest rates will decline to 7.5 per cent, in other words, 3 percentage points under the estimates of all the other forecasters. That is the interest rate level the Government is using in making its estimates of how much interest the Government will pay this year on the debt. If that is what the Government has done and if interest rates stay at present levels instead of declining 3 percentage points, as the Government appears to be indicating, the analysis in the April, 1983 Budget indicates that the deficit this year will be $5.2 billion larger and the non-Budget borrowing requirements $3 billion more. That is how important this issue is.
Until this Government is prepared to tell the Members of this House what interest rate forecast it is using in calculating the interest to be paid this year, which is in excess of $21 billion, and treats us the same way as all the other economic forecasters do-and they are all willing to make their forecasts for the next five years-we cannot believe what the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. MacLaren) says about what our interest costs are going to be and what the deficit is going to be this year, or whether or not the deficit will be anywhere near what the Government forecasts in the next four years. Come clean with us, Mr. Minister of State for Finance, and then we can consider what to do with this Bill.
Borrowing Authority Act
I believe my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot more to say. Perhaps I could get unanimous consent to continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Yes, the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: There does not appear to be any objection, Mr. Speaker. I will not abuse-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent.


John Carnell Crosbie: But who objected, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. This is not a question for the Chair to determine. The Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail).


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-21, the Borrowing Authority Act. Before I begin my remarks to put our side of the argument forward, I want to make a reference to an attempt to describe the previous speaker as the bionic mouth. It has been drawn to my attention that the previous speaker has been very loose with his quips and has attacked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and others, as he is prone to do. I would like to remind him of some of his comments regarding his Party's previous election promises. I am speaking of the Member of Parliament for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He said, "We are not going to do something just because it was promised during the campaign and we decide now that it is not the right thing to do". The Hon. Member for St. John's West went on to say, "I would conclude from these analyses that we have a free hand to do exactly what we think is best for the country".


John Carnell Crosbie: That is certainly what you did.


Maurice James Harquail: He went on to make a series of other comments, which really, upon reflection, are not worth repeating in this House.
Although we heard many indications from the Tories about wanting to take a new and fresh approach and about the Opposition Party wishing to make a sincere effort to bring forward a new look, a new approach and a new leader, when one reads and listens, as I have done in recent days, to speeches both on the Budget and on this Borrowing Authority Bill, one finds there is very little that is new. Indeed, it is the same old gang spewing gloom and doom and saying nothing is good in Canada. I disagree with that.
I want to say a few positive things this afternoon about the determination of this Government to do realistic and responsible planning with respect to contingency amounts for tradi-

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
tional borrowings that have gone on over the years and for this particular borrowing authority.
This contingency amount is to cover the impact of large and unpredictable foreign exchange operations on the financial requirements and to ensure that the Government will be able to continue its regular debt program in the event the House is not in session or has been dissolved. In essence, the contingency amount is designed to avoid any disruptions in the borrowing program which might lead to unnecessary disruptions in the exchange or capital markets which, in turn, might lead to upward pressure on interest rates. This is something which we on this side are determined to avoid. The Government will account for all the borrowing undertaken in a fiscal year. The Government will not borrow more than is necessary and it does not have to use up all the borrowing authority granted by Parliament. We know Government expenditures are controlled by Parliament and that the contingency does not permit spending beyond that reasonable amount. What we are looking at in this contingency amount is something that will give the Government flexibility in its financial operations. It will help to avoid unnecessary disruptions, as I have already mentioned.
Let me mention some of the initiatives from October, 1982. There was $500 million allocated for the NEED program, which was very successful in creating much needed jobs. Certainly in the Atlantic area this was a welcome thrust to the economy during that difficult winter period. In April, 1983 we saw $4.8 billion allocated over a four-year period under the Special Recovery Program. Indeed, every nook and cranny of the country has in one way or the other, directly or indirectly, benefited from this dynamic, positive thrust by the Government to protect those less fortunate and those unable to find work. There was $1 billion allocated in December, 1983 for youth initiatives which came under the Youth Opportunity Fund. There was an additional $400 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker, last week when I was making a speech during the debate on the Budget 1 was corrected by you in the chair for reading a speech. I was wondering whether you are prepared today to make a ruling concerning the Hon. Member who is now speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: If the Hon. Member who has the floor is reading a prepared speech, he should abide by the rules of this House and speak without a prepared text.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, that was a very unnecessary interruption by the Hon. Member. I do not have a prepared text.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice James Harquail: I am not reading from a prepared text. It is not my habit to read from a prepared text.


John Carnell Crosbie: It would be of no help to you anyway.


Maurice James Harquail: But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when I am talking about important matters, such as fiscal matters, I have with me reference notes with respect to figures. As is expected of me, I want to be accurate in the figures I quote and not adopt the practice of some Members to your left who are, from time to time, reckless with figures. I do not wish to resort to that practice.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is what the Hon. Member had when he was called to order.


Maurice James Harquail: We know from long accepted practice that one should speak without a prepared text, and I assure you that I do not have such a prepared text.


Mr. Friesen:: Methinks he protests too much.


Maurice James Harquail: What I am referring to are the figures which I am quoting from documents that I brought forward in the preparation of my presentation today.
I want to tell the Opposition that it should get away from trying to instil fear in the Canadian people. Why do Opposition members not talk about positive things, such as what we are doing-


John Carnell Crosbie: Where are they?


Maurice James Harquail: The Opposition should look at the reason for this borrowing authority. We want to carry out the important transportation programs which have been adopted by the Government to improve our highway networks, our ports, our airports and all such facilities. I would like to talk for a moment about the transportation need. If our economy is to suceed, we must continue moving forward and creating more jobs. It goes hand in glove that we must have a good transportation system-a good highway transportation system, good and efficient ports, efficient airports and the like, not to mention the need for good highways when we talk about tourism. If we talk about inviting people to come to Canada, we must provide them with good highways to travel about our beautiful country. This is just one element which allows me to rise and speak in a positive way about the reasons for the need for improvements to the transportation facilities in the country. Also I would like to mention the other important programs which my Party has brought forward and this Government has sustained over the years in the area of health and social programs. We are constantly bringing forward new initiatives to assist our youth, our seniors and women who want to develop and hone their abilities to participate in the Canadian workplace. This is the complete raison d'etre behind bringing forward this Bill at this time.
As I started to say, the continual traditional, narrow-minded role played by opposition Members in constantly nitpicking everything that is brought before the House does not go unnoticed by taxpayers. Surely Canadian people are on to this type of tactic and strategy-nothing is ever good, nothing is
March 14, 1984

ever worthwhile. However, Canadians see the actual benefits which accrue to them in all regions of the country, certainly in the Atlantic region. That kind of thrust has resulted in new developments, such as new downtown projects which are under way. These projects create jobs for people who want to work. That is the position of the Government. That is what we are endeavouring to do. That is the reason we must get on with approving this Bill.
Naturally we, the majority Government in Parliament, have the support of the Canadian public. This is what Canadians expect us to do. They expect us to accept our responsibilities and to move forward boldly with our policies and programs. They do not want us only to talk about them. They want us to implement them. That is what we are all about.
In conclusion, I invite all Hon. Members, especially opposition Members, to make a sincere effort to look beyond their noses and a little deeper into the benefits accruing to Canadians. Indeed, Canadians are awaiting the approval of funds for projects in their constituencies. We have to allow for people living in those parts of Canada where, because of world economic difficulties they are suffering unemployment. We want to attempt under the new Ministry of Youth to put young people to work in the country.
Mir. Crosbie: You have $4 billion in cash.


Maurice James Harquail: I am fed up with the opposition of such Members as the Hon. Member for St. John's West and some of his colleagues. They try continually to tear down some of the positive work we are attempting to do. Let us get on with the job and stop some of this rhetoric.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, asks Members of Parliament to give the federal Government approval to borrow $29.55 billion for fiscal year 1984-85. How can responsible Members of Parliament possibly give blanket approval to such an amount and to such an unspecified request? Why does the Government not indicate which budgetary items this is to cover? How can we approve expenditures which we believe, in the most part, are unnecessary or wrong?
We in this Party do not agree that the Government should have given over $1.35 billion to Canadair. Now it plans to wipe out this debt completely and provide a further loan of $310 million. We did not agree with the PIP grants to oil companies which cost over $1.6 billion. We did not and do not approve the borrowing of moneys for Liberal patronage and slush funds, nor do we approve of the deferral of corporate taxes which could bring $22 billion more into this year's Budget and thus require much less borrowing authority. We do not agree with the loss of taxes from unnecessary loopholes which the Government is only too glad to give to high-paid professionals and high-income people in its latest Budget.
I oppose this Bill for the same reasons that I opposed the Liberal Budget which included unnecessary costs, which forgot the hundreds of thousands of unemployed people, which made only a token grant for youth jobs and completely ignored jobs
Borrowing Authority Act
and training for women. It gave all the benefits to higher-income people and corporations. This is just another Tory type of financing; it is not humanitarian or practical.
In particular, the federal Budget was not a love story for Canadian women. Canadian women are struggling as never before to survive and pay their costs. In many cases they are the sole supporters of their families. The Budget contained the long-awaited increase in the GIS for poor single pensioners. Of course, we would agree with borrowing money for that, but we must point out that it was long overdue and certainly is not enough to bring pensioners above the poverty line. Unfortunately, it leaves elderly single women who make up three-quarters of this group well below the poverty line. The average income of pensioners with no other income will rise to only $7,200. This amount is $624 short of the minimum amount recommended by the all-Party task force on pension reform. It is much below the real poverty line.
We agree with pension splitting between spouses proposed in the Budget. It is another program which was long advocated by women's organizations. It does not cost the Government a cent. Why did it not bring in this policy sooner? However, our major concerns regarding pension reform are that the Liberals, like the Conservatives, concentrate only on private pension schemes. There is no way that this will provide adequate, secure retirement coverage for the needs of Canadian women in particular. The Liberals refuse to reform the public pension plan even though the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) advocated this in earlier speeches. We know that this is the only way to ensure adequate universal pension coverage for all retired people. Canada Pension Plan benefits should have been increased to 50 per cent of the average industrial wage.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in her Budget speech that the Budget brought in "ideal pensions". Then, of course, she had to admit that it depended entirely upon how the private sector responded and to say that this was its last chance. Obviously she is not completely confident that the Liberal pension proposals will be taken up by the private sector. The Liberal pension plan is based upon tax deductions and voluntary individual payments into RRSPs.
I ask, to whom does this really respond, to what income group? Very few working people on average incomes and with families are able to find $1,500 in spare cash to put into RRSPs. Of course, lower-income people, particularly single women, are completely left out of this kind of coverage. How many businesses will be able to find the extra cash flow to put in place schemes for their employees, even though they may be a little broader in proposed coverage?
With the exception of pension splitting, the Budget proposals which reform part of the Canada Pension Plan, the rest of the CPP proposals, are only to be studies. I warn Canadian women that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are playing politics when they talk about a homemaker's pension. That is not going to be in any way valid from the point of view of most Canadian women. Our minority report recommendations and the recommendations of labour and other groups was

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
to raise CPP benefits to half the industrial wage. We believe that a universal public pension scheme is the only way to bring women pensioners above the poverty line once and for all.
The expenditures of this borrowing Bill will not be targeted to the needs of women. In her speech, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women talked about how great this Budget is for women. I asked her to explain why there were no job-creation programs targeted to women, no retraining programs for those who will be displaced by high technology, and no federal initiatives to assist with essential support services so that women can get into the work force and remain there. I asked why there were no support systems such as daycare and parental leave. Instead of answering the question, she praised the Government programs as being quite adequate.
Canadian women do not agree with this answer. Thousands of women want jobs. They want equality in the workplace. They want and need to work, especially women in very risky jobs such as in the clerical and service categories. Every day these jobs are being lost to high technology. The Budget and this borrowing Bill completely neglect this important issue for Canadian women.
There is no job protection or work alternatives for women, something that is really needed. We cannot approve this kind of blanket borrowing authority for billions of dollars. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women also praised the Government's affirmative action program, which is not mandatory, does not include contract compliance and does not apply to job-creation programs. Statistics show that far fewer women are getting into job-creation programs funded by the federal Government. This Government is taking no steps to preserve jobs for women. Why is there no fund to assist over 200 women, mostly immigrants, who will soon lose their jobs at Puretex Canada, a Toronto sportswear factory? The Government quickly found billions of dollars to bail out Dome and Massey-Harris, but cares nothing about saving industries which employ women. Puretex is a good example of that.
The federal Government has added to the hardship of women forced into taking part-time jobs with part-time pay cheques and no benefits. Those who work half-time will be covered by the Canada Pension Plan, but the Government ignored most of the recommendations from their commission on part-time work last year, steps that are urgently needed for women.
Woman have not been considered in the six and five provisions of the federal Government. There will be no catchup provisions for them. We are very concerned about the total compensation comparisons with the private sector. This means women will be locked into the same pay scales, which are far too low for secretarial and maintenance jobs in the private sector.
We criticized the Liberals justifiably. As a British Columbian, I can tell you that it will be far worse if the Conservatives get into government. One of their speakers who spoke earlier today said that if he becomes Finance Minister, he will require
a means test. Knowing his record on women, he will be chopping some of the important programs I have mentioned.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I must say that the time allotment ran out for the last speaker at the most appropriate moment. She was ready to make sure that the rich get more out of the Treasury and deprive the poor.
In speaking to this borrowing Bill, there is a sense of dej'a vu. We are back to the same thing again. In the four years in the life of this Parliament, this is the eighth borrowing request. That is in addition to the regular revenues that the Government receives. Within the life of this Parliament we are looking at a cumulative borrowing of S 102.85 billion, almost $103 billion. I agree with the other Members that it is bad enough to have such things as the bailout of Maislin and Canadair and some other projects, but I object if much of this borrowing is, as it probably is, to help with the Liberal slush fund. In the last month or two, we have repeatedly heard about special funds provided for Liberal back-benchers only. They have total discretion over how those funds are spent in their constituencies, and maybe in others.
To get a picture of what is going on in the whole scene of borrowing in this country, we have to put it in perspective with past experience. In this one Bill, we are asked to give the Government permission to borrow $29.55 billion. In this one borrowing authority, they are asking for almost three times as much as the total deficit of the entire nation in all of Canadian history when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came into office in 1968. Our country was in debt for $11 billion for the First 101 years of our history. In one borrowing authority, we are being asked to give permission to borrow almost three times that amount for one year.
I listened with care to the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), who incidentally reads very well. He said that this borrowing authority, which will supply money for the Government until March 31, 1985, "will help to avoid unnecessary interruptions". That is a very insightful comment by the Hon. Member for Restigouche. What kind of unnecessary interruptions could there be during the next year? Could there be such things as a leadership race in the Liberal Party? Would that be an unnecessary interruption? Following the leadership convention in June, would a possible general election be an unnecessary interruption?
What does the Member mean by "unnecessary interruption"? Does he mean that an interruption is the need to come back to Parliament to borrow more money? In two of the eight borrowing Bills in the last four years we discovered that the Government was asking for far more money than it needed to operate. The Government had to reduce the amount requested in Bill C-125, at the request of the Opposition. It reduced by $4 billion the amount in Bill C-151 because Opposition Members demanded it. The Government was borrowing more than it needed so that it would not have to keep coming back to Parliament for more money. It is a nuisance factor in this parliamentary system for the Government to come back to
March 14, 1984

Parliament and ask for more money. It is a subtle reminder that it is overspending.
The Hon. Member for Restigouche talked about avoiding unnecessary interruption. It is another way of saying that the Government is asking for permission to borrow more than it needs, as it does not want to come back to Parliament to ask for permission at very awkward moments. Those awkward moments happen to be such things as leadership conventions and election campaigns. Between now and March 31, 1985, the Government will have permission to borrow enough money so that it will not have to put up with the nuisance of coming back to Parliament. I do not think that we as Members can afford to see this institution as being a nuisance or an unnecessary interruption for the Government. This is the arena in which the Government must display what little sense of responsibility it has left.
As I said before, if in fact there were no such things as Liberal slush funds or bailouts and the Government still needed all of this money, then there would be another very serious question to ask, and that is, whether we are living within our means. Are we paring down the Budget in such a way that we can operate using our cash flow? When this particular borrowing Bill will amount to 4.5 per cent of our GNP or cash flow, we must ask ourselves whether the Government is prepared to live within the means at its disposal.
I noticed that under this particular borrowing Bill, interest payments alone will cost every taxpayer $1,500 a year. That is needed just to meet the interest payments. That, Mr. Speaker, is like going to Household Finance to pay for your grocery bill. They want a little more every time, and we cannot afford to pay those kinds of interest rates. We are mortgaging the future of our children and our grandchildren.
After the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) spoke yesterday, I asked him if he thought it was right to make sure that our children and grandchildren will inherit a debt over which they have no say at all. They cannot vote on whether or not they want to pay the debt we are leaving to them as an inheritance. His answer to me indicated pretty clearly the mentality of the Government. He said that the cash flow of the Government will keep on increasing, and with the increase in the Gross National Product we will be able to pay this accumulated debt. Is there anything on the record which would substantiate what was said by the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere? As recorded on page 2041 of Hansard, he concluded his answer to my question by saying:
I have therefore no worries as far as the future generations are concerned, Mr. Speaker.
I simply want to ask all Hon. Members if they agree with that kind of statement. Does it not bother them at all that when they support this kind of drunken borrowing mentality, they are saying in effect that their children and grandchildren will inherit a debt that may be beyond their ability to pay? Does it not bother them at all?
Borrowing Authority Act
I was visiting a shirt-tail relative of mine in the City of Portland a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. That relative is a businessman. With a very quizzical look on his face, he said to me: "Do we ever have borrowing problems down here in the United States! Do you people up in Canada have problems like that?" I looked at him and said: "I wish we had your problems". In the United States, they are talking about a debt of $200 billion in a country with a population of about 240 million people. I wish we had those kinds of problems. 1 told him that our per capita debt this year alone will be 40 per cent higher than his. He shook his head, in disbelief. These are the problems with which we are wrestling, Mr. Speaker.
Do we give the Government a blank cheque to borrow more money than it needs in order to operate this year? Without taking into account rising interest rates, the Government has projected our debt as being $31 billion. With interest rates now rising, we can assume that that debt will be even higher, because the Government will have to pay a higher rate of interest.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we can in no way endorse this kind of irresponsible borrowing. We cannot endorse the kind of mentality of government members who ask for as much as they want for the next year so that they may avoid unnecessary interruptions and spend as they like.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, on most occasions it is a pleasure to rise in the House, but it is not a pleasure when discussing a borrowing Bill of the size of the one that is before us at this time. One might recall that in 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that we will be on the road to financial disaster if nothing is done to bring spending under control. In that year, we spent $13.8 billion. Now we are spending $100 billion a year and we can see the problems that that has created.
It is interesting to look over the records and see just who was in charge of our public accounts and spending programs in the past. I have a list here which goes back to 1967 when Mr. Benson was the Minister of Finance. Something that should stand him in good stead, I suppose, as he continues in government service for what seems to be a very long time is that he was the last Finance Minister for the Liberal Government who in 1969-70 showed a surplus. He actually showed a surplus of $493 million in 1969. That was the last surplus the Government ever had, and that was 15 years ago or more. The original idea behind accounting in a businesslike way was that one would lose some money one year and save it up the next.
In 1970, Mr. Benson lost $372 million, and the following year the deficit reached $702 million. In those days that seemed to be pretty horrible. The deficit rose to just under a billion dollars in what would appear to be Mr. Benson's final year as Minister of Finance.
Next, the Hon. John Turner came on to the scene in 1972 and began to lead the way. He produced a 1972-73 Budget which lost $999 million. He produced a Budget in 1974 which lost $1,733 million on the year's operations, and then he produced another Budget in 1975 which nearly quadrupled

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
that loss, making a deficit of $5,463 million. At that point, the Elon. John Turner withdrew from public life in shame and humiliation, one might assume, or to protect himself from having the reputation of being a member of the Liberal Party. However, in any case, he disappeared, and I believe he is now being resurrected as the only hope for leader of the Liberal Party and his coronation is to take place in June of this year.
I would like to let it be known that the record of the Hon. John Turner shows that in the first year he took over, he lost about a billion dollars, and in the last year that he was in charge of our financial operations, the deficit was $5 billion. By that time, the gross debt had risen to $58 billion from some $45 billion, which was the amount of the debt when he took over.
The Hon. John Turner was followed by another erstwhile candidate for leadership of the Liberal Party, the Hon. Donald Macdonald. He stayed on for only two budgets and managed to create a deficit of $6 billion as a result of one budget and $10 billion as a result of the other. He is now employed at an outrageous per diem amount to look into Canada's financial situation. He claims that he should not run for the leadership of the Liberal Party because he is involved in the Macdonald Commission which is inquiring into the country's economic status. Mr. Speaker, that former Minister should certainly know how to get into debt and into trouble.
He was followed by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) who managed to increase the deficit of that day from $10.8 billion to $12.2 billion. By that time our gross debt was $95 billion. This is the Minister who was one of the proponents and champions of the Challenger.
Then came the second bright spot in this recital. In the year following that in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources was Minister of Finance, the deficit dropped from $12.2 billion to $11.4 billion. That is when the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was Minister of Finance. However, good things do not last long; he was followed by today's Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who had the most disastrous of all Budgets. It is a truism to say now that he was the worst Minister of Finance since the Hon. John Turner, although some people class the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as being on a par with Mr. Turner. I think the Deputy Prime Minister wins the gold cup, and should keep it forever, for his Budgets. When he left the scene, the gross debt was around $134 billion.
It is therefore no wonder, Mr. Speaker, that we are concerned about giving the Government more authority to spend money. Figures are almost meaningless. The Government wants to borrow $29.55 billion, and it is hard for an ordinary person to relate to that. We have heard about how far it would stretch if it were composed of $100 bills and how much that amount would have represented in the time of Christ and so on, but I find it difficult to explain to taxpayers.
The Government is using this Bill as convenience, to give some of its Members more time to run for the leadership of
that Party. It is an interesting commentary on the Government that when the Prime Minister announced his resignation, the stock market went up immediately. That is rather typical of the hardheaded fashion in which the stock market operates. Under the guidance of the Prime Minister it was rather insecure and thought that perhaps it was in for better times when he tendered his resignation. When it found that the two leading challengers were former Finance Ministers in the Liberal Government, the market immediately went down and it has been stagnant ever since.
There are a lot of examples of this Government's misadventures and its waste of money, Mr. Speaker. For instance, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) has vastly increased the money to be spent on an advertising campaign to get people of the world to eat more fish. That advertising sounds strange on the West Coast where we cannot catch enough fish at the present time to satisfy the market. Yet the Minister wants to increase the advertising budget. It is possible that at the same time the advertisements might carry a vivid portrait of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Then there is today's news about the Canadair fiasco. We may lose $3.5 billion on the Challenger. If that company had 3,500 employees, that represents $1 billion each. It could have afforded to give each of them a separation allowance of $1 million six years ago and it would be no worse off today.
As was stated by Decima Research just the other day, people in Canada would like somebody to be the Prime Minister who can sympathize with or understand their problems. That has been a big problem for the Prime Minister, and I am afraid it will be for his successor.


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, this request for borrowing authority for $29 billion is of great concern to all Canadians, but particularly for the agricultural community. We have had a Government, a Minister of Finance and a Cabinet who have not acted responsibly toward spending. The news of the $3.5 billion that Canadair has cost the taxpayers is an example of this.
The Government's total budget for agriculture is $1.26 billion, out of a $100 billion Budget. One must ask where the Prime Minister, the Cabinet and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) place their priorities. I am sure that not only every taxpayer in Canada but every farmer-some of whom are facing bankruptcy and many who are facing very, very serious financial problems-is asking today how the government, the Cabinet and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) could relinquish their responsibilities in the way they have.
The Government is requesting borrowing authority of $29 billion. For practically a year and a half on this side of the House we have been asking the Government to take some action on the Western Grain Stabilization Program. Individual farmers pay as much as $1,200 each into that fund. This is their money, yet the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Liberal Government have failed to put in place a formula that would trigger a payment to farmers.
March 14, 1984

When Otto Lang instigated the Western Grain Stabilization Program, the formula was set up to address the cash flow problem faced by farmers. There is $1 billion of farmers' money in that fund, yet the Government will not put in place the formula that would allow a pay-out to address their cash flow problems. This shows how serious our financial problems are and it shows the inability of the Government, of the Cabinet and of the Prime Minister to deal with them.
We have before us a Bill for advance grain payments to producers. We have been calling for that for months and we will give it quick passage. It would allow a farmer to borrow certain amounts of money in advance of delivering his grain. This Government has dragged its feet on agricultural matters.
Concerning the national energy policy, I sat in the committee and saw this Government move to the point where, as we heard today in the House, it is costing the consumers of Canada over 50 cents a gallon more for gasoline here than it does in the U.S. Remember the 18 cents a gallon, Mr. Speaker? Remember how terrible it was that the Conservatives were inflicting an 18 cent a gallon tax on gasoline on the Canadian consumer? Well, we now know the reality.
We on this side have called again and again for the removal of federal fuel taxation on food-producing lands. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) moved a Private Members' Bill in that regard so as to improve the production of food. Again the Government fails to move and address the problem. This Government, this Prime Minister and this Cabinet must put its priorities in order. We have productive people, productive farmers. But unless we give them tools, opportunities and a fair chance, they will not be the engine of stimulation of the economy. Farmers contribute over $8 billion to the economy. In return, they get back $1.25 billion from a $100 billion budget. I think it is fair for the people of Canada to call upon the Prime Minister to address these very, very serious matters of finance and to reconsider the manner in which he handles the taxpayers' money.
I could read into the record the continuation of a long list of spending by this Government. Under this administration, the paper pushing bureaucrats cost the taxpayer some $17 million for 12,600 metric tonnes of office paper, which works out to roughly 90 pounds for each civil servant. We have done a great job in this country of circulating paper and spending, in this case, $17 million, but what is the return? That is the question this Government has to start asking itself very seriously. We have $50 million for the Maislin trucking company. Again this morning we saw the example of $3.5 billion for Canadair in excess spending. No wonder we have these heavy-handed methods being used by Revenue Canada to collect funds, which are necessary, should I say, when the Government has been very, very lax in spending the taxpayers' money.
I think it is only fair that we call for responsibility on the part of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, indeed on the part of each backbencher, regarding the handling of the taxpayers' money.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on the latest in a long series of Bills to provide borrowing authority to the Government. The purpose of Bill C-21 is to borrow some $29.55 billion for the fiscal year 1984-85. That rather staggers the imagination, but I suppose we have become inured to this kind of request from the Government over the past few years. But we should not be complacent simply because it has become the norm rather than the exception.
In this request the Government has asked for some $4 billion to cover unforeseen contingencies. One of my colleagues from the Conservative Party wondered aloud a few moments ago about what some of those contingencies might be. I have to wonder whether or not the fact we are in the fifth year of the Government mandate has any bearing on those so-called unforeseen contingencies.
Another matter of some alarm is the use to which the Government is putting many of its larger items of expenditure. I and my colleagues appreciate, as do many Members on both sides, the necessity for avoiding a collapse of the Canadian aircraft industry. Many of us here have seen that sort of thing take place in this country in the 1950s and 1960s. We do not particularly want that to happen again, but it is more than puzzling to think of the odd sense of priorities the Government must have when it devotes $1 billion, $2 billion or more to the future of a single corporation which employs some 7,000 to
8.000	people, while that same Government, when faced with the crying need for investment in an industry, such as the forest industry which contributes more than the next five industries put together to the Canadian economy, watches that industry starve and the resource disappear. In British Columbia, for example, the Government has cut its spending on the forest industry from an anticipated $52 million down to $5.5 million in this year. The Government's own reports suggest that within the next five to 20 years we are going to see 30,000 direct jobs and another 30,000 indirect jobs disappear in that Province alone, and that will require a massive bailout of B.C. by the federal Government. What sense of priority can the Government have when that minuscule amount, relatively speaking, is denied for whatever reason?
It can so easily, meanwhile, as it has done again and again, devote billions of dollars to one corporation employing 7,000 or
8.000	people. That reminds me of the conservative Premier of the Province of British Columbia. He said that by the year 2000 high-tech is going to be British Columbia's number one industry. That is not necessarily because it is going to grow, but because they are going to let their basic strengths disappear and wilt on the vine. The Government seems to be doing exactly the same thing.
It makes no sense to build pyramids, no matter how shiny and new. Every time politicians get into trouble they build pyramids. They have been doing that for 5,000 years. It is rather important for them to pay at least equal attention to the basic resource industries which are our major strength in the

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
country and upon which everything else must be built. We cannot have a society with everyone employed shining each other's shoes or recirculating pieces of paper around. Someone in industry must produce the basic wealth to make it all tick. I cannot understand the odd sense of priorities the people over there have shown over the years.
Another suggestion for the discretionary $4 billion for unforseen contingencies is that its purpose may be to intervene in the foreign exchange market to support the value of the Canadian dollar. I, along with a number of other Members, last night attended the annual meeting of the Canada-Italy Frienship Society across the street in the Wellington Building. In his remarks the Italian Ambassador drew attention to the fact that one of the major problems seen in the current period in terms of declining trade between Canada and Italy is the strong position of the Canadian dollar relative to the strength of the currencies of our European trading partners. That is not the only source from which we have had that type of advice. This is causing difficulties in terms of many Canadian products finding access to many parts of the European community.
Of late there has been no shortage of articles, suggesting that, on the urging of the Official Opposition the Government has a lot of its financial priorities backwards. I hope that these stories signify a re-awakening in the discipline of economic analysis. Rather than expending considerable sums of money in the past or the future trying to prop up an artificial value of the Canadian dollar, it would be more in the interest of our major resource industries in this country to let the dollar find its proper level in order to strengthen our exports from resource industries. Along with that, applying some of that same muscle to a pegging of interest rates in Canada, will provide in the long run for a strengthened manufacturing sector.
I am continually puzzled by the Government, Mr. Speaker, because it has become increasingly conservative in its economic policy. I wonder on what kind of platform it thinks it is going to go to the people in the next election. Is it going to be dressed up again in the a new version of reformed Liberalism? If so, does it fit that classic definition of a Liberal namely, one who believes in social reform as long as it does not cost him anything? That is the type of so-called social reform we saw in the last Budget; reform was on the never-never plan. Conservative economics and Liberal politics-the worst of both worlds.
When the Official Opposition Conservatives manage to be consistent for a little while, the type of speeches they made and the kind of advice they gave the Government are exactly the type of advice, the acceptance of which has been getting the Liberal Government in deeper and deeper trouble over the last few years. They are a disaster when they act like Conservatives. No one has anything against legitimate restraint, but the type of restraint programs suggested by my colleagues to the right in the Conservative Party are exactly those proven to be such a disaster in my home province.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault);: Order please. The Chair regrets having to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time is up.
The Chair would like to point out to the House again that some Hon. Members appear to have some difficulty this afternoon in relating their remarks to the subject, namely, Bill C-21, the Borrowing Authority Act.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will pay heed to your warning. However, I must say that anything to do with the Government has something to do with Bill C-21 and the borrowing of almost $30 billion. 1 think, therefore, there might be a fair amount of leeway in debating what is before the House today.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Be nice.


An Hon. Member:: He is not even in his seat.


John Horton McDermid: Well, he cannot see from back there. He is so far back in the back corner that he gets nosebleeds back there all the time. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) should be careful or we will push the down button on his elevator shoes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That was not even funny, John.


John Horton McDermid: I would like to discuss the borrowing of $29.5 billion. The Government comes back time after time for more and more money. In the 1980 campaign the Liberals made three promises, Mr. Speaker. The first promise was to give us lower gasoline prices. The second promise was to give the guaranteed income supplement an extra $35. They fulfilled that promise but did not fulfill the first promise of lower gasoline prices. The third promise they made was to manage the economy of the country so that we would be far better off than a Conservative Government could ever make us. The facts prove that they did not fulfill that promise very well either.
I would like to review the fine collection of Finance Ministers we have had over the years. There was one by the name of John Turner who started us on this massive deficit. His Budget in June, 1975 had a deficit of about $5.5 billion. He is a leadership candidate. We then had the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). He was the Finance Minister some time ago. We all like to forget about that. His deficit was $12 billion. The two whom I have mentioned are going to be seeking the leadership of that Party. We then had the present Minister of External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) who raised that deficit to $25 billion. He is smart; he is not seeking the leadership of the Party. Now we have the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who has a $31.5 billion deficit. It continues to go up and where it will stop no one knows. He also is very smart; he is not running for the leadership of the Liberal Party but he is trying to get Mrs. Campagnolo to seek the nomination. That is the history of the economic performance of the Government.
The Government wants $29.5 billion. Let us look at the calendar ahead of us. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has resigned. We now have a leadership convention scheduled for June. Some time after June, probably on November 5, they will call an election. If you are betting on anything, bet on that
March 14, 1984

date for an election. November 5 is as good a day as any for an election. However, they want $29 billion, which will carry them well into 1985. What that tells me is that there will be a lot of borrowing and a lot of spending taking place within the next very short period of time. Once again, the Government will try to buy its way into the hearts of Canadians. It will try to bribe the Canadian people with their own money in order to get elected. It is asking the House to approve $29.5 billion in borrowing authority. I say a pox on their house. There is no way that we can approve that kind of unconditional borrowing. To ask for $29.5 billion is completely irresponsible and we will not approve it.
Not only does the Government want to borrow $29.5 billion, there are billions of dollars in tax increases that have taken effect in 1984 about which people have forgotten. Two Budgets ago, the Minister of Finance introduced large tax increases for the Canadian public which were to take effect in 1984. But the people will not notice that until they start filling out their tax forms in 1985. A smart political ploy. Not only does the Government want to borrow more money, it is bringing in billions of extra dollars in taxes this year as a result of the tax increases in the Budget of the Minister of Finance two years ago.
It is completely irresponsible for the Government to ask for this amount of money and we are unalterably opposed to this gigantic amount of funding. The Government wants a blank cheque so that it can have $29.5 billion when it cannot manage what it already has. Let me give one example. It has come to my attention that the federal government funded a very worthwhile conference, the Circumpolar Conference of the Inuit peoples in Canada, together with those from Iceland, Greenland, Alaska and those who were invited from Russia but were naturally not allowed to come.
The federal Government donated $100,000 for this particular conference, but from where did it take the money? The budget from which it took $100,000 to finance that conference was the health care budget of the Indians and Inuit in northern Canada. The reason I was given for taking the money from that source was that the Government believed there would be excess funds in the health care budget of Indians and Inuit in northern Canada.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to name me one health care budget in this country-whether it is in Brampton-Georgetown, Resti-gouche, Temiscamingue or wherever-that has excess funds. When it comes to health care in this country there is no surplus money. Yet with the excuse that there would be excess money in the health care budget for the Indians and Inuit of northern Canada, the Government took $100,000 and applied it to a conference. Now it returns, cap in hand, with Supplementary Estimates (C), asking to have the $100,000 back. It wants to put it back into the health care budget for the Indians and Inuit in northern Ontario. It was completely irresponsible to take those funds out of that budget in the First place.
Borrowing Authority Act
One does not simply take money out of the budget for Indian and Inuit health care, or any health care, to put it into something like a conference. While it was a worthwhile conference, if it was going to be funded it should have been funded by the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal). If it concerns northern affairs, surely funds could be found somewhere other than health care for the Indian and Inuit of the north. Such action is completely irresponsible, yet the Government which would stoop so low to do that is asking us to write a cheque for $29.5 billion. I do not believe the people of Canada want us to do that. I do not believe they expect us to hand a blank cheque to the Government, especially when it does not have a leader now.
Let us cut that request in half and let their new leader come back to tell us what the Government's spending priorities are. Perhaps we will give it the other $ 15 billion if it needs it. But all it needs right now is $15 billion to see it through to next fall when their new leader is chosen. We are opposed to this Bill. If the Government wants to cut the Bill in half, we will look at it again.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this is the most inefficient and extravagant government in the history of Canada. It is also the very best government we have ever seen at putting up smokescreens to deceive the people. I do not say that lightly. Let me back up what I have said with some examples.
The Government is inefficient because it does not try to get full value for every dollar spent. It is extravagant in the way it throws money away unnecessarily. It certainly puts up smokescreens in order to hide the facts and deceive the people. While a smokescreen is a useful tool in war to keep things out of sight of the enemy, it is terrible for a government to use a political smokescreen in peacetime to hide what it is doing from the people who pay the taxes.
Let us look at some of these smokescreens the Government has put up and what it is deceiving the people about. In the last Budget we heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and Government members say that there would be no increase in taxation. It is a wonderful Budget because there is no increase in taxation, they declare. However, these increases were mentioned a year ago in the hope that everyone would forget about them. The fact is that there are increases in taxation this year which Canadians will realize when they start paying. For example, there is a 1 per cent increase in the special recovery tax this year that will take $300 million out of the pockets of the Canadian people. Yet the Government says there is no increase in taxation. Talk about a smokescreen!
It made changes to the federal tax reduction that will bring another $445 million into the coffers from the pockets of the people of Canada. It is going to eliminate the standard $100 deduction in income tax which will take another $180 million out of the pockets of the people. The deindexation of the child tax credit income threshold represents $155 million. I could go on and on.

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
The Government does not even have any compassion for the workers of this country, 1.5 million of whom-probably more-are unemployed. It is sneaking another $45 million out of the pockets of industry and the workers for UIC. These are all in the form of delayed taxes.
The Government is not forthright enough to say that it would take these taxes from the pockets of Canadians last year. It waited a year to do so in the hope that Canadians would forget about it. Workers today do not earn enough to keep their heads above water. Many of them go hungry and their children must do without. But the Government grabs another $45 million from the pockets of Canadians workers.
This adds up to a total of $2 billion in delayed taxation. The Government then has the audacity to tell the people of Canada that there is no increase in taxes in this Budget. There is no increase in this Budget because it was implemented a year ago so that people would forget about it. Talk about a smokescreen! Talk about camouflage! Talk about deceit! That is why I say it is the most deceitful government in the history of Canada.
Let us see what else it has done. What did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say to old age pensioners who were finding it very difficult to make both ends meet? He told them to change their priorities. Right now, some of them eat pork and beans for breakfast and pork and beans for dinner. What is one supposed to do, have beans and pork for supper? They are not getting enough to eat yet the Prime Minister has the audacity to tell these people, who do not have enough food to last a month, to change their priorities.
While the Government tells women between the age of 50 and 65 that it cannot spare anything for them, it pays $800 a day to a rich lawyer because he was once a Liberal. He resigned but he gets $800 a day. Nobody is worth $800 a day. Certainly a Liberal is not worth $800 a day, not even the best. The very best is not worth more, I would say, than two-bits.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: We talk about a billion dollar government, but it is a two-bit government when it comes to looking after the people. It is a billion dollar government when it comes to looking after Liberals, ex-Liberals and those who are willing to be called Liberals. They can get $800 a day. Aren't Hon. Members across the floor ashamed of that? Why are you not hanging your heads in shame, paying $800 a day-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. May I remind Hon. Members that the Member who has the floor must address the Chair and also must relate his remarks to the subject.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I am talking on the subject, Sir, and I am addressing the Chair. I say to Hon. Members on your right that they are not worth 25 cents a day. They are not worth $800 a day. If you think you are, just ask the people outside.
Another thing, you want people to learn French. What do you do? You send a girl to the Riviera at taxpayers' expense. She went from the Prime Minister's Office. Talk about extravagance! And these Hon. Members to your right, Mr. Speaker, are not hanging their heads in shame? At the same time we cannot find enough money for women who have spent their lives building this country and are now at an age when they cannot work and we cannot find anything for them. They are women between the ages of 50 and 65. We put them on welfare and let the province pay for it. Talk about deceit, inefficiency and extravagance! There has never been a government like this one in the history of the country.
The Department of National Revenue are squeezing the last nickel from some of our taxpayers. They are squeezing the last nickel out of people. Who are doing it? Auditors hired by this Government at $800 an hour, they tell me. What is wrong with Macdonald? He is a chiseller, being a Liberal. But only getting $800 a day? How many hours a day does he work? Is it three hours? He could have had $2,400 a day at $800 an hour. Talk about extravagance and wasting people's money. Then they have the nerve and audacity to ask for the right to borrow $29 billion. I just cannot understand this. If I were on that side, I would go home and tell my people that I cannot stand it. The Government has gone out of its mind. If it ever had any brains it has lost them all.
Let us look at what the Government has done. Since I have been in this House and just since this Government has been re-elected it has borrowed $102 billion. We have a total debt now of $150 billion. With this request it will be $180 billion. Do you know what you are doing to the people of Canada, Hon. Members over there? Do you know what you are telling the people of the next generation and what you are telling every baby born in the hospitals today? You are hanging a debt of $6,000 around every neck. As soon as they get the breath of life, the Liberals are putting a debt of $6,000 around the necks of all the little babies. I see boys and girls coming here to listen to the debates. I wonder what they think when they go home. Here is the bunch, here is the group over on your left, Mr. Speaker-I mean over on your right, Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: This is the bunch on your right, Mr. Speaker, that is putting a $6,000 debt on children before they are even through grade one or grade five, in fact, as soon as they are born. Now it will be worse if this Bill goes ahead. You don't have to worry about it, Mr. Speaker. That crowd on your right will pass anything if the Prime Minister tells them to. They will pass the Bill. They do not care what it does to the people. When that is done there will be a $7,200 debt around the neck of every man, woman and child in this country.
We stand here and say that we are working on behalf of the people. This Government is trying to get every bent nickel out of every citizen of the country that it can. It does not matter whether the people go hungry. It does not matter if they have to change their priorities, just as long as the Government gets
March 14, 1984

its money. Now this Government wants another $29 billion. Shame on you, is all I can say.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, once again, the House is debating the Borrowing Authority Bill that will authorize the Government to borrow the money it needs to carry out its operations. I think this is a useless exercise in hypocrisy. Just listen to what is being said in this debate by the Opposition! We are being treated to every possible accusation this House has heard since the beginning of Confederation, and which I myself have heard for at least four or five years. It is an opportunity for the Opposition to repeat these accusations and to express their dissatisfaction with the Government. We have had to listen to these accusations, falsehoods and absurdities, today and since the beginning of the debate on the Borrowing Authority Bill.
As I said earlier, this is an exercise in hypocrisy, in my opinion. First of all, we know that in any case, the Government will have to borrow to run its operations. We know that. It does not matter what the Opposition says. So why waste the time of the House by repeating the same absurdities over and over again? If the Members opposite could make some constructive contribution-


John Horton McDermid: Close the House!


Henri Tousignant: There are, of course, a few questions we could ask in connection with the current situation. Why does the Government have to borrow to carry out its operations? We must not forget that we have been through a recession, and business has not been good. Mr. Speaker, the difference between a government with its borrowing authority and a private company is easy to explain. A government, and especially a national government, is responsible for maintaining the economy at a certain level. We cannot tell people: Look, business is bad, you do not have a job, you are not earning any money, but that's your problem and we couldn't care less! Therefore, a national government can and must borrow the monies it needs to tide it over difficult periods. Once the economic situation improves, those loans can be paid back. Of course, in the private sector, when someone exceeds his debt capacity, he goes bankrupt. Everybody knows that. So this is part of the authority the Government has, and thankfully, national governments have the authority to borrow money to get us through difficult times. As I mentioned earlier, however, the Opposition is using this debate to rehash all the accusations and litanies of complaints we have been hearing for five years. They talked about Canadair, de Havilland, and the energy policy, and they even talked about senior citizens. Imagine, the Opposition trying to teach us a lesson on how to deal with senior citizens! Imagine! It is absolutely shameless that they should even try to tell us how to treat senior citizens.
Borrowing Authority Act
Since the Canadair issue has been brought up, I would simply like to ask them a question. It is all very well to talk about Canadair's huge deficits, but the fact is that 8,000 jobs are involved. What I would like them to tell us, for instance, is what would happen if the Canadian Government did not keep that company in operation and how much would be lost in salaries. The same thing goes for de Havilland. In the late fifties, the Progressive Conservatives under Mr. Diefenbaker put an end to the Arrow program. They must be biting their fingernails these days. Perhaps it would have cost a few million dollars more to keep that program going, but how do we know we would not be further ahead today? Naturally, we too wish de Havilland and Canadair paid their own way, but that is impossible for the time being. Is it better to drop those companies, throw all those people out of work, forget all about high technology, let somebody else do it and concentrate our efforts on second rate companies? Is that what the Opposition really wants?
Other Members have quoted figures out of context. Now, that is great fun. It is really too easy to insult the intelligence of people by quoting figures out of context. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, a Member said that the deficit during the first hundred years of Confederation was three times lower than it is this year. Can you imagine that: during the first hundred years of Confederation, the deficit was lower than it is this year!
First of all, I would like to say to that Hon. Member that indeed, after one hundred years the Canadian Confederation-he probably had the figures for 1867, but I am referring to the figures for 1967-Canada's gross national product amounted to $60 billion. Our business figure or our gross national product was $60 billion. Today, however ... In 1867, I imagine the GNP was perhaps ... I will ask Opposition members, they must know that! What was the Gross National Product in 1867? At any rate, it was $60 billion in 1967, compared to $390 billion in 1983.


An Hon. Member:: They don't even know that!


Henri Tousignant: So, if you multiply by three the GNP figure for 1967, after one hundred years of activity, three times $60 billion equals only $180 billion, while the Gross National Product is presently $390 billion.
You must remember the years of Progressive Conservative government under Mr. Diefenbaker, 1958-59, 1959-60, 196061. The public debt as a percentage of personal income is now 37 per cent, while under Mr. Diefenbaker-and they seem to complain about recent years, to lament years gone by-under Mr. Diefenbaker, the public debt as a percentage of personal income was 49.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to quote figures out of context, but they should at least have the decency to use official data.

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to sit through debates when the Government shows great indignation over the fact that we in the Opposition are concerned with its spending habits. The previous speaker interestingly said that he finds this whole exercise useless. He thinks it is an exercise in hypocrisy because the Government has to have money to carry out its business. Perhaps it is not supposed to be our role or responsibility here in Parliament to question the Government.


John Horton McDermid: Heaven forbid!


Frank Oberle: Why do we not just close down this institution and go home? Why do we not just transfer all the responsibility to that subculture in the Langevin Block, that group of pseudo-intellectuals who through their social engineering know what is best for the country, know how to plan and structure an economy which works in the best interests of all people? Why do we not do that? Mr. Speaker, if I had to sit all day in the chair and listen to all the horror stories, I would be inclined to rejoin my colleagues and walk home in shame. I would ask that my presence be stricken from the record so that my grandchildren would not know that I was part of the scheme which is being perpetrated upon the Canadian public and upon two or three future generations.
The Government is requesting a further borrowing authority. For those persons who are looking in from the outside, let us put one thing to rest. We will be standing here, at least members of my Party, for the next couple of weeks arguing about this Bill. The outcome is not in doubt. The Government will bring in closure. We will be exercising our responsibility inherent in the mandate from our constituents back home by pointing out what is happening here. However, the outcome of this debate is not in doubt. We will not grant the Government our acquiescence, but it will bring in closure, let us talk ourselves out, the Bill will pass and the Government will have $29.5 billion when it needs only $25.2 billion in accordance with the Estimates that have been tabled. It wants an extra $4 billion just for any contingency.
Does the average Canadian know what is a billion dollars? It is a thousand million dollars. It is a stack of brand-new $1 bills piled 85 miles high. These people want $4 billion in their pockets for any contingency. What might a contingency be? A contingency might be Petro-Canada wanting to buy another oil company. "What is wrong with that?", our friends opposite will say. "After all, Canadians now own their own oil company. Has that affected energy prices? Of course not". It is our oil company which has jacked up the prices five times more than what was proposed in the Budget of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in 1979.
Eventually Canadians will derive a profit from all these enterprises-Petro-Canada, Canadair and Devco. I asked a question about Devco today in the House. Last year the federal Government spent $145 million just so that Devco could go to Japan and Brazil and undercut all other coal companies in the country. There is nothing wrong with a
government giving a subsidy to an industry which is important in a particular region and produces such an important product that coal-fired generating plants can produce enough power for the region. That may be a legitimate activity for a government; that may be part of the business of government.
When they take taxpayers' money and go into the world markets and sell our coal, wheat or whatever below the cost of production, making it literally impossible for the rest of the industry to survive, we have to ask some questions. That is what we are doing now. This Government comes to us with all kinds of plans and programs. A couple of years ago it came in with the six and five program which was to restrain federal spending. There would no longer be the need to come back every year and pile on the deficit. Incidentally, the gross debt in 1983 was $159 billion. We are adding roughly $30 billion, which will make it $190 billion. Budgetary forecasts will pile another $110 billion on to this accumulated deficit over the next four years.
Are you surprised, Mr. Speaker, that we are upset? Are you surprised that we say we will stand here until there is not a breath left on this side of the House before we give the Government the authority to spend that kind of money? The Government says it will restrain its spending from now on, that public servants will be restricted to six and five, 6 per cent the first year and 5 per cent the next. This year it is five and four.
What has it been in reality? Increases last year were not 5 per cent, as they were supposed to be in accordance with the program which was supposed to produce such incredible results. Inflation is down to 5 per cent, interest rates are down, all because of the six and five program. Last year public servants got an increase of just under 10 per cent. It was not 4 per cent, 5 per cent or 6 per cent, but 10 per cent. That was the increment in the Public Service in fiscal 1983-84. The Minister says there was overtime which the public servants had to work that was not calculated in the six and five program. In addition, the Government was obliged to pay some back pay. Of course, there were some promotions, as well as the normal increments that come with length of service.
Compare that with what goes on in the private sector. Does the private sector not have similar commitments to its employees? The private sector did not have any work for people to work overtime. Plants are shut down, industry is operating at 60 per cent capacity, two million unemployed and a lot of people under-employed. There is work-sharing in the marketplace to permit some industries to maintain a stable work force. Was there any back pay? Unions and companies are negotiating reductions in pay, social benefits, holidays and so on.
We have an incredible situation in British Columbia. The private sector has not been able to increase pay and benefit packages for the last three years, not 1, 2, 3 or 5 per cent. There have been no increases. What do you think the argument in British Columbia is all about? The International Woodworkers of America, traditionally a radical union, settled
March 14, 1984

for a no-increase package in a three-year agreement. Pulp workers face the same situation. However, the Government offers public servants a 10 per cent increase, as if there were no tomorrow. The inflation rate is only 4 or 5 per cent, so public servants ought to be able to match up. The question is, match up with what? The Government can no longer use the excuse that we are in a world recession. The recovery in the United States is almost unprecedented. The wheels are turning. People have regained confidence and the sawdust is flying.
What is the excuse here? The excuse is that this Government spends 25 cents of every dollar it takes in on interest payments. It no longer has any flexibility to give the necessary incentives to the private sector to create jobs and training positions to permit our young people to build their lives, recover confidence in the future and regain the trust and confidence they once had in this country.
Young people are looking abroad. They are looking to the United States for jobs and training positions. What an indictment of a country so richly blessed with natural resources and natural advantages! What an indictment of a government that has been in office for 16 years! It is going to have a leadership convention where it will recycle some of these rejects who were responsible in the first place. This fellow, Turner, whatever his name is, wants to come back. He is the guy who in his 44-month tenure as Minister of Finance increased the federal budget from $18 billion to $36 billion. He is now to be recycled. He is to come back as the knight in shining armour. When he does, he will receive the reception he deserves. If those people opposite should be so naive as to elect him as their leader, when he steps out of the hallowed halls of Bay Street he will receive a reception which the Liberals and John Turner deserve.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, we have been presented with yet another borrowing authority Bill, the eighth since 1980, and the largest ever, surpassing the next highest one, Bill C-143, by $10.55 billion. We are not surprised, given the projected deficit for 1984-85 of $29.6 billion, that the Government has come before this House to ask for the authority to borrow in order to cover that deficit of $29.55 billion, of which $4 billion in authority is a cushion above and beyond the $25.5 billion which the Government in its Budget says it requires at this time.
The Budget anticipates a deficit of $29.6 billion. The Government has non-budgetary sources for $4.05 billion. It needs $25.5 billion to cover a deficit which, in itself, is far too large. That $29.55 billion in borrowing authority would allow the deficit to grow to $33.5 billion.
We are not surprised over this Bill, given the inability of this Government to control its expenditures. But we are alarmed. We are alarmed because of what this Bill represents-the deficit of $29.5 billion and the authority to allow that deficit to be $4 billion more than expected. My colleagues have strongly criticized this Bill, and for good reason. I wish to add my criticisms, but not only for the $4 billion contingency fund. More important, I am criticizing the assumptions which underlie a request for the support by this House of continued
Borrowing Authority Act
massive government expenditure and, as a result, an intolerably massive government deficit.
That is what we are being asked to support. We are being asked to agree to the proposed deficit for this coming year. Because we are being asked to borrow to support its expected deficit, we are actually being asked to support a potential of $33.5 billion for 1984-85, $2 billion more than last year's deficit. I share my colleagues' concern over this request to borrow over $29.5 billion. I share their concern for any request above $15 billion because, simply put, this Government proposes to spend too much. The Government is living far beyond its means.
I would like to discuss several aspects of basic economics of which the Government appears to be unaware. I refer to the high economic costs of supporting a large and growing deficit. To support a large deficit, a too large deficit such as that which we have been experiencing for years, the Government has two choices, both of which will continue to harm an already slowing economy. It can borrow on capital markets and it can borrow its $29.55 billion from those markets. However, borrowing as large a percentage of available Canadian funds as the Government is asking for today will crowd out productive private sector borrowing which, by the simple law of supply and demand, will raise interest rates.
The projected deficit for 1984-85 is equal to 91 per cent of expected personal savings. What will happen? Interest rates will be forced to rise as they have already begun to. Through borrowing an additional $29.5 billion on capital markets interest rates will rise further, which will have the result of further slowing the growth which we could otherwise have hoped for.
Productivity and growth in the country are at a lower rate than a country of Canada's wealth and resources should have to put up with. Our productivity is the lowest in the industrialized world. Unlike what we have heard from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), our potential for growth over the next year is not great. According to both Statistics Canada and the Conference Board of Canada, growth is slowing. An increased government deficit will not help this situation.
The business community to which the Government is now turning for stimulation of the economy cannot achieve its potential in a shrinking money market. It cannot achieve its potential in the current economic environment. Canadians are now afraid to take the risks which are fundamental to increased productivity. If the Government crowds the capital markets further, business investment which dropped 12.2 per cent in 1983 will continue to decline.
We all know what happens when the Government borrows heavily. Interest rates will rise and Canadian investors will be forced to borrow abroad, which will increase our foreign debt, productivity will decline further and unemployment will rise. We have seen this happen in the very recent past, Mr. Speaker, and we will not stand by and watch history repeat itself.

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
The Globe and Mail carried an article this past Saturday discussing the desperate need for equity capital in Canada. The Government, by maintaining its spending patterns, is robbing business of a chance to raise money for expansion and productive development. Any rise in interest rates will further threaten an already serious situation in which corporations desperately need capital for growth.
Because of the Government's insistence on spending beyond its means and borrowing on capital markets, interest rates will rise, thus denying business the ability to amass its well needed equity. I refer particularly to small businessmen and farmers. We certainly know that the small business and farming sectors are the backbone of the nation. Denying the small business sector the financing it needs at affordable rates will have a definite effect on unemployment. Farmers will be forced to renew mortgages in order to meet capital expenditures and operating expenses. The farmers will not be able to repay these mortgages because we know that interest rates are intolerable at the present time and that we cannot expect to see zero growth in interest rates in the future. We are denying the equity small businessmen and farmers need in order to be productive.
There is another choice for the Government to make which has equally negative effects. The Bank of Canada could simply be given the licence to print money to fund the borrowing requirements of a spendthrift government. The Bank of Canada has created a total of $12 billion for that purpose in the past 12 years. What happens if the Bank of Canada continues to print money? Inflation rises once again.
During the past recession, Canadians have paid dearly for the Government's mismanagement of the economy. We have suffered high rates of inflation because the Government refuses to take responsibility for the economy. If it turns to the Bank of Canada one more time, Canadians will be subjected to another recession like the one from which we are apparently emerging.
There is yet another choice for the Government to make, Mr. Speaker, and it is the only real choice which will not ruin the economy. The Government must do one of two things. It must begin to take the necessary measures to decrease its spending, it must attack its deficit seriously by examining expenditures to see which are unnecessary or wasteful and it must have the guts to priorize spending and cut out those expenditures which do nothing more than increase the deficit. However, if the Government cannot take that fundamental and central step, it must allow another government to do so.
I agree with my colleagues who have stated that it would be irresponsible at best for the House, which represents the people of Canada, to pass this Bill. Simply put, the costs are much too high.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, across Canada today, farmers are sitting in their kitchens with their wives, sons and daughters and trying to determine how much money they will have to ask lending institutions or the Farm Credit Corporation for in order to have enough money to buy the seed
that must be planted this spring, the fertilizer that is required and to pay for needed farm machinery repairs. I would suggest that across Canada today people are working out their budgets and perhaps approaching lending institutions across the country asking for certain amounts of money.
The reason I bring this matter up is that every time and individual walks into a bank for a loan of, say, $25,000, the bank manager will ask one specific question. He will ask what the money is to be used for and where it is to be used. Can you imagine the reaction of a bank manager if someone asked for a loan of $25,000 and really needed only $20,000? What would the bank manager say? He would either refuse the loan completely because the person seeking the loan obviously does not know what he is doing and cannot be trusted to repay the loan if that is the way he treats his finances, or the bank manager would cut the size of the loan down to the proper amount needed.
I believe we must think along those lines here in the House of Commons. The Government has requested authority from the House of Commons to borrow $29.5 billion. According to our calculations, the amount of money required by the Government for the foreseeable future until another election is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $16 billion. It is tragic that this kind of thing is being perpetrated on the people of Canada through the House of Commons today.
Government Members get upset if we even try to ask them, as any responsible body should, why they require the money. The Government have inflated the amount of money that it requires from $16 billion to $29 billion. They say that they need $4 billion as a slush fund. If I were to go to a bank manager and say that I needed $25,000, could only prove to him that 1 needed $20,000 and told him I needed the other $5,000 as sort of a back-up or slush fund, the bank manager would throw me out the door. He would not recommend that that loan be made. That is a simple way to put the situation in a context which can be understood by people across the country.
I for one do not trust the Government with a $4 billion slush fund, particularly when it is preparing for an election, because it will use that $4 billion-plus of taxpayers' money to attempt to buy the taxpayers' vote-it is as simple as that. We have seen it happen time and time again.
Where will the Government spend this money? Will it spend it on retraining? Will it spend it on the armed forces or the Department of National Defence? Will it spend it to encourage the young people now unemployed-the largest group of unemployed in the country-to get jobs? There is a generation of young people leaving school, ready to tackle the world with hope, enthusiasm and ideas, but we leave them languishing.


Mr. Dantzer:: Now they cannot even get into school.


Jack Wendele Shields: My colleague says they cannot even get into school for further education because funding for post-secondary education has been cut back.
March 14, 1984

All this is directly attributable to the Government's spending habits, its monopoly of the money supply, money that is needed for investment in the country. This is the same Government which, through the National Energy Program, signalled to the investment community of the world that we did not want people investing their money in this country. It is the same Government that gobbles up and monopolizes the investment funds available from Canadian savings. When these things happen, Mr. Speaker, we have a sick government. There is a rot inside this Government's policies. Instead of implementing policies that the country requires, it takes the easy way out and uses advertising campaigns to tell people across the country about the wonderful job it is doing. In many cases it is wasting millions upon millions of dollars.
The Ministers who are vying for the leadership of that Party are now contradicting each other. Last November the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) said that the Liberal Government is wasting millions and millions of dollars. Pretty soon he will announce that he will run for the leadership of the Party. The Government is wasting millions and millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. It is borrowing money that it does not need and putting it into a contingency fund to be used to buy votes. The voter is not ready to accept that, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: Listen to them squabble and squawk. The voter is not going to put up with that one minute longer. Let the Government bring in a writ and we will see what the voter has to say. That Party should get its leadership contest over with and get its trustee in bankruptcy in place. That is what it is electing-not a leader but a trustee in bankruptcy. It is a bankrupt party with bankrupt ideas.
There is something wrong, Mr. Speaker, when every weekend people come into my riding office, sometimes in tears, because they cannot get jobs. There are people who have never experienced welfare but have now run out of unemployment insurance benefits and must apply for welfare. They ask what is happening to our country. What is happening is that we have a spendthrift Government which throws dollars at everything in an effort to make its position in the House of Commons secure. It is not going to work, Mr. Speaker.
Imagine having $4 billion in a slush fund to use prior to an election, by its own admission. That is what the money is for and let no one think otherwise. There are 1.5 million people unemployed in the country because of the disastrous policies of this Government. The trouble started with the national energy policy, then the Government focused on issues not related to the economy. People are hungry, people are tired, people want to go to work, people are begging the Government to allow investment to come into Canada. Canada is the most valuable piece of real estate there is in the world today, with unbounded natural resources, a plentiful supply of fresh water and educated, willing people.
The Government keeps choking the economy by borrowing more and more, to the point that our children and their
Borrowing Authority Act
children will be saddled with untold debt. They come into the world owing so much money-at least $6,000. This page and a half Bill is a request to borrow $29.55 billion when really the Government requires only $15 billion. The Government admits trying to inflate what it requires, when showing that it has a $4 billion slush fund. It is rotten, it is unjust, it is not fair to the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Hast-ings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet).


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Vankoughnet:: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) rising on a point of order?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether or not there is a period for questions and answers after a speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No. I must inform the President of the Privy Council that we are now at the stage of ten-minute speeches and, unless there is unanimous consent, it is not possible to put questions to the last speaker.


Yvon Pinard: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the same point of order?


Yvon Pinard: Yes. Perhaps you could consider asking for unanimous consent regarding my request to put questions to the Hon. Member? Failing that, the debate would go on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council is asking for unanimous consent to allow questions to be put to the previous speaker. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Malone:: The Liberals said no.


William John Vankoughnet: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on Bill C-21, the borrowing authority Bill, but I am less than pleased that the federal Government is making the request. I am particularly concerned about the magnitude of the borrowing request for $29.55 billion. That is a tremendous amount of money and it is difficult to understand it in average terms today. I would not be so concerned if I thought the borrowing would be beneficial to the people of Canada or the people of the riding that I represent, but that will not be the case.

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act
The deficit lies heavily on the Canadian economy. I have seen many personal tragedies since 1980 which are the result of failed businesses, consumer bankruptcies and unemployment. The terrible magnitude of the request demonstrates a government that is out of control, particularly when one considers that the Budget of February 15 said that the borrowing needs of the Government would be $25.5 billion. Less than two days later the Government introduced this Bill requesting $29.55 billion. For the people of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, whose concerns I carry with me, this is the equivalent of spending $19,640 in one year for someone with an income of $13,740. The worst part about borrowing the $5,900 to make up the difference is that $3,900 of that $5,900 is money borrowed to pay interest on a previous debt. The total debt in this hypothetical case increases to $36,000 from $30,000. The average Canadian could never carry on his personal financial affairs in this slipshod fashion.
I stated earlier that I would not be so alarmed if I thought all this tremendous borrowing would be of some benefit to Canadians. However, I do not believe this is the case. It has been demonstrated that the $2.4 billion Special Employment Initiatives Program is nothing more than a re-election pork-barrel for the Government. I find it morally reprehensible that the federal Government should discriminate against the unemployed on the basis of where they live. For a government which states it believes in universality of social programs, this exposes its so-called concern for the fraud it really is.
In the northern area of my riding the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) deliberately underestimated unemployment in order to deny individuals access to programs which they paid into and are entitled to. Recently a number of municipalities in that area made representations to the Minister and sent him copies of resolutions they had passed regarding the UIC. Part of the Minister's reply says:
The report I have received from officials of the Commission indicates that the unemployment rate has decreased from mid-October of 1983 to such an extent.. . that the exemption for repeater claimants has no longer been applicable.
He then quoted an unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent. He dismissed any variations in the unemployment rate in a region as a problem of "statistics", was "unclear" about what to do and said that it was "premature" to respond to this very real and pressing problem.
The Minister may be unclear as to the actual rate of unemployment, but officials in his Department are not. Figures supplied to me by his senior officials, in writing, give a community rate of 30 per cent and an area district rate of 21 per cent. A simple check I had done by the Department, which the Minister is equally capable of doing, indicated the number of individuals in an area drawing unemployment insurance. The latest figures indicate that Bancroft, with a population of 2,305 people, has 475 people drawing UI benefits. That is 20.6 per cent unemployment before school children, senior citizens or home makers are included to determine the actual size of the labour force in a village that size. If there was some
indication that the tremendous amount of cash the Government wishes to borrow would go to help these average Canadians, which I do not believe it will, I would Find this Bill less objectionable.
What does the federal Government accomplish by doing this to Canadians? Many constituents ask me this. First, by purposely underestimating the unemployment rate, it tries to make the situation look much better than it really is. Secondly, when the so-called rate of unemployment drops to 11.5 per cent, the repeater clause in the Unemployment Insurance Act is no longer applicable. This results in a lower pay-out by the federal Government. It disqualifies individuals who normally should qualify for UI benefits. The Government shifts the burden to the financially pressed local municipalities by inflating their welfare rolls, creating a further hardship on local residents as property taxes rise to meet these obligations. Finally, the area concerned is denied fair access to employment programs such as Canada Works, LEAD, and the Special Employment Initiatives Program, all of which are based on the rate of unemployment.
I believe the Government should be searching for ways to reduce the deficit instead of deliberately underestimating the deficit each time it presents its forecast. The forecast of declining deficits must become a reality if this country is going to sustain a prolonged and lasting recovery into the next century. It is also clear that the negative impact of this huge deficit will adversely affect small business, the number one job creator in this country. The federal Government should be helping small business, not hurting it.
It was appalled by the news that Canada Post is entering the catalogue shopping business by processing orders for Consumers Distributing Limited. There is no demonstrated need for this service and it is blatantly unfair competition. Canada Post should concentrate on improving its level of service before trying something new. The individuals who operate the shops and stores in our local communities have put a lot of time, effort and investment into their business and community. Their taxes subsidize the losses of Canada Post. Now they are being called upon to subsidize competition against their business as well.
How the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) or the Minister of Employment and Immigration can say they support free enterprise, entrepreneurialism and the little guy is beyond me. Actions speak louder than words. The present Government's socialism is alive and well in all these pretenders to the Prime Minister's job. Bill C-21 is the latest exercise in fiscal insolvency. I for one do not think we need another $29.5 billion at this time.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated before deciding whether or not I should reply to all this utter nonsense from the Official Opposition. If we want Canadian men and women who read Hansard or watch proceedings on their TV sets to understand what is really going on in this country in the area of financial and economic
March 14, 1984

management, I feel compelled, as a member of this House, to disprove some of the false statements which we have heard this past hour in the House.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians must decide for themselves whether members of the Opposition are dishonest or uninformed in financial and economic matters, or jokers or more inclined to demagoguery as weeks and months go by. 1 leave them to decide that for themselves. I suggest to them, however, that the truth is really a mixture of everything I have just mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition condemns the Government for its considerable deficit and, like outraged women, accuses the Government of wasting public funds and squandering taxpayers' money. In my opinion, there are not a great many ways to reduce a deficit: you either have to increase the tax burden or to cut the spending or both. There is no other way, Mr. Speaker.
Well, let us see what our hon. friends opposite have to offer in standing committees during question periods in the House or debates such as this one. First, in the area of spending.
The new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has said several times that the Government of Canada is behaving in a shameful manner towards the Canadian Armed Forces, that we are not respecting our commitments to NATO and that the day his party will form the Government, the budget for the Department of Defence will be substantially increased. This is one area where expenditures will increase.
In addition, what did we hear during the debate on second reading and committee stages of Bill C-3, which is still before the Committee? We were told that, if the federal Government could not agree with the Provinces on the issue of health care, it was not because of extra billing or user fees, but basically because of a question of money, and that when the Progressive Conservative Party takes over, the needs of the provinces will be met and transfer payments will be increased in such a way that the Provinces will have the financial resources they need to provide better health care for the public and higher incomes for the doctors. There would therefore be an increase in expenditures for defence and health care. These budgetary items are very important; I am not suggesting a few hundred thousand dollars or something like ten or twenty million dollars. Those are some of the most important budgetary items to be provided for by the Canadian Government.
I have another example, Mr. Speaker. In recent weeks, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has been considering Bill C-17, which is, I believe, the Bill dealing with fiscal transfers for post-secondary education. In June 1982, the Government decided that the transfers would be restricted to a 6 per cent increase in 1983-84 and a 5 per cent increase in 1984-85. What was the Opposition Members'
Borrowing Authority Act
position in the Standing Committee? On this issue, the Government has been accused of smothering post-graduate education at a time when the need is so great. They have also said that, when they are elected, or if they were already in Government at that time, they would be a lot more generous with the Provinces which could then afford to provide much larger amounts of money to community colleges and universities all across Canada. They would increase expenditures, Mr. Speaker. They are not suggesting that they would reduce them.
I have yet another example, Mr. Speaker, which involves research and development, and Heaven knows that we have to make considerable efforts in this area and that we are all aware of it. However, if the Progressive Conservative Party were in power, as they have promised time and time again, the Government effort in this area would be even more important. There would be grants for businesses; there would be tax concessions and tax credits, and this means a further loss of revenue for the Government, Mr. Speaker.
On the one hand, they are asking for more expenditures, and on the other hand, they want to cut the federal Government's revenue. Opposition Members are always claiming that federal taxes are crushing the taxpayer and small and medium-sized businesses. Mr. Speaker, it is time Opposition Members woke up. Of course, the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said the other day that they were not going to tell us outright what they would do if they were in power. They would not dare but they just might close down Canadair and put 5,000 or 6,000 people in the Montreal area out of work. They have all kinds of answers, but with the electorate, you have to put your best foot forward. You have to woo the voters. You cannot catch flies with vinegar, Mr. Speaker, you have to use honey. And that is the position of the Opposition Parties and especially the Progressive Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that they do not understand what a deficit is ... If you were kind enough to listen, my friends, you might learn something. They do not understand that a deficit is a tool used to apply an economic policy. A government is not managed like a household or a personal budget, because the Government has a responsibility of its own. You know why the budget deficit has suddenly gone up from $9 or $10 billion to $29 or $30 billion, Mr. Speaker? It is quite simple. It is not because the government has recklessly increased its expenditures. Some 70 per cent of the increased budget deficit is due to a drop in government revenues. Another 30 per cent is due to the fact that the recession has saddled the Government with new responsibilities and expenditures, for instance in the unemployment insurance sector.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like the members opposite to tell us specifically which expenditures they would cut, what taxes they would increase and then we could discuss things in an informed and responsible manner without the demagoguery that constantly prevails in the House when the Hon. Members opposite take the floor.

March 14, 1984
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member who just spoke for making the best of a very bad situation. The Member spoke about vinegar and honey. The vinegar to which he was referring is very much the record of this administration, which has unfortunately provided a very sour taste for Canadians to contend with for all but a few months in the many years since 1968 when the present Government came to power. The honey which he spoke of I am sure will come in the not too distant future when, as we hope and trust, the Government will screw up its courage and take the issue which is before the House to the people of Canada. We look forward to the opportunity to provide the people of Canada with necessary alternatives.
The Hon. Member also spent a great deal of time looking to the future and speculating on the type of policies a new Conservative Government would bring to the people of Canada. I think he spoke with great foresight. I am sure he is aware, as are the backbenchers on that side of the House, of what the future holds for them. We applaud the Member for his foresight. We hope that the future which he foresees for the country will soon come to be.
However, I would like to deal with the history of that administration as well as the borrowing Bill which is before us, because that is the reality of the moment. As we know and as has been said in the House this afternoon, we have before us the largest borrowing Bill in the history of Canada. It is a Bill that would require Canadians in the future to pay $29.55 billion.
Shortly after the Hon. Member preceding me began to speak, I noticed that some young people sitting in the galleries across from me, members of the Boy Scout organization, left the House. It was unfortunate because it is young people such as them who in the future will have to bear the brunt of the Government's spending policies. In fact, if those young people are aware of what their share of the debt is, they must realize that they owe $7,000 or more. Every person who is born in this country in the days, months and years to come will owe $7,000 or more as a matter of birthright. The longer the Government remains in office, the greater their birthright will become.
As we know, the record of the present Government headed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been one of irresponsible spending. When the Prime Minister and his Government first came to office in 1968 it was spending approximately $12 billion per year. Presently, if one includes what we anticipate to be in the supplementary estimates, it appears that it will be spending $100 billion per year.
The deficit in 1968 was approximately $491 million. We must remember that the Government's estimates have been far from accurate in the past, but it estimates that in the 1984-85 fiscal year the deficit will be $29.6 billion. The harsh reality of the situation is that it may in fact be larger than that.
Of course, the national debt has grown astronomically during the time in which the Prime Minister has been in office
and his Party has been in power. In 1968, the national debt totalled approximately $30 billion. By the end of this fiscal year it will be somewhere in the vicinity of $180 billion to $190 billion. Again, this represents more than $7,000 per man, woman and child.
Unfortunately, the results of this have been largely negative. We wish that they had been otherwise. As a result of the national debt growing at such an astronomical rate, we have seen interest rates rise in the past and we note with concern that it appears they are beginning to rise again. That means, of course, that even the forecast which was presented to us some time ago may be inaccurate because the cost to the Government for its borrowings will be greater than it has anticipated.
It also means that others who would borrow money in the market, such as provincial and municipal governments, businessmen, farmers and others who would use money in order to secure growth, are finding, first, that money is more expensive to borrow than it should be and, second, that they must go outside Canada in order to obtain the money they need. This means that interest dollars which those provincial and municipal governments pay and which people in the private sector pay are often going outside the country as well. Obviously this is a loss to Canada and Canadians.
Consequently, we are spending an incredible amount simply to service the debt which we have before us. In fact, when taxpayers complete their returns at the end of April of this year and send their contributions to the Department of National Revenue, they will sadly realize that $1 out of every $3 they are paying is going simply to pay the debt on moneys already expended. In that sense they feel a tremendous sense of futility and frustration. They are prepared to pay their appropriate share but they believe in many ways that their opportunity to secure growth has been negated by the policies of this administration in the past.
The impact on the average Canadian, the small businessman and the farmers in my constituency is unfortunately very detrimental. First, they find it very difficult to approach their own economic enterprises with confidence because they do not feel that our country is being led in a businesslike manner. They also find it very difficult to borrow money at a reasonable rate of interest. In fact, I could not help but think today of the number of farmers in my constituency who have been forced into bankruptcy in the last few months and those many others who will either be forced into bankruptcy in the months to come or perhaps leave farming because of their inability to carry on. I was thinking of how pleased they would be to have some of their debts eradicated in the manner in which the Government has dealt with Canadair. However, that is another issue.
The problem facing us now is the capacity of this administration to lead this country and the fact that its failure to provide businesslike leadership has meant that there is a lack of confidence in the country, a lack of confidence in the Government and therefore, to a very substantial degree, a lack of confidence in our economy.
March 14, 1984

There are certain times in history when deficit financing is a suitable strategy. The difficulty with what this administration has done is that it has engaged in Keynesian economics, if that is the term one wishes to imply, since the early 1970s. In fact, I suggest it is fair to say that it began to indulge in this strategy during the days of John "Deficit" Turner, who was Minister of Finance from January 28, 1972 until September 9, 1975. During those years the federal deficit in the first year of administration went from $702 million to a grand total of $5,463 billion in the last fiscal year in which he had responsibility.


Arnold John Malone: The Turner turnpike.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: My colleague refers to the Turner turnpike. Unfortunately, it is a road down which this country has been led in the past at a very high cost to the people of Canada and to the country as a whole. As a result of that indulgence, the Government lost the capacity to be flexible. It lost the capacity to deal with the economic fluctuations of the moment. Therefore, when it finds itself in the present situation of unacceptably high youth unemployment in the vicinity of 20 per cent, and in a situation where their own projections are for 10 per cent unemployment into the foreseeable future, it has lost the capacity to devise new policies to meet that particular crisis.
Borrowing Authority Act
Lately there has been a great deal of emphasis on the subject of newness. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the Government, by virtue of its spendthrift and irresponsible policies in the past, no longer has the capacity or flexibility to provide us with those new policies which the country so desperately needs. Therefore, the only thing we can see in the future that gives us a ray of hope is an election, when it comes in August, October or November. We will be ready when it is called. We will welcome the opportunity to provide the country with the type of businesslike administration which it so desperately needs. We will provide the country with a new government that Canadians will welcome with open arms.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a disposition to call it six o'clock. However, I should inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might be prepared to call it six o'clock at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed to call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.58 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 15, 1984