1986-04-11

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, this week several chiefs representing six newly recognized Indian bands of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation in northern Ontario were here in Ottawa seeking assurances that their capital funding program would be approved. They have the support of Members of Parliament in all political Parties and from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) himself. Nevertheless they are apprehensive because, living in a time of Government restraint, they are aware that obstacles may arise which would prevent them from proceeding with the upgrading and improvement of their remote communities, putting in place basic services that other Canadians take for granted.
These dignified chiefs are not here for a hand-out. Their Governments are now recognized, and they are here to assert their constitutional and aboriginal rights. I say to the Government that, even in times of restraint, the constitutional and historical obligations to our aboriginal peoples must be honoured.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, despite letters and telegrams to the office of the Prime Minister dating from last December, he has not responded to requests from the Nanoose Conversion Campaign about the renewal of the Canada-U.S. agreement on the Maritime Experimental and Test Range located at Nanoose, Vancouver Island. The Conversion Campaign Committee wants to know what changes and extensions the Americans are requesting in the present agreement which expires next Monday, April 14. From coast to coast thousands of Canadians have petitioned the Government to hold an open inquiry on the matter, yet it has chosen to proceed with renewal, with no public input whatsoever.
In spite of repeated requests for information regarding the advantages and disadvantages to Canada of the test range, the Canadian people have been given no information whatsoever on the changes the Americans are seeking to make.
I call upon the Government to make a full statement of intentions before signing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


GASOLINE PRICES IN NORTHERN AREAS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in most of the major centres of the NWT the pump price of gasoline remains in the 60-cent to 70-cent per litre range, with prices which can be much higher in remote communities. There has been some amelioration in the southern areas where there is a degree of competition but, for example, in the lower Mackenzie where Esso has a virtual monopoly, prices have remained static at just less than 70 cents per litre.
Northern consumers are aware of the high taxes imposed by the Territorial Government and the high transportation and storage costs, but they still feel that crude price reductions are not being fully passed on. Northerners ought to receive the same benefits from lower crude oil prices as do southerners.


EMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this Government has repeatedly shown that it is committed to create equality for women in Canadian society. Action has been substituted for rhetoric.
Employment has to be the sector where the results of equal opportunity measures taken by the Government are most telling.
Statistics Canada figures released on Friday reveal that female unemployment has declined sharply. Here is supporting evidence, Mr. Speaker: there are now 293,000 more women in the labour force than there were in September 1984; unem-

April 11, 1986
ployment among women has gone down 1.9 per cent since the election, from 12 to 10.1 per cent, whereas it actually went up 3.4 per cent under the previous Government, from 8.6 to 12 per cent; there are 80,000 fewer women without jobs, whereas there were 243,000 more under the Liberal
That is what we call significant progress, Mr. Speaker, and the situation will continue to improve over the years thanks to the unequalled leadership of the men and women of the PC caucus.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the Multicultural Minister has made it clear that he wishes to alter the policy of multiculturalism radically to a more pro business mode and has declared that some organizations are going to be cut out. There has been absolutely no consultation on this shift but, moreover, such a change would run counter to the spirit and development of this policy since 1971.
The Minister's slogan of "multiculturalism means business" is reflective of the Tories' perverse tendency to view everything in business dollars and cents. The promotion and retention of our Canadian culture cannot afford such regressive and narrow thinking. There are thousands of multicultural organizations which are serving the Canadian community well and honourably, and they deserve continued support and encouragement.
1 urge the Minister to restore the country's confidence immediately in a true multicultural program by abandoning his ill-advised strategy. The Minister should become a genuine advocate for the constituency he is supposed to represent and defend in cabinet and in Government.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Anatoly Shcharansky was released two months ago today on February 11,1986. We learned this week that he and his wife Avital will visit the United States next month and will meet with President Reagan.
We understand that the Soviets have threatened to halt even the current mere trickle of Jewish emigration if the
Shcharanskys indulge in anti-Soviet statements. Notwithstanding this threat, Anatoly has said he will not submit to this type of blackmail.
We hope and pray that Anatoly and Avital will visit Canada and meet our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and their thousands of friends across this land. Anatoly's victorious battle for the cause of Soviet Jewry, both refusniks and prisoners of conscience, helps to sustain all of us as we march toward greater victories in the war against the Soviets' violations of human rights.


GASOLINE EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I found out that we refine 550,000 barrels a day of gasoline in Canada. In February 50,000 barrels of refined gasoline was exported to the United States. In other words, we are exporting refined Canadian gasoline to the United States which is then sold cheaper in the U.S. than it is in Canada.
I found out as well that the Canadian independent retailers cannot buy this cheap gasoline in Canada so they go to the United States. In February they imported 10,000 barrels of refined gasoline a day. The independent retailers did a loop, if you like. What kind of energy policy is that, Mr. Speaker, when independents have to go to the United States to buy the cheap gasoline they cannot buy in Canada? That is a crazy energy policy.
What we are seeing is a failure. We have the worst of all possible worlds. Canadian motorists are paying more than Americans for gasoline, and Canadian producers, especially in the Province of Alberta, are getting killed by the Western Accord.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, the good news keeps coming in, for the greater benefit of Canadians.
Yesterday, the Bank of Canada rate dropped nearly one per cent. This was the biggest drop in a long time.
Mr. Speaker, let us recall that under the previous Government, the bank rate reached a record high.
Today, under the Conservative Government:
-Interest rates on five-year mortgages have gone down 3.25 points, representing a saving of $108 per month on a $50,000
April 11, 1986

loan. Current rates for five-year mortgages are at their lowest level in seven years.
-The interest rate on five-year mortgages from the Farm Credit Corporation has dropped three points.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I call leadership, a fact that is recognized by the Gaspe, Quebecers and Canadians.

[DOT] (mo)


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, falling world grain prices have impacted seriously on our farm economy. In response, the Government over the past 15 months has contributed, through the Western Grain Transportation Act, federal share of crop insurance, federal share of western grain stabilization, federal crop drought assistance, cash advances to farmers, rail branch line expenditures, livestock drought assistance, and fuel excise and sales tax rebates, some $2 billion to western agriculture.
In Saskatchewan the provincial Government has, through a number of programs such as the Farm Purchase Program, the farmers' oil royalty rebate, livestock cash advances, crop insurance adjustments, production loan guarantees, Ag credit, and others, injected more than $1.5 billion into the agricultural economy. Never in Canadian history have any two levels of Government made such a response to the needs of western agriculture.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, imagine my surprise this morning when I went into the committee on Employment and Immmigration and moved a motion that the salary of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) be reduced to $1 until she revokes the cruel and unfair imposition of changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the only Conservative Member who had bothered to show up, other than the chairman-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: -fled the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Fled the committee. Where are the Conservatives?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Timis-kaming.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has read the headlines in the morning newspapers is aware of the dramatic drop in the bank rate yesterday. In his last Budget the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said that this fall would happen, and it has. Canadians across this great land realize that the Government has taken the right course to achieve lower interest rates.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, let us look at five-year mortgage rates. Since the election five-year mortgage rates are down by 3.5 points, a savings of over $108 a month, or of $6,500 over five years on a $50,000 mortgage. What a difference that is from the 20 per cent plus levels which prevailed under the Liberal Government. Mortgages are now lower than they have been in the last seven years. Mr. Speaker, this is what a sound Government is all about.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, free enterprise is alive and well at Pearson International Airport. Four enterprising skycaps or baggage handlers approached the airlines with an offer to manage the skycap services at the airport for free. The airlines, seeing an opportunity to comply with Transport Canada regulations about maintaining such services at the airport, while eliminating any expense to do so, of course leaped at the scheme.
These four entrepreneurs then put the arm on the baggage handlers and said that they must pay them $80 a week to work there or they would be out. That is $4,000 a year to work for tips, Mr. Speaker. Two skycaps complained to the media and were fired. Two more were fired this week for taking time off while sick. Under this payola scheme workers with a doctor's certificate cannot even take time off while sick. It is like organized crime, or like free enterprise.
When I first communicated this to the Minister a month ago, he expressed sympathy for the skycaps in the press. However, he has yet to reply to myself, or to make his interest known to those who have lost their jobs. Lip service in the press will not solve this problem or assist the skycaps-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.

April II, 1986
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


AIR CANADA-APPEAL AGAINST TRANSFER OF INTERNATIONAL FLIGHTS FROM GANDER TO ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have today registered an appeal against the movement of Air Canada's international flights from Gander to St. John's. The appeal is registered under Section 23(2) of the National Transportation Act under which I am charging that the act of the carrier will prejudicially affect the public interest.
The Freedom to Move policy of the Government in dealing with Air Canada is somewhat confusing. Today 1 learned that the letter to Air Canada from the Minister saying: "We do not interfere with corporate decisions based on good business practices", is in a file on the desk of the President of Air Canada attached to another response from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to an identical request from Air Canada to move international flights from Mirabel to Dorval. The answer to that letter is an unqualified "no". Air Canada has freedom to move to St. John's, but no freedom to move to Dorval. The question now is whether I have the freedom to appeal and whether the Minister will recognize that freedom.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that the crisis in Libya is escalating. My question relates to the security of Canadians living and working in that country. Three weeks ago I put that matter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and he assured the House there was no danger. Will the Prime Minister tell the House how he currently views the situation and whether the risk is broadening for Canadians in Libya?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: We view the situation with seriousness, Mr. Speaker, consistent with our statement of January 10, 1986. 1 would add to that that our consular officials who are there advise that there is no immediate cause for undue concern for Canadians. We have conveyed two things. To Canadians we have conveyed our view, as we expressed it in January, that their analysis of their security concerns should motivate their own behaviour in regard to remaining there. Secondly, we have advised the Americans and our allies of the location of all Canadians and
have urged upon them, and all others, great prudence in regard to them.


INQUIRY IF AGREEMENT MADE BY UNITED STATES FOR EVACUATION OF CANADIAN CITIZENS FROM LIBYA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, last month when the Prime Minister met President Reagan in Washington, the crisis in Libya had already started. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he was given the assurance that, in the event of the United States engaging in military operations, Canadians in Libya would be evacuated.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, no. we did not discuss it in those terms. First of all, the Canadian Government has spoken out and taken action against terrorism in any form, and we have made clear our complete disapproval of certain actions by governments or agents acting on behalf of governments, where terrorism is concerned. Furthermore, we have taken initiatives at the government level, as announced on January 10, 1986, especially with respect to Libya.
In addition, we have urged our allies to ascertain at all times that retribution is justified and to act with great caution in this area, and especially in connection with the Canadian presence, we emphasized and re-emphasized this aspect as recently as yesterday and the day before, and of course its importance for the Government of Canada in this situation.


CURRENT SITUATION-CANADIAN POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister been in personal touch with the President in recent days urging, as he put it, all caution and prudence, and moderating the position which seems to be escalating the crisis?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
Government of Canada has conveyed a number of views directly to all those involved and concerned-first, our deep concern for the Canadians there; secondly, our view, which is unchanged, that terrorism is the bane of a civilized society. It cannot go unchecked or unchallenged. The response to a terrorist attack must not be a shotgun approach. It must be a very careful, considered, and thoughtful response. However, terrorism is not something we can ignore, nor do we propose to do so. We think it sows the seeds of destruction of civilized relations between civilized people. Any Government which purports to subsidize or encourage or aggrandize terrorism ought to be dealt with very severely.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 11, 1986

[Translation\


PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns the Government's policy on awarding contracts. Without wishing to comment on any police investigations that may be going on at this time, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could inform the House if the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's Office, not the RCMP, has conducted an internal investigation of the Government's contract policy, and especially the contracts involving the Museum of Man in Hull.
[DOT] (U20)


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised earlier on in the press conference held by the Prime Minister. If the Hon. Member had taken the time to follow the answer at the press conference he would understand that we are not in a position-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are not commenting. The Solicitor General has dealt with this matter. It is not appropriate with respect to investigations that are being undertaken either by the RCMP or any other police force. We refuse to be drawn in by the back door with respect to commenting on this particular matter.


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is more to this Parliament than a press conference. I want to direct my question to the Prime Minister in supplementary. Concerning the awarding of contracts, are there any other similar PCO or PMO investigations going on in any other Departments or the operations of any other Departments, in particular the Department of Supply and Services; yes or no?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I respect Parliament I think far more than the Hon. Member. I do not want to take any lectures from him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Government will undertake its responsibilities with respect to any investigation, but we are not going to be drawn in the back door with regard to commenting one way or the other with respect to investigations.
Ora! Questions AGRICULTURE


REQUEST FOR MEETING OF GRAIN EXPORTING COUNTRIES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is aware of the very serious crisis in the grain industry in the world today and the effects of the U.S. Farm Bill in terms of subsidies of exports and subsidies to the American producers, as well as subsidies in the European Common Market. Will the Prime Minister now show some international leadership and convene a meeting of all grain exporting nations to try to sort out this mess and come up with some kind of international grain agreement?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a very useful suggestion. It is a suggestion that has been made many times. It is the view of this Government that we should be meeting on a regular basis at the political level. The Member will know that there are, on an ongoing basis, meetings of officials, the most recent one being held in London under the auspices of the International Wheat Council.
I have had discussions with the other major wheat exporters over the past eight months to lay out our concerns. We have seen this problem coming. Canada has taken the lead in this instance, as it has in the past, going back to the International Wheat Council agreements where there were international agreements on prices. Canada has taken the lead in the past, and we are taking the lead presently in promoting the very kind of discussions to which the Hon. Member refers.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER CONVENE INTERNATIONAL MEETING
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to have an answer from the Prime Minister. He did not hesitate to come to the west for votes. Why does he not answer questions from westerners in this House?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Does the Hon. Member have a question only, please?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to know from the Prime Minister whether or not he personally, as leader of our country, will convene a meeting of grain exporting nations to try to sort out the mess that is going to crush western farmers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say that I have spoken on western issues more often in the House than the Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: These western farmers from Aylmer are going to get us all in trouble. I take notice of the suggestion of my hon. friend, and pursuant to the answer given by the

April 11, 1986
Oral Questions
Minister of State we will consult, and advise the House, if and when it is appropriate.


REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF DEFICIENCY PAYMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But for the grace of Brian, there goes God!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I will not allow a response. Just a question, please.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The price of wheat in Canada will be about $3 a bushel and in the United States around $6 Canadian. Is the Prime Minister ready to announce a deficiency payment on our international sales so Canadian farmers will have a decent price for the work they are doing?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to approach this issue as a very serious matter, which it is. The Hon. Member does not do any good to the people he represents in his riding of Yorkton-Melville by taking cheap shots at anybody.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: We have tried very hard to co-operate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just the answer, please.


Charles James Mayer: 
PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the tainted tuna scandal arose the Prime Minister said: "When it was brought to my attention, bang! Immediately the Minister's resignation was secured". Has anything been brought to his attention on which he should take action to assure the integrity of the contract awarding process in the Department of Public Works? Bang!


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a former Solicitor General of
Canada. He knows very well the position that was taken by his Leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, which was that no Solicitor General or no Member of Parliament should take action which could impede a police investigation or impede the ability of an individual to have a fair trial. Surely a responsible individual would respect that point of view, and would desist from this sort of questioning in the House of Commons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I also know that it is unparliamentary to hide behind an irrelevant consideration like that.


INTEGRITY OF PROCESS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about the police investigation. The Government is responsible for all of its Departments and for the contract awarding process-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Just a question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Have any steps been taken to ensure the integrity of the contract awarding process of the Department of Public Works?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, who is an officer of the courts as a lawyer, and a former Solicitor General, may believe that the principle that individuals are entitled to a fair trial and that we should not interfere with police investigations may be irrelevant. We on this side do not.
I would expect that all Members of the House of Commons would show some sense of responsibility and not interfere with investigations which may be under way.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The low initial grain prices are forcing down the projected income of the farmers. The banks are reacting by cutting off the line of credit of many farmers and therefore making it difficult, even impossible, for them to get into seeding operations this fall. Will the Minister back the need for action indicated by the Prime Minister this morning, by attempting to upgrade the income of farmers by some kind of deficiency payment, which will allow their projected income to rise?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, Members on all sides of the House passed, in one day, amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act a year ago in February, which allow for
April 11, 1986

interim payments to be made. The Prime Minister said this morning that we will be making that announcement at the beginning of the week and I am sure the Hon. Member will be very pleased with that announcement. It will provide considerable support to do exactly what hesays-allow producers to put their crops in the ground, in the spring, as they usually do.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES AND EUROPEAN GRAIN PRODUCERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Those payments are for last year's deficiencies. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Government not give the Canadian grain producers the same kind of protection and support that is given to the U.S. grain producers and European grain producers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, sure, the money is there as a result of what we believe will be the final amount of the Western Grain Stabilization Act payment for the present crop year. However, the point is that it will come at the very time they need it the most-prior to spring seeding.
The Hon. Member is a farmer, in fact there are only a couple of farmers in both opposition Parties and he is one of them. He will know that the timing of the receipt of money as far as many people are concerned, especially farmers, is almost as important as the amount. That timing will be there. In all likelihood, if these markets continue, there will be another stabilization payment for the coming year as a result of the Act. So the money will be there at the beginning of this planting season.
[DOT] (U30)
Interest rates in the meantime have gone down. That is an assist as far as farmers going to their banks to get money to put their crops in the ground are concerned. I think the Hon. Member should give the Government credit for the way it has been able to manage its fiscal affairs so that those interest rates have come down as much as they have.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Canadian Press has just reported that Senator Robert Packwood, chairman of the U.S. Senate committee studying President Reagan's request for authority to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada, has just said that his committee is likely to turn down the President's request, to vote against it? Is the Prime Minister aware of this and, if so, what is he going to do about this startling development?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it. I was just made aware after the press conference that Senator Packwood, an Oregon Republican, has offered his prediction of what might take place with regard to a committee of the United States Senate. 1 suppose there are two answers. First, this should establish very clearly for some Hon. Members of the House of Commons, who appear to have felt that the United States was somehow just down there on bended knee waiting for the Canadians to come in and negotiate an arrangement, that, if we can negotiate one, it will be very much in Canada's interest to try to do so.


Sheila Maureen Copps: You were on your knees.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Second, I have never minimized the difficulties involved in this kind of complex process. I heard what Senator Packwood said, but I remind my hon. friend that we deal with the administration as a whole, including the Congress, and not just Senator Packwood.


CANADIAN POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he and his Government will not now move to make concessions to the United States on matters like exports of lumber or Canadian patent law in order to try to ensure a favourable vote in that Senate committee?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, of all the silly things the Hon. Member for Windsor West has said, this one takes the cake.
What we have been doing is protecting Canada's interests with a vigilance which this country has not seen in some years, and we will continue to do precisely that, including trying to negotiate a bilateral trade enhanced agreement with the United States which will bring more jobs and more prosperity into Canada. I think that Senator Packwood's apprehensions indicate the extent to which this Government is on the right track in trying to do precisely that.


FREE TRADE TALKS-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT WITHDRAWAL
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have the same question to direct with extreme seriousness to the Prime Minister because this chairman is clearly reflecting his committee. It is not just a chance announcement by one man in the Senate. In view of this, will the Government now withdraw the request for freer trade talks-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: -and instead work out a more modest trade package following recommendations of the special parliamentary committee for the establishment of an IJC-like trade mediation committee and a tougher, more flexible-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steven W. Langdon: -Canadian import tribunal?

April 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult. I suppose the answer to that is no. The Hon. Member mentions that Senator Packwood is a member of the Senate. Indeed he is. He is also a representative of a state with major timber interests.
I have just gone down there and said that we will not accept their version of events and will not sacrifice Canadian lumber or timber interests in this regard. I have made that very clear to everyone from President Reagan down, which may explain some of the Senator's hesitations. But I expect that he will rise above that and will see the merit for both countries in this kind of trading arrangement. I hope he will, anyway.


GENERIC DRUG ISSUE
Steven W. Langdon: Would the Prime Minister tell the House if the Government will also commit itself not to give in to the United States on the generic drug issue as it has given in on other issues like FIR A, which is yet one further concession, to try to get these talks back on the rails now that they look they are in such serious trouble?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman is expressing a hope rather than an opinion. He mentions the generic issue. That will be dealt with by the House at an appropriate time.
As I indicated earlier today, if the Government takes a position on a given issue which affects our bilateral relationship with the United States, it does so because it believes it is in our national interests to do so, as we did, for example, with the National Energy Program. I indicated this morning that, long before I had the privilege of being a Member of this House, I said that the National Energy Program, in my judgment, was exactly like a hold-up at a gasoline station at three o'clock in the morning and it would have to be dismantled. That is what this Government-


Steven W. Langdon: Order.


Mr. Althouse:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We acted on the National Energy Program because that was in our interests and not in the interests of the United States.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Wheat Board. The Minister knows that his decision to lower initial grain prices is
having a devastating impact on western Canada. Farm input costs are not going down in Manitoba because the big oil companies like Petro-Canada and Shell have done away with an eight cent per litre volume discount this spring. While world prices for crude oil have dropped by more than 50 per cent, the actual price per litre for farm gas is within one cent of last year.
Will the Minister go back to Cabinet and get authorization to reinstate the 1985 initial grain prices and have Petro-Canada instructed to reinstate the eight cent per litre volume discount which it had last year?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises several points in his question. First, we believe that the initial prices are realistic according to world markets. It is not I who sets them, or the Government. Unfortunately influences outside our borders and outside our control set world grain prices.
With respect to the farm discount, I would tell the Hon. Member that I farm and I would very much have liked to have had an eight cent per litre discount. I am certainly not aware of anyone who had a discount nearly that large. It was more in the order of two cents or three cents. The Hon. Member is right that the discounts have all been removed. We have all made representations on those matters.
Third, the Hon. Member was not accurate when he said prices have not come down, because in Manitoba the price of diesel fuel and gasoline, I believe, has come down something like ten cents in the last two months.


Mr. Speaker:: Short supplementary.


BANK OF CANADA
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, there are reports around that the Bank of Canada has advanced over $2 billion to one bank during the last several weeks because of its financial difficulties. Why can the Government not provide $1 billion of assistance to over 140,000 western farmers to reinstate the 1985 initial prices for grain?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that the Bank of Canada has a liquidity function to perform in the banking system, and that it is totally inappropriate to comment on what that institution is or what the rumours are. That is absolutely and totally separate from the business which is being discussed with the Minister of State for the Wheat Board.
April 11, 1986


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns night flight medical evacuations with single-engine helicopters which have been banned in British Columbia since January by the Minister and by the Premier of British Columbia, Bill Bennett. Since the Minister offered all possible assistance in February, does this include a budget for the tasking of the Prince Rupert twin-engine Transport Canada S-61 to 24-hour-a-day emergency medivacs in northern British Columbia?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: To put
this issue into perspective, what the Hon. Member is proposing and is asking me to authorize is to allow passengers to fly in single-rotorcraft helicopters at night. That is totally contrary to the air navigation order. 1 wish the Hon. Member would make up his mind on whether he is a supporter of stringent safety standards or whether he wants me, as Minister of Transport, to violate them.


HELICOPTER STATIONED AT PRINCE RUPERT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, 1 have spoken to doctors about this matter and they are concerned about the negligent inaction of the Minister. 1 ask the Minister whether or not he is prepared to task the S-61. It is a twin-engine helicopter which is sitting in Prince Rupert. It is under the Minister's control. Will he task it, or at least deliver the twin-engine helicopter which the transport committee promised to Prince Rupert a year ago?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between my departmental officials and the Emergency Health Services Commission in an attempt to resolve this matter. The fact remains that the air navigation order stands. This Minister will not compromise that air navigation order.
Furthermore, there are a number of available multi-rotorcraft helicopters which are in the business. We are trying to work the matter out. Surely in cases of emergency the Coast Guard helicopter which is available can be used, on a cost-recovery basis.


AGRICULTURE
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bank of Canada rate fell another 81 points indicating growing approval of the federal Budget and, indeed, of the economic direction of the Government.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoff Wilson: My question is for the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Has the Minister been able to measure or quantify the impact of general interest rate reductions on farm input costs?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member raises a very good point. One of the input costs which farmers face every year is interest costs. If we look at the total amount of borrowed money in agriculture against which interest has to be paid, then every percentage point drop in interest rates means a saving of $200 million to the farm community. I think that tells Hon. Members something about how important the overall economic thrust and policies of the Government are, not only to agriculture but to every other economic sector in the country. We want to work and develop jobs.


IMMIGRATION
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Immigration. Recent reports indicate that she is considering departmental advice to slap on a visa requirement on Portugual as a response to the number of refugee applications. She should know that the problem is not with this European country-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Sergio Marchi: -but with the backlog which the Government has refused to address. Will the Minister eliminate the growing concern and anger which are being felt in the Portuguese-Canadian community by telling the House and that community that she will not follow departmental advice to slap on a scapegoat visa requirement for all visitors and individuals from Portugual?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take notice of the Hon. Member's question for the Minister of State for Immigration.


IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, she carries the title "Minister of Employment and Immigration". Is the Minister prepared to assure the House that no visa requirement will be placed on Portugual, and rather than using that as a scapegoat, she will bring in a refugee determination process and go after the phoney consultants who are at the root of many of these problems?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 11, 1986
Oral Questions


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the need to ensure that there is no abuse of the system by anyone who is trying to provide false advice to individuals wishing to come to Canada. 1 also welcome the Hon. Member's sense of urgency with respect to bringing in a new refugee determination system. 1 am sure we will have his support, and the support of members of his Party for whom I take it he speaks, when we introduce that new refugee determination system very shortly.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I thought you were the Minister.


AGRICULTURE
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. This is the time of year when both farmers and lenders assess the future viability of farms. Given the 20 per cent drop in initial prices and the scary parts of the Nielsen task force report regarding future commitment of funding by the Government, will the Minister make a clear statement today the Government's intention with respect to deficiency payments? Will the Government make up the difference between world price and the losses with which farmers have to deal, or will it not?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the reports of the task force have all been referred to the appropriate committees for consideration. Again 1 say that we have shown support for agriculture, particularly western agriculture, in the past year. The Prime Minister said this morning that we plan to make an announcement on Monday with respect to the size of the interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. When the Hon. Member hears that announcement I am sure that, as a farmer, he will welcome the news.


STABILIZATION FUND
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure the bankers and the farmers that when the stabilization fund is depleted on Monday the Government will continue its legislative commitment to keep that fund full when future calls come against it? Will he also assure us that cash advances will not be subject to interest, as was proposed by the Nielsen task force?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and since the Hon. Member has served as agriculture critic for his Party, he should know that part of the legislation states that the federal Government is responsible for making up the deficit.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: So does it say that they should have interest-free cash advances; but you are talking about doing away with them.


Charles James Mayer: The Hon. Member should also know that there was a time, 1 guess about two years ago, when that fund contained SI billion. If it is fair to run a surplus then I think it is reasonable for farmers and for Government to expect that it can run a deficit. So there is no problem with making payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act, even if the fund goes into a deficit position, Mr. Speaker.


AIRPORTS
Lise Bourgault: My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Further to recent events at the airports at Mirabel and Dorval which demonstrated the ineffectiveness of the security firm responsible for screening baggage, does the Minister intend to cancel the Burns contract and ask for another public tender?


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 apologize for the Minister's absence. He had to leave to catch a flight-a public flight I might add?-to Vancouver.
I indicate to the Hon. Member that the contracts are between the carriers and the security firms. The involvement of the Government is simply in relation to standards for security. Finally, I would like to indicate that on Monday morning the Minister will be meeting with the security firms, the carriers, and the unions involved.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Recently, in Halifax, he stated that the Government was considering a $100 million purchase of vessels for the Naval Reserve. In view of the fact that there is high unemployment among shipbuilders in the Atlantic area, British Columbia, and Quebec, why would the Minister want to use $100 million of Government money to purchase ships offshore for the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to
April 11, 1986

clear up this matter. I made no such statement. There is no intent on our part to do what the Hon. Member suggests.
The Navy is in great need of new equipment after years and years of neglect. We are doing everything we can to provide that new equipment. Part of what we are trying to do is with respect to a program for minor war vessels. The $100 million figure to which the Hon. member refers goes back to 1982 when the then Liberal Government turned down such a program. If and when we can find the money to proceed with the program, I can assure the Hon. Member that the ships will be built in Canada, by Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN SOURCING
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I remind the Minister that it was his Party which made eight specific promises with regard to the shipbuilding industry and that it has not fulfilled one. I take it from the Minister's earlier statement that he is giving the House an undertaking that if there is to be a procurement policy by his Department with regard to the shipbuilding industry it will clearly be with respect to ships made here in Canada by Canadian labour. Will he confirm that undertaking?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought I just did.


David Charles Dingwall: It's in contradiction of the Minister of Transport.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. American sabre-rattling off the coast of Libya now threatens to turn into "the real thing". Canadians want to know where their Government really stands. Does the Prime Minister think that military action is an appropriate response to terrorism? Will he agree that such action will lead to a further escalation of international tension and, in fact, to an increase in terrorism and international tension?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I responded earlier in this regard. However, I should tell my hon. friend that in a statement on January 10 I set out our position on behalf of the Government, that is to say that those who murder and maim innocent people and who bring anarchy to civilized society should have no sanctuary, no comfort, and no indulgence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to say no sanctuary, no comfort, and no indulgence; it is another to engage in a retaliatory strike.


SAFETY OF CANADIANS IN LIBYA
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in view of this very serious situation, what is the Government prepared to do to ensure the safety of individual Canadians, in addition to finding out where they are and asking them to reassess their personal situations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Government has and will continue to develop contingency plans to be of assistance to Canadians. Their welfare and security are of the highest concern.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, earlier today the House Leader referred to the Prime Minister's press conference, which prompts me to ask a question that was not answered at that conference. It relates to the resignation of the former Minister of Fisheries. On March 7, in an interview with The New York Times, the Prime Minister said: "When it was brought to my attention", that is to say the rotten tuna, "bang! Immediately the Minister's resignation was secured". How does he reconcile that statement in that interview with his "Dear John" letter of September 23, 1985, six days after the issue became public, to the then Minister saying: "I have received your letter in which you request that you be relieved of your responsibilities". In other words, the Minister and the Prime Minister recognized that the then Minister resigned. In The New York Times he said that he was fired immediately, but the letter of resignation came only six days after the issue became public.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I said no such thing. The context of both incidents is clear, and there is no inconsistency in the position.


NEW YORK TIMES INTERVIEW
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was directly quoted in the The New York Times and we have the transcript. Further, the issue was brought to the attention of the country on September 17, 1985. On September 18, in the House, the Prime Minister refused the resignation and refused the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the right hon. gentleman have a supplementary question?

April 11, 1986
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Is the Prime Minister saying that he retracts his statement in The New York Times'? Which version is right-his letter and the version given to us by the former Minister of Fisheries, or what he said in The New York Times'?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that there is no inconsistency at all in what has been said. Indeed there was a grave inconsistency, a very serious inconsistency, with regard to a resignation which involved the Leader of the Opposition and then Prime Minister Trudeau, and Prime Minister Trudeau indicated that the version given by the Leader of the Opposition was incorrect.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications my question is directed to his Parliamentary Secretary. The residents of the riding of Timiskaming were very annoyed to learn earlier this week that the CBC radio station in the North had spent an estimated $50,000 on TVs, VCRs, tape recorders and cassettes, after guidelines were indicated by the President of the Treasury Board and after the Vice-President of the CBC indicated that stations should keep within the spending guidelines. Could the Parliamentary Secretary advise my residents and many people across the country why such spending is still allowed?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, the CBC is a Crown corporation at arms length. However, the suggestion is a very serious one. I will undertake to ask the Minister to convey this information to the President of the CBC on Mr. Juneau's return from the Peoples Republic of China.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who recently made the time to meet with seven chiefs of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation to discuss funding for the recently created bands in northwestern Ontario. Is the Minister prepared to state before the House his full support in doing everything possible to expedite approval of funding to meet the requirements of those bands?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may know that when I met yesterday with Grand Chief Cromarty and the other seven chiefs, I indicated that I would support their efforts. I will be engaged in discussions and consultations over the next number of weeks, and I am hopeful that we will reach a satisfactory conclusion.


MINISTERIAL ACTION
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, of course the Minister is aware that if these funds are not approved in time for the very limited construction season, there may well be hundreds of people living in tents come the fall. Therefore I ask for the Minister's commitment to bring this matter before the Social Development Committee of Cabinet within the next two weeks.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I assure the Hon. Member that I am aware of the tight time frame, given the geography and the climate. As the Hon. Member may well know, we have just received the application from the region. We will have to go through the process at all possible speed, and I will do it as soon as I can.


FIREARMS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Given his stated concerns this morning about increasing terrorism, and given recent moves in the United States to relax its gun control laws, could he tell us why, in his Government's Budget, he made it cheaper to import rifles and shotguns into Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this had to do with a Tariff Board ruling on sportsmen's rifles. It was a regulatory change which was made before, and this was brought into line with other regulations.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he not concerned about the kind of signal which this sends out? On the one hand he is expressing concern about increasing terrorism. On the other hand his Government is making it cheaper to bring high-powered shotguns and rifles into the country. Does he not think this sends out a mixed message to Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a little unfair to deal with Canadian sportsmen in the same breath as dealing with terrorism.
April 11, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In August 1985 in Jonquiere, the Prime Minister promised to release the results of the impact study on the shooting range proposed for the Lac-Saint-Jean area. When will the Prime Minister finally keep his promise and provide the people, many of whom object to this project, with the results of this impact study?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, over the last few months the Hon. Member for Chicoutimi has been talking to the constituents in that area. I am assured by all press reports, and by all indications from the responsible individuals, that in fact most of the fears which have been fomented by others have been reduced. Indeed the level of support has increased considerably over that to which the Hon. Member has referred.
[ Translation]


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. It is very simple: When does the Minister intend to publish the results of the impact study?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows or should know, the lands in question are Crown lands in the right of the Province of Quebec. In fact the decision rests with the Province of Quebec. Our officials are working closely with the officials of the Province of Quebec, and Members from the area are working closely with interested people. Things are proceeding along smoothly, which I know must disappoint the Hon. Member.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. She knows that officials have recognized that the notices to the corporations and unions were sent only on December 24 and that 34,000 people had accepted to take an early retirement long before that.
Oral Questions
Since these people were misinformed, as the Hon. Member for LaSalle has said, will the Minister blame the businesses for misinforming these 34,000 workers or were these businesses misinformed by her Department before the workers involved took an early retirement?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is somewhat confused about the processes. Anyone making a Ul claim is instructed at the time on how to go about launching an appeal. That has been explained to the Hon. Member on a number of occasions. If he has a specific case about which he is concerned, I wish he would bring it to my attention.
[ Translation]


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ATTEND MEETING
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister is so sure that she is right, would she be willing to take part in the meetings which will be held beginning next Tuesday in Montreal, Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Trois-Rivieres? Can she make sure to be there? The population will tell her about the facts. If she is sure that she is right, she can say so to the 34,000 people involved and they will applaud her. Will she be with us? As for me, I shall certainly be there.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the Hon. Member had specific cases to bring before me, he would have done so before this time. He has not done so-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thirty-two thousand of them.


Some Hon. Members:: Sh-h-h!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I wish he would get on with what I think is a very serious matter. On the other hand, I have to say that my schedule is set well in advance. I am sorry that I cannot accept all the invitations the Hon. Member has given me, but he will know that I joined him the other day in Montreal East for a very good discussion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. One question. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. The shipyard workers of Canada must have been delighted to

April I 1, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. de Corneille
find that the Government considered it a ludicrous notion that replacement vessels for the Naval Reserve be built offshore. Can the Minister assure shipyards in Canada, particularly those in Atlantic Canada, that if funds become available for the Small Ships Replacement Program they will have every opportunity to compete in the process?


Harvie Andre: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I am doing everything I can within the confines imposed on us by budgetary considerations to accelerate this program. I think the Navy and the Naval Reserves have a vital role to play. They need the best equipment. I want to see that equipment designed, built, and constructed in Canada.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, you may be aware that on Monday a large number of people who are handicapped will be coming to the Hill and to the House of Commons in order to express their concerns about the Bill before the House. Those with wheelchairs would find the facilities very constraining. I believe there are places for only four or so. Whatever the case is, tnere will be a large number of people who will seek access.
Could the Speaker indicate whether or not there is any plan or provision, as we do when we have a joint session of the House and Senate, to provide access for the handicapped to use perhaps some of the floor space in the House where they can sit down? Or is there some other way to provide access for the handicapped so that we do not just pay lip service to their needs but effectuate it.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention. I will be happy to look into it. I have to say to the Hon. Member that 1 know of no provision that would allow the floor of the House of Commons to be used, but 1 will be happy to investigate the matter.


Roland de Corneille: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: You are welcome.


B. Keith Penner: This goodwill has got to end, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope not.


PETITIONS
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the Government response to petitions nos. 331-9, 331-14, 331 -51457-331-60 inclusive; 331-62 to 331-76 inclusive; 331-81 to 331-86 inclusive; 331-89 to 331-92 inclusive; 331-97 to 331114 inclusive; 331-120, 331-121, 331-122 and 331-124.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. If the House gives it consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings].


CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the legislative committee, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-87, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadian Arsenals Limited and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, without amendment, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings].


PETITIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to submit petitions bearing some 700 signatures from Thunder Bay, Saskatoon and Windsor protesting the Government's cancellation of Katimavik as a symbol of its concern for youth and asking for reconsideration.
April 11, 1986


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I am pleased to present a duly authorized petition from 100 constituents residing in the northern communities of Manitouwadge and Kapuskasing. These petitioners ask that this Parliament assembled take action regarding the unnecessarily high gasoline prices being paid by consumers in northern Ontario.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred Canadians resident in Saskatoon West, St. John's West, Kingston and The Islands and a number of other constituencies throughout Canada calling upon the Parliament of Canada to implement Recommendations 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the report of the parliamentary committee on equality rights, which would ensure that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is no longer permitted within federal jurisdiction.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in Burnaby calling upon the Government to reinstate full indexation of universal family allowances and to rescind the unfair tax increases which are contained in the most recent budgetary proposals.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present on behalf of many constituents in Burnaby a petition calling upon the Government to insist that the CRTC not allow the proposals for local measured service whereby each individual call would be charged for. As the petitioners point out, Mr. Speaker, the telephone is essential for communication and it is essential particularly for the elderly, for those on fixed incomes and for volunteer associations. Local measured service would have a devastating impact on those individuals.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents from the community of Blaine Lake, Saskatchewan. They express the desire that the Government of Canada take cognizance of the reduction they have had in support of youth, and reinstate the Katimavik for the young people of Canada.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a couple of hundred of my constituents who state that in their opinion the federal Government's decision to cancel the youth program Katimavik was a short-sighted budgetary measure at
Motion
the expense of Canadian youth. They point out that the 1985 study found 60 per cent of Katimavik participants over a four year period were employed, and of 27 per cent in school or university only 6.7 per cent unemployed while the youth unemployment rate was running far higher-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Abram Ernest Epp: They call upon the House of Commons to reinstate with full funding the Katimavik program for the young people of Canada.



CANADIAN LAW OFFSHORE APPLICATION ACT


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-104, an Act to apply federal laws and provincial laws to offshore areas and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: I should like at this time to move concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism presented earlier this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of an application under Standing Order 29 from the Hon. Member for Humboldt- Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to place before the House today a request for an emergency debate concerning the grave economic situation which faces grain farmers as a result of the Government's

April 11, 1986
Order Paper Questions
decision to lower the initial price of grain for this crop year by some 20 per cent; that is, 19 per cent for wheat, 28 per cent for oats, and 25 per cent for barley.
Since credit decisions are being made now, lending institutions and farmers must be aware of what the Government proposes to do to provide some income guarantees in order that loans taken out now will have some chance of being repaid. The House should be aware that a 20 per cent reduction in gross incomes means that the vast majority of Canada's grain farmers are being sentenced to one more year without any pay for their labour. Payments were received from the Western Grain Stabilization Fund in the last two crop years. This year's pay-out will be similar to the one made last year, therefore, no funds to compensate for the price reduction can be expected by farmers or their lending institutions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order! Just the facts.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: These are the facts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: These are not the facts.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: In order to generate the funds necessary to repay money borrowed for crop expenses this year, banks will need some guarantees that the loans will be repaid. Since this year's stabilization pay-out will virtually empty the Western Grain Stabilization Fund, lenders and farmers need to know if the Government intends to keep the fund viable to respond to the price drop.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order! You're bootlegging in the wrong information.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Since lenders are being extremely cautious about the future viability of many of their customers, I urge that you permit an emergency debate under Standing Order 29 to permit these issues to be presented for response by the Government. The future of Canada's farmers is at stake and communities will suffer. We need to know the answers now.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will know that I have given earlier consideration to two of these matters. 1 propose to reserve on this application.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 105 and 535.


Mr. Kaplan: As of the date this question is answered and by Cabinet Minister, how many officials seconded from the Public Service, Crown corporations, agencies or other federal bodies are employed on the Minister's staff and. in each case, what is the salary range?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am
informed as follows:		
Minister	Number	Salary RangePrime Minister's Office	1	$24,999 to $27,172Employment and Immigration	2 1	$35,498 to $51,320 $45,702 to $51,591Deputy Prime Minister's Office	I	$24,271 to $26,563Transport	1 1	$21,533 to $23,552 $23,019 to $25,175Finance	1	$41,663 to $52,099Consumer and Corporate Affairs	1	$32,588 to $36,734State - Mines	t 1	$43,793 to $50,106 $45,702 to $51,591Other Ministers:	None


Mr. Althouse: 1.	What is the amount of the current accumulated federal deficit?
2.	What is the average level of interest being paid on the deficit?
3.	Was money borrowed to cover the deficit and, if so, what amount is outstanding in increments of interest at (a) 20% or more (b) 19% to 20% (c) 18% to 19% (d) 17% to 18% (e) 16% to 17% (f) 15% to 16% (g) 14% to 15% (h) 13% to 14% (i) 12% to 13% (j) 11% to 12% (k) 10%. to 11% (I) 9% to 10% (m) 8% to 9% (n) 7% to 8% (o) 6% to 7% (p) 5% to 6%. (q) 4% to 5% (r) 3% to 4% ?


Barbara Jean McDougall: (1)
The accumulated federal deficit or net public debt as of March 31, 1985, amounted to $191.4 billion. Financial assets amounted to $41.1 billion and gross liabilities to $232.6 billion, of which $172.4 billion was in the form of unmatured public debt. The figures are as reported in the 1984/85 Public Accounts and do not reflect the accounting changes shown in the February, 1986 budget documents.
(2)	The average interest rate on unmatured debt as of March 31, 1985 amounted to 11.31 per cent.
(3)	The accumulated deficit together with financial assets acquired, less funds acquired through specified purpose accounts and other miscellaneous liabilities, have been fianaced by the issue of public debt.
Interest rates on the Canadian dollar components of public debt as of March 31, 1985 were as follows. The amount of outstanding domestic marketable bonds (in billions of dollars) classified by interest rate payable was: (a) above 20%-nil; (b) 19-20%-nil; (c) 18-19%-$0.1; (d) 17-18%-$0.3; (e) 16-17% -nil; (0 15-16%-$4.9; (g) 14-15%-$3.1; (h) 13-14%-$12.9; (i) 12-13%-$11.5; (j) 11-12%-$14.8; (k) 10-11%-$13.6; (I) 9-10%-$6.1; (m) 8.9%-$1.4; (n) 7-8%-nil; (o) 6-7%-$0.3; (p) 5-6%-$0.8; (q) 4-5%-nil; (r) 3-4%-$0.2. The average interest rate on Treasury bills ($52.3 billion) was 10.89 per
. April 11, 1986

cent. The interest rate peyable on Canada Savings Bonds ($42.0 billion) was 11.25 per cent.


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, 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.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Barbara Jean McDougall: that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as Hon. Members are aware, Bill C-99, which seeks borrowing authority for the 1986-87 fiscal year, has been returned to the House for report stage and third reading by the special committee of the House which has concluded its examination of the Bill. Today I rise briefly to remind Hon. Members of the contents of this Bill and to inform them of the current situation with respect to borrowing authority.
As Hon. Members are aware, Clause 2 of Bill C-99 requests $22.6 billion of borrowing authority for the 1986-87 fiscal year. This amount matches exactly the financial requirements for this fiscal year as set out in the Budget of my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The Government is not requesting any additional amount of borrowing authority for fiscal 1986-87 since it has access to $2 billion of nonlapsing authority provided by the Borrowing Authority Act 1984-85 (No. 2).
Clause 3 of Bill C-99 states that any unused borrowing authority of the Borrowing Authority Act 1984-85 (No. 2) will be cancelled on March 31, 1987, to the extent that the unused authority exceeds $2 billion.
[ Translation]
Perhaps Hon. Members would like to know how the Government used the borrowing authority granted by Parliament for the fiscal year ending in 1986. The over-all amount authorized was $32.2 billion, as follows: $12 billion under last year's Borrowing Authority Act; $18.2 billion under last year's
Borrowing Authority Act
Borrowing Authority Act (No. 2); and $2 billion of nonlapsing reserve authority provided by Borrowing Authority Act, 198485 (No. 2).
For the fiscal year 1985-86, domestic borrowing operations so far have used roughly $24.3 billion of borrowing authority: $9.9 billion through Treasury bond issues; $11.5 billion through sales of negotiable securities; and $2.9 billion through net sales of Canada Savings Bonds.

In addition, foreign borrowing added $5.8 billion to the use of borrowing authority. Consequently, a total of about $30.2 billion of borrowing authority was used during the 1985-86 fiscal year, and $2 billion was carried forward into the 1986-87 fiscal year. The $2 billion of reserve authority is currently being used. Financial requirements are always seasonally heavy at the beginning of the fiscal year and, given the limited amount of borrowing authority provided by the reserve, the Government will quickly have to resort to running down its cash balances.
Without having new borrowing authority in place for the 1986-87 fiscal year, the Government will soon have to resort to the use of Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act in order to avoid totally depleting its cash balances. As Hon. Members are aware, this is a temporary measure only and is designed to provide short-term funds to the Government if it appears that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will be insufficient to meet the dibursements lawfully authorized to be made from it. Thus, I hope that the House will be able to deal with this matter in its usual expeditious manner.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition certainly appreciates that this Bill must be passed fairly promptly in order for the Government to conduct its business, and we do not intend to delay it unduly. Bond issues have to be planned and announced to the market weeks in advance of the sales date. New funds raised at Treasury Bill auctions are announced a week in advance. Therefore, it is not our intention to delay the passage of this Bill. However, the reservations which we expressed at the time of the second reading debate, and in the legislative committee, remain. I think it is important that they should be put on the record once again.
The Bill before us requests $22.6 billion worth of borrowing authority for 1986-87. The Government also has access to $2 billion of unused, nonlapsing borrowing authority as provided by an earlier Borrowing Authority Act. We certainly hope the Government will be able to manage its affairs in acccordance with its forecast needs and that the Members of this House will not be asked later in the year to approve a request for supplementary borrowing authority.
Our concerns arise from the assumptions and projections by which the kGovernment arrived at the $22.6 billion figure. As I and a number of my colleagues here have said before, we

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
have our doubts about the soundness of those assumptions. If the economic picture as drawn by the Government in the budget documents does not come together as anticipated, then obviously the consequences are different. The Government is having some good fortune now with respect to interest rates which, in the Budget, are forecast at 9.5 per cent for this fiscal year. However, we are less than two weeks into the fiscal year and it remains to be seen whether today's encouraging trend will stabilize. Each percentage point over the Government's forecast adds another $1 billion to the deficit, according to the Government's own figures. The Conference Board of Canada, as one reputable forecasting agency, is predicting interest rates of 10.4 per cent in 1986.
Another of the Government's assumptions which has drawn skepticism is its projected oil price of $22.50 a barrel. Since the Budget was brought down on February 26 we have seen a steady decline in oil prices which, to begin with, were less than the Government's projected price. How credible then is the 22.50 a barrel figure when, for example, the Economic Council of Canada assumed a price of $19 in its forecasts, and the Conference Board of Canada based its forecasts on $18 a barrel in the second trimester of this year? As a rough rule of thumb, for every one dollar a barrel fall in the price of oil, the Government's revenues from the PGRT drop by $110 million. If the Government is indeed losing that much tax revenue for every dollar drop in the price of a barrel of oil, it would seem likely that it stands to lose $1 billion in tax revenues this year based on current prices.
In the legislative committee I asked the Minister for her forecast and indeed she confirmed that if oil prices averaged $10 a barrel less than forecast, that is $12.50 a barrel, the Government would lose $1 billion in oil and gas tax revenues. That is only in direct revenue from the PGRT. The fall-out as a result of regional problems in the oil-producing provinces could have other effects. In committee the Minister suggested that lower oil and gas prices would have a beneficial effect on the economy this year. There will be beneficial effects on the economy from lower oil prices, but I think it would be more realistic to say that those are long term rather than short-term benefits.
Today we are discussing borrowing authority for the present fiscal year, a term in which we cannot expect to see much of the advantage of lower world oil prices. The Economic Council of Canada, in their appearance before the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, and also in documents they subsequently released on the economic impact of falling oil prices, said that the loss of revenue from the energy sector would raise the deficit for the first two years and not until three years thereafter would the loss of revenue be offset by the higher taxes generated by a stronger economy. So at present it looks as though Canadians will have to pay the consequences of the Government's unrealistic oil price assumption this year and that the advantages of the situation are further down the road than the Government would have us believe.
The Budget also predicted growth in investment of approximately 7 per cent in 1986. However, StatsCan figures on business investment intentions this year are very much lower, showing around 2.5 per cent growth this year over last. That is a very large discrepancy. A shortfall here also has serious consequences for the deficit, because if economic growth does not match the Government's expectations the deficit will be another $1 billion higher for each percentage point in growth under the projected figure.
[ Translation]
Consideration must be given as well to the structure of the Canadian debt which is made up of a large number of instruments whose terms and other characteristics are quite varied. For example, 5.2 per cent of the Government of Canada debt on December 31, 1985 was in foreign currency. It can be reasonably argued that this percentage will increase during 1986 since the Government had to contract huge loans on foreign markets to shore up the value of the Canadian dollar.
When the Government borrows on foreign markets, interest must be paid to foreigners and these funds are therefore no longer available to keep the Canadian economy rolling.
Although foreign market interest rates are now lower than on domestic markets, the Government has to keep in mind that the situation can change. The Government must repay these loans over the next five or ten years and, since the Canadian dollar value against foreign currencies may very well decline, real interest rates might be higher than those on domestic borrowings.
[English)
In other words, since not all the Government's borrowing is done in domestic markets, domestic interest rates are not the only interest rates that could throw off the Government's calculations. Money borrowed on foreign markets has interest payments at prevailing rates. What our Government pays also depends on the value of our dollar in international markets.
Economic projections in any case are something of a guessing game, no matter what the information available and no matter how sophisticated the model. I acknowledge this and I am not faulting the Government's projections as such, but what concerns me and a number of my colleagues is the credibility of these projections when compared to past performance and the projections of other agencies. The issue of credibility is directly related to this Bill requesting borrowing authority and to the Government's entire budget strategy.
The Government's approach to the Budget was obviously to gain the confidence of the international community in order to stabilize interest rates, and the dollar, and bring the deficit down. How impressed was the international community by the Budget whose tax increases this year far outweigh the expenditure cuts? How impressed were outside observers by
April 11, 1986

the $29.5 billion deficit figure so transparently arrived at by manipulating numbers on paper?
It is clear the Government relied too heavily on tax increases instead of expenditure reductions for the international communities' liking, as well as for the liking of the Canadian taxpayer. However, this Budget, which is a poor quality product, received a selling job on a scale that was unprecedented, with special seminars and meetings in various centres in the United States, senior departmental officials and Cabinet Ministers fanning out to pitch this Budget. The Government even went so far as to use taxpayers' money to produce a special budget document to be distributed from Canadian posts overseas. It is called the "Canadian Budget In Perspective". It certainly does provide a different perspective on our country and our economy from that given to Canadians by the Finance Minister in his budget speech.
In fact, this document was not included in the package of budget documents made available to Canadians on budget night. So what are we to conclude about the credibility of a Government that tells its own citizens the glass is half empty, and then turns around and with great flourish tells the international community that no, the glass is half full.
I spoke about this during an Adjournment Debate last week and gave a number of examples of how the Government gave Canadians a very grim perspective in the budget speech, but then there is a very optimistic perspective in this special budget document. Production of a document of this kind would cast doubt on the quality of the Budget even if it were a good Budget, one that took a coherent approach to consolidating economic recovery, one with realistic economic projections. One would assume that a good budget could speak for itself. As it is, we have this slick attempt to substitute style for substance to mask a poor quality product. The existence of this document is an indication of that poor quality, and an additional reason to question the assumptions on which the Budget is based and on which the government arrived at the borrowing requirements we are debating here today.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government comes to us for borrowing authority asking, in a sense, for a vote of confidence from the House in the economic management of the country's affairs. For us it is simply not possible to provide such a vote of confidence for this administration and its economic leadership, or lack of leadership, over the last 15 months.
The surprise announcement this morning from Washington that suggests the free trade talks with the United States are scuttled is a clear indication, first, of the problem of a Government putting its faith in one solution and, second, a reflection of the incompetence with which the Government has followed that particular policy choice which they made to try to implement it.
I weep some tears for the Government. I do not weep such tears for this country if this trade agreement is, in fact,
Borrowing Authority Act
rejected. It is this trade agreement which I want to talk about most this afternoon in discussing the borrowing authority.
This freer trade move toward the United States has been the centre piece of Government economic thinking for the rest of its period in power. The Government has hung its hopes on an exceedingly slender reed, which looks like it is being broken in the U.S. Senate. In addition, it is putting its aspirations in a continentalist context, which ultimately will have serious damages to inflict on this country.
I want to start off in my review of this particular part of Government economic policy by simply talking about the question of the utter and total confusion which has marked activity in this issue here in this country itself, leaving aside the United States. We have had confusion over who negotiates; is it the provinces, is it the federal Government, or is it Simon Reisman? Are there to be groups of people in the bargaining room? Are there to be buttons to be pressed, as the trade negotiater makes certain statements that indicate that he is opposed, by provinces who sit in an outer room? So confusion has existed very much over who negotiates.
Equal and more dangerous confusion has existed over what is to be negotiated. We have had slated here in the House of Commons comments from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) suggesting that vast areas are, in fact, off the negotiating table. At the same time we have had our people in Washington sayng, "No, virtually everything is negotiable". That kind of contradiction is not what a good Government should be giving the Canadian people.
We have had contradictions over marketing boards and whether they are part of the negotiation process, over agriculture and the auto pact and whether it is to be part of the negotiation process. Throughout the whole sorry tale of incompetent confusion we have had a veil of secrecy, which is a shame for this country to experience.
It has been six months now since 42 studies were listed to the House of Commons which had been completed by the federal Government. They include studies that look at different sectors, different regions and different issues- studies very, very important to Canadians to be able to make some logical realistic choice about what faces us in these negotiations, if they take place. Yet not a single solitary study of these 42 has been released, despite appeals through freedom to information , despite appeals to the commissioner of that system. It makes the notion of running in the dark, which has so characterized this Government in practice, show up in this specific example. As a consequence rather than deal with the questions and the concerns that Canadians have we have had a Government which has resorted to insult. Most sadly, it has resorted to insult in the case of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who should be above that. Yet, in March in Penticton, British Columbia, during one of a series of speeches on free trade, the Prime Minister talked about the timorous, insecure and fretful opponents of free trade. He has talked about those who want to build a Great Wall of China around this country. He has talked about the neo-reactionaries, the

April I 1, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
prophets of protectionism and the apostles of the status quo. The illustrious Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has added to that kind of insult by saying that we are gutless.
Let me say that there is nothing in those insults except a recognition that the Government is not prepared to debate substance, but only to take recourse to empty rhetoric. Why is that happening? It is happening very clearly because opposition to free trade with the United States has been growing by leaps and bounds in this country.
The most recent polls show that 40 per cent of Canadians believe that there will be greater unemployment after a free trade agreement, compared to only 38 per cent who think there will be more employment. Despite the Government's propaganda efforts, despite the Government's speeches and insults, Canadians are recognizing the fallacies in its argument and their support for this crazy thrust is falling. This opposition is not only shown in the polls but in forums, such as public forums across Ontario where people have pointedly attacked the very suppositions of the Government's free trade move.


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about Lethbridge.


Steven W. Langdon: Tell you about Lethbridge? I just came back from Lethbridge where most young people at that university were starting to express very serious scepticism. I can also tell you about the sugar-beet farmers in Lethbridge who felt and still believe very strongly that their interests are not being protected and that a free trade agreement will prevent the implementation of policy measures which will make it possible for their concerns to be met.
We can talk about British Columbia from which I recently returned after another speech. Again, opinion is growing that free trade will result in the sacrifice of the interest of resource producers to the United States. That is the opinion we are hearing more often from people on Vancouver Island and people in the interior.
Not only have we heard this opposition expressed at public meetings and public forums, we have seen the formation of a national network for trade fairness, which includes organizations and groups representing over 8 million Canadians. They met in Ottawa in February and expressed serious questions about the secrecy, lack of consultation and lack of openness with respect to the job disruption that may take place.
Opposition to free trade is also being expressed by other groups across the country, such as the boat manufacturers who met in Ottawa last week, and book publishers and magazine publishers who have strongly expressed their scepticism about what is taking place. There are groups like the National Farmers' Union and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women which recognizes that the major disruption and cost will be borne by women in traditional industries as those industries are disrupted.
Besides this sense of growing opposition, there is also a feeling that the Government has sabotaged each of the key arguments it has made to support its position. This includes such simple examples as the Government saying it is not talking about free trade but trade enhancement. I could quote from the U.S. Trade Commissioner who spoke to the House of Representatives just a few weeks ago. He made it very clear that what was at issue was: "A free trade arrangement with Canada just like the free trade arrangement with Israel." We are talking about free trade, so let us not have any more nonsense about trying to camouflage that.
The Conservatives also argue that we will somehow magically escape the protectionism of the United States by signing a free trade arrangement with them, creeping in under the continentalism umbrella and thereby achieve freedom from such major American instruments of protectionism as the International Trade Commission. The American official who is in charge of the negotiations with Canada says that there is almost no chance that Congress will approve a trade treaty that eliminates the U.S. process of applying countervailing duties on imported Canadian products when it appears to regulators in the United States that the Canadian goods are somehow subsidized.
The very real problems we face now with respect to our lumber producers, fish producers, hog producers and strawberry producers we will face after any trade agreement is signed because the countervail provisions will definitely remain and continue to be a barrier that United States producers will use to counter Canadian products.
When we talk about lumber in particular, we not only have the recent words of Senator Packwood, who has shown his power this morning, but Senators from a wide variety of other states who have put it to us very bluntly that if Canada wants a free trade agreement it will have to sign an agreement on lumber imports that in fact reduces the lumber exports that we make to the United States. The irony is that free trade with the United States actually concerns cutting back our ability to export despite the investments and improvements we have made to our lumber industry in western Canada.
Even the National Association of Manufacturers in the United States is saying there is only one condition under which a free trade agreement with Canada would be acceptable. That is, a fixed exchange rate which would give our manufacturers a very difficult problem to face. In fact, it would actually force many of those manufacturers into opposition to free trade.
Beyond the demolition of the Conservative arguments on the issue, what else has taken place? I think Canadians have learned that there are some tremendous costs we would face from free trade. First, there would be job disruption. It has been estimated by the Government itself that close to 800,000 jobs would be disrupted. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) who sits opposite knows that we do not yet have the kinds of instruments which could cope
April 11, 1986

with a disruption on that scale, which would help to transfer people from one job to another to make up for that disruption.
We have also learned that free trade means a tremendous loss of policy freedom for us as a country, not just to do something for sugar-beet producers in Lethbridge but to do something for our fishermen on the East Coast. From that lack of freedom, lack of political freedom will follow and 1 think we will see a slide away from the independence of this country which young people and ordinary Canadians are simply not prepared to countenance.
There is an alternative to this free trade cop-out. It is an alternative which puts the stress on community development, which talks about cutting taxes instead of raising them, as this Government has done, in order to get the dynamism working in Canada and our economy going. It is an alternative which finds an industrial strategy, which builds on our resources in order to give us jobs for the future. But that kind of imaginative alternative will only follow if we abandon this foolish, dangerous, potentially destructive and certainly incompetently organized thrust toward free trade with the United States.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in debate on third reading of Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority. More specifically, it is an Act to provide the authority to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government to borrow moneys not exceeding $22.6 billion, as may be required for public works and general purposes. We have here a proposal to borrow a substantial amount of money in order to ensure that the federal Government will have the funds required to cover the shortfall in revenues which the Government clearly expects will occur during the 1986-87 year.
The points I would like to explore in my comments this afternoon are threefold. 1 would like to consider why there will be this shortfall, because the question of what attitude we have toward the need to borrow is certainly coloured by the reasons for a shortfall in revenue which forces the Government to this particular expendient. I want to consider, out of my explanation for this shortfall what some of the consequences are for the Canadian people because the Government is forced to continue the borrowing patterns which Governments have followed for some time. Third, 1 would like to offer some observations on what Government should be doing, following on the changes which are needed to deal with the consequences, with the moneys it wants us to give it authority to borrow.
I may say that 1 am pleased to see this number of Hon. Members in the House this afternoon. It is a Friday afternoon and we sometimes worry about the number in attendance. I am really pleased to see the number of Hon. Members here today because we have had some abominable attendance here this week. I called for a quorum count during the debate on Bill C-91, following a period during which I was counting nine and ten Hon. Members on the Government benches. While we
Borrowing Authority Act
were debating another measure yesterday something of that sort began to appear as well, but then the number of Hon. Members picked up.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 do not believe the Hon. Member should refer to debates from previous days and the numbers of Hon. Members in the House. 1 think that should be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not referring specifically to the absence or presence of specific Hon. Members. However, 1 would ask the Hon. Member to be relevant to the Bill, please.


Abram Ernest Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 am pleased to see we are all here this afternoon in good number to consider this important measure to which I would like to address some observations.
The first question is why the Government expects to experience this shortfall in revenue which forces it to borrow more than $20 billion for various purposes. The shortfall is surely not the result of individual lower and middle-income Canadians not paying enough in taxes. 1 do not believe anyone on the Government benches would argue that individual lower and middle-income Canadians are not already paying enough in taxes. In fact, there have been such large increases in taxation in these areas that one would think the need to borrow would be quite removed, given what the Government has done. There have been increases in sales tax. First, we had the approval in the fall of 1984 for the proposed increase which the Liberals had in mind during the last Government. Then we had an additional percentage point of tax put on, and still one more increase. We have had increases in excise taxes in various areas and extensions of sales taxes in areas which were not previously touched by tax. There was then the decision to end the indexation which applied to income taxes, which had the effect of increasing taxes. Now we have a 3 per cent surtax on incomes of individual Canadians. I am sure that my Conservative colleagues opposite, who regard themselves as such defenders of individual Canadians, would concede that this Government has socked taxation to individuals in a very serious way.
The measure of that burden, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has not seriously disputed, although he has quibbled about other things, is that the Government has increased the taxation on the average family by something over $1,300 a year. This is a heavy and shameful burden to put on individual Canadians at a time when slower economic activity, which is basic to the shortfall, should have called for tax reduction rather than tax increase in order that there could be more business done in our communities.
Obviously, if it is not reduced taxation on individuals which is the cause, there must be some other reason why this shortfall occurred. It surely must have a great deal to do with the fact that the Government has found ways of providing breaks in other areas. I think the most outrageous taxbreak coming from

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
the Minister of Finance is the proposal for a $500,000 capital gains tax holiday. If that proposal had related to investments in this country there could conceivably have been some argument made for it. However, to have it represent investments which could be made anywhere in the world makes it an invalid action.
I see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and I give up my position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) had the floor. Since the Hon. Member is not here, debate will be resumed with the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I can see that my fellow Members are anxious to vote. They are restless. I know it is Friday afternoon, but I have a few comments to make on this very important Bill which, after all, involves a very substantial sum of money and is aimed at giving the Governmentt the authority to borrow up to $22.6 billion, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are of course prepared to comment on those "general purposes", which can mean just about any thing, and you will understand that I want to take this opportunity to address a matter that is very important to me, and I am referring to the way this Government has been treating federal public servants in particular, and the way it is proceeding with budgetary cutbacks and cuts in personnel, and the lack of sensitivity this Government has shown vis-a-vis its public servants, and I may add, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is pretty disastrous in the riding I represent, the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, because in Ottawa-Vanier, the Government is the main employer, which means that we have what is referred to as a company-town economy.
The federal public servants who have jobs are of course important to the secondary economy, the services sector, and these are the people I would like to consider this afternoon during the few moments I have at my disposal. I want to say how worried they are and how, lately, their morale has been a major cause for concern.
Mr. Speaker, before addressing this very important subject, namely the future of our public servants, budgetary cutbacks and cutbacks in personnel, I may remind the House that this Bill proposes to borrow $22.6 billion, on assumptions that are somewhat shaky if not totally unsound. We know that the
Government is forecasting a rate of interest of 9.5 per cent for 1986 and that it stood at about 11 per cent until yesterday. Admittedly it had gone down. The Bank of Canada rate for 90-day commercial papers dropped sharply by 0.8 per cent yesterday, which is an encouraging trend. But in light of the Government's own forecasts or theories, interest rates will have to fall much more if they are to average 9.5 per cent over the coming year. Therefore I suggest we cannot hope the rate to remain stable at 9.5 per cent, although I wish we could. We know that every plus or minus percentage point fluctuation would signal a $1 billion-odd change in the deficit. A 1 per cent change, Mr. Speaker, and we are looking at one thousand million dollars, and that is a lot of money.
Incidentally, earlier today during lunch hour I went to the University of Ottawa to address political science students, and some of them asked me: Just what do $22 billion represent? If we put $100 bills one on top of another we will end up with a spectacular high-rise structure. If we line them up one after another we will have miles and miles of $100 bills. I tried to imagine what $22 billion represent in terms of quantity. Mr. Speaker, it is the kind of money which you and I could not spend, not even the daily interest. Although we may have discriminating taste and know how to live, you and I would find it difficult to spend that money in our cities, on our respective families.
Mr. Speaker, the Government assumes also that the prices for U.S. oil will average $22.50 a barrel by the end of 1986. Again, its estimates are faulty, because everybody knows that the price of oil today is closer to $12 than $22 a barrel. If the Government, therefore, assumes that the price of oil will average $22.50 a barrel in 1986, when we know that it will be almost impossible to reach, maintain and keep this average, the Government will have to suffer the consequence of this faulty assumption, for it will have to raise taxes to cover the $110 million difference that has to be accounted for with every dollar of error in the projections.
In his Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had foreseen a 7 per cent business investment growth in 1986. Well, according to the most recent survey carried out by Statistics Canada concerning their investment programs this year, Canadian Corporations are planning to invest only 2.5 per cent more than last year. Moreover, the Minister of Finance had foreseen an increase of 6 per cent in new housing start investments, while Statistics Canada is contemplating a 1.9 per cent decrease in real terms.
Mr. Speaker, the three major assumptions to consider when the time comes to borrow money on a budgetary basis, as I said, are the interest rates, the price of oil and the level of investments. For the Government to have any credibility, it will have to reconsider these assumptions, because as far as we can judge, the three of them are faulty, if not outright wrong.
I come now to my main topic, Mr. Speaker, and again I suggest that I could not be accused of making irrelevant
April 11, 1986

comments, because they deal with this Bill to borrow $22.6 billion for general purposes. We all know that the Government is spending money to pay its civil servants. Therefore, it has to borrow money and use part of it to pay the hard-earned salaries of our Federal civil servants.
1 should like to address this question by referring to a recent study which took place in my riding of Ottawa-Vanier. Basically, the workers of my riding are employed by the Public Service and service industries. It does not have a very high family income group; in fact, it has the lowest in the Ottawa area. However, we are very proud of the fact that we represent one of the oldest areas of Ottawa. Its housing stock is of good quality. Over the years the previous Government showed its interest in that, and we have improved the housing stock over the last 12 years or 13 years. There is still a lot of work to be done. The study was of the impact on the Ottawa area of budget cuts, especially personnel cuts or cuts in the Public Service. I should like to refer to that study because it is a disturbing indication of trouble ahead for the Ottawa community.
I know it is not very popular outside this community to speak about Public Servants and how important they are. However, in this area there are 90,000 public servants who serve the country to the best of their ability. Presently they are being whipped around by certain groups, certain people and sometimes by the Government. They are being used as a whipping boy for the deficit of the Government, and I think unjustly so. No argument has convinced me as yet that cutting into the administrative costs of the Public Service will have much of an impact on a deficit of some $25 billion to $30 billion. A third of Canada's public servants work in the national capital region or, as 1 said, almost 90,000 of them. Of course I include in this number those who fall under the Public Service Employment Act and those who work for Canada Post, the RCMP, National Defence-and I see the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Andre) here this afternoon-and Crown corporations in the Ottawa area. Therefore they constitute an important section of the labour force.
Further, a great many Ottawa-Hull residents are engaged by the federal Government on a contract basis and draw incomes from those services. There are approximately 85,000 public servants per se, if we exclude all the others 1 have just mentioned. In any event they represent 20 per cent of the Ottawa-Hull workforce. If major cuts are made in the Government, employment in the Ottawa-Hull area is seriously affected. It results in a difficult situation.
For the residents of my riding the prospects are especially cloudy. I will show in my remarks that a significant number of people are facing lay-off at this time, basically because they are middle management, support staff or in administrative services. Furthermore, I will attempt to show, if I have the time, how difficult it is to be a young Canadian living in my
Borrowing Authority Act
riding today, expecting to follow a possible career in the Public Service of Canada and realizing that the chances of obtaining a job in the Public Service, directly or indirectly, in the Ottawa area are very meagre. 1 accept the one-company town approach in the Ottawa-Vanier community, but when a major employer cuts 5,000 jobs, when there is a paring back of personnel, the effect is felt by those in the modest income group.
Approximately 20 per cent of my families are single-parent families, mostly women who are earning their keep, trying to make a living and in many cases sustaining families. They are faced with a difficult situation. The Conservative Government announcement of a reduction in the Public Service did not come as a surprise to me or to them. As a matter of fact, 1 cannot be blamed for voting Conservative. In my riding they did not vote that way either. They knew better because in 1979 we were threatened with 60,000 cuts. If I had the time this afternoon, I would prove that again we are facing a Government which has not forgotten the 60,000 cuts. There were 15,000 cuts in the May 1984 Budget. There were 15,000 cuts affecting those who are not under the control of the Treasury Board. There was another reduction in the growth of 1 per cent per year which we in the Ottawa community had experienced over the years. It is logical that because we had a growing population in Canada we took it that the Government would be responsive to that growth with increased services, but that has not been the case. A further cut was also announced in the Nielsen task force.


Mr. Daubney:: Nonsense.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I hear the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) saying "nonsense". Mr. Aspinall was quoted in The Citizen. I do not have the article here, but 1 could send it to the Hon. Member. If he reads the newspaper he will find that Mr. Aspinall said that those 15,000 cuts were not necessarily the bottom line, meaning that there could be similar cuts, which possibly means another 15,000. I understood it that way. The press understood it that way. If the Hon. Member for Ottawa West did not understand it that way, I wish he would rise to explain what Mr. Aspinall meant.


Mr. Weiner:: Which riding does he represent?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That question comes from the Parliamentary Secretary. Mr. Aspinall was on the Nielsen task force which looked into all these problems, and I thought that he had knowledge of the subject and some understanding of the issue.
Let us return to the main subject at hand, what these cuts mean and why they are aimed at public servants. The cuts are aimed squarely at those public servants hired under the Public Service Employment Act, those directly under the control of the Treasury Board. That groups represented 40 per cent of all federal Government employees in 1981. Also the Government announced, on top of those cuts that "similar reductions will be made to the salary budgets of those departments and agencies whose person-years are not controlled by Treasury Board".

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
In addition to this are the employees on short-term contracts. Their contracts are not likely to be renewed. We knew that. That was the first thing done. Contracts were not supposed to be renewed. Term employees were supposed to be let go, and we were supposed to have a freeze in the Public Service. I should like to illustrate the potential for further cutbacks. The number of term employees in 1984 ranged from 10,130 to 19,975. The cuts in the public service employment will be much greater than the 15,000. I wonder what the Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) is going to tell his term employees. I am sure he has some sympathy for those people who have been on term employment with the Government. There are 10,000 to 19,000 people on term employment who are going to be told: "Sorry, we have no more work for you. Too bad. We don't need your services". It is a catastrophic situation. It is a key issue in this area. It is an issue which, if this Government does not address it seriously within a few months, will become a difficult economic situation for all of us in Ottawa-Hull and the national capital region.
Our housing starts are down. The hotels are complaining that their rates of occupancy are way down to 30 per cent from the 70 per cent they used to enjoy. The restaurant trade is going out of business. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the Government has made Ottawa-Hull the target for the cuts and has made it so that the confidence of people living in this area has now been lowered to pretty well despair. They do not know how they will be able to buy a home, take their families out to a restaurant or make purchases in the stores. The department stores sales are also going down. The economy of the Ottawa area is pretty well near a critical stage in their history.
I see that you are indicating I have one minute left, Mr. Speaker. I regret that, but I will have other occasions to refer to this matter. Let me say that I cannot possibly stop the Government from borrowing $22.6 billion. I do not think I would want to anyway, because if it wants to borrow that is up to the Government. I do not think we would quarrel with that. It is the way the Government is going to spend the money that we are going to look at very carefully. The way the Government is managing the economy right now, as far as public servants are concerned, is a disaster, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Aideen Nicholson: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on this Bill at second reading-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I forgot we have a question and comment period. The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, my colleague, who has just spoken, referred to the hopes and the prospects of young people. Would the Member care to
comment on the Government's plan to reduce transfers for post-secondary education and how he sees this affecting equality of opportunity for young people?
Although there is no mention in the last budget speech of these planned reductions, they were dealt with in previous statements of the Government. In a different budget paper, the one prepared for overseas consumption, we find this statement: "The rate of increase of federal transfers to provincial governments for health care and post-secondary education has been reduced". In relation to the Hon. Member's previous comments about youth, would he care to expand on this?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for her question. It gives me the opportunity to tell her, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that I spent my lunch hour at the University of Ottawa meeting with some of my constituents, and also talking to some second year students of political science. That question is uppermost in their minds and it impacts directly on the costs of their education. It is a difficult matter to try to explain in terms of what the federal Government's role is in education, because of the constitutional jurisdiction with which we are faced.
It is a fact that we, the federal Government, pay 50 per cent of post-secondary education. At least that is the principle. The provinces pick up the rest of the tab with the parents or the students. I find it completely unacceptable that the Government, in times when our youth is experiencing difficulty, is cutting funding to the provinces. We are told we could have up to 600,000, possibly 700,000 youth unemployed.
I am not quoting figures that are foreign to this House. It has been said before in this House that there are a lot of others who are not counted because they are discouraged. I happen to have a university, a post-secondary institution and seven high schools in my riding. Many students are very worried about the future, very much concerned with this policy of the Government not giving to the provinces the required funds to support education.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the entire speech of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) but I did hear the last five minutes. I must say I was disappointed at some of the remarks he made. I have always had a very high regard for the Member. I think his remarks lacked perspective and balance. He made a couple of references to 60,000 public servants losing their jobs, going back to the 1979 scare tactics of the Liberal Party. It is the same kind of scare mongering he is entering into now, and that is very unfortunate.


Mr. Isabelle:: What about R.B. Bennett? Go back to R.B. Bennett.


David Bruce Daubney: If we look at the history of the Liberal Party in power there have been significant lay-offs year after year after year of indeterminate employees in the public service.
April 11, 1986

The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has stated in this House and outside that 15,000 person years, not individuals, but person years is the sum total of the reductions over the five fiscal years involved in this program, despite the recommendations-whether they are accepted or not and obviously not all of them will be-of the Nielsen task force. I think it is highly irresponsible of the Member to say otherwise.
We have a serious situation in the City of Ottawa. As a local Member of Parliament on the Government side, I am doing my best, as are my colleagues on the Government side on both sides of the river, to deal with the particular situations of hardship of those employees who have received lay-off notices. The President of the Treasury Board has introduced a very attractive Workplace Adjustment Program, much more attractive than that under the previous Government. A longer period of notice will be given, training services and counselling services are provided. People are being placed in other jobs in the Government. We hope to reduce the 15,000 person years by attrition. Attrition is the key word, Mr. Speaker, and that process is working.
In terms of natural attrition in the Public Service, some years it has been as high as 10,000, certainly well in excess of 5,000, the highest in the five year program, in this fiscal year. In subsequent years it will be 2,000. That is right across Canada, not just in the nation's capital. 1 think it highly inaccurate and irresponsible for the Member from Ottawa- Vanier to imply otherwise.
May I say in closing that some of us want to do something about diversifying the local economy here. That is why 1 and other members of the Conservative Party are encouraging high technology development. That is why we are encouraging small business so we will not be as reliant as we have been in the past; and be a industry town.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there is enough comment from the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) for me to make a speech on. That comes from a Member who spoke about diversification to this Member, who over the years in the high-tech industry is well known to have done his utmost to try to create whatever could be created and supported high-tech in the Ottawa area. Let me say that I do not have to take any lessons from him.
On the question-

Mr. Speaker, as concerns the issue of reassignments and growth in the Public Service, I can give you the data since 1980-

I have it here. Agencies under Treasury Board control experienced annual employment growth rates of 1 per cent from 1976 to 1981 and 1.5 per cent from 1981 to 1983. That is not cut-back, as the Member said. That is growth. He is
Borrowing Authority Act
cutting them back. Agencies not under Treasury Board control experience annual growth employment rates of 6 per cent, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about-

-the matter of the reassignment of surplus employees.
Mr. Speaker, recently, 265 maintenance workers at the Department of Public Works were designated as surplus to requirements, but only 15 of them were reassigned to other positions. Yes, only 15 people! This clearly shows that the policy of this Government is completely bankrupt, unreasonable and ineffective. Reassignment of surplus workers does not work, Mr. Speaker, it is-


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: It is worthy of R.B. Bennett.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, as the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) points out, it is worthy of R.B. Bennett
I see the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly) who is smiling and making gestures to say: Again, for heaven's sake! Would you like to rise and to make a nice little speech? Perhaps we would learn something about Gatineau if you spoke more often, Madam.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to remind the House that the Public Service Alliance, and I shall close with these comments . . . Jean-Robert Gauthier, Member for Ottawa- Vanier, and many people in the National Capital region do not believe this Government. It has lost all credibility. The figure of 60,000 which I have mentioned and which we are anticipating will be the result of this bankrupt policy, and it is based on an announcement of 15,000 jobs lost and a similar announcement of another 15,000 jobs lost, which makes 30,000, and the 1 to 1.5 per cent normal increase over the next five years, which makes a total of 60,000 jobs which will disappear in addition to the casual workers and term employees.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it amusing to see Liberals and Conservatives taking turns doing the same things, and then taking turns criticizing one another for what the other did. There is nothing new about that. It goes back to before 1867. I find it amusing to hear the kettles calling the pots black about the economic situation which the country is in.
When I spoke on the second reading debate I urged the Government to borrow an extra $1 billion to $3 billion through this Bill as a constructive, self-liquidating part of the deficit rather than the dead-weight deficit which we have. The Conservatives and Liberals conveniently forget that 80 per cent of the deficit is comprised of interest being paid on interest to pay off old borrowings. Eighty per cent of that is money which was lent by individual Canadians, pension funds, brokerage firms, and banks. They buy Canada Savings Bonds

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
and Treasury Bills. Every year a large portion of the funds which the Government seeks to borrow is to be used to obtain funds by way of Treasury Bills, Canada Savings Bonds, and so on, to pay off previous Treasury Bills, Guaranteed Investment Certificates, and Canada Savings Bonds. We keep going in the same circle.
I am all in favour of paying our bills. The most conservative economists in the country tell us that if we reduce unemployment to 6 or 6.5 per cent and get companies producing, the present deficit would be paid off in three years. That can be done through leadership by Government. An additional $1 billion should be put into housing. There are waiting lists as long as your arm in every city in the country for chronic care beds, senior citizen housing, and hospital beds.
Increased expenditures in the housing industry would impact the forest industry, the people who manufacture drapes, carpets, plumbing fixtures, wiring, and the construction industry. It would impact upon the entire economy. That gives a lead for the private and co-operative sector to do likewise. Without that lead they will not do it. They never have, and they never will.
The deficit of the Government of Canada in today's dollars in 1933 was twice as high as it is now. The deficit at the end of World War II in today's dollars was three times as high as it is now. We had to rebuild a civilian economy following a war time economy. We put people to work and the deficit was paid off by the late 1950s.
At second reading I urged the Government to borrow an extra $1 billion for housing for senior citizens and low-income families, for public, co-operative, and private housing, and for hospitals and chronic care beds. I urge the Government to borrow at least $200 million or $300 million this year, to put up to one-quarter of a million young people to work over the next five years cleaning up our air and water. We have no right, as a nation, to leave the mess which we are leaving for succeeding generations. Who do we think we are? We hold our air, waters, and environment in trust for our children and grandchildren.
I call those kinds of borrowings a constructive deficit, a self-liquidating debt, rather than the dead-weight debt with which we are continually afflicted. We can borrow money for fighter planes, but we seem to have difficulty borrowing it for food. I am not suggesting that we should be defenceless, but we borrow money for fighter planes which are of no use to us. We should be buying planes for their transport capability in our Armed Forces, rather than for fighter planes. However, that is another argument.
The point is that it is a matter of priority. Surely the production of food should have an equal, if not greater, priority than borrowing for fighter planes. Fighter planes came to my mind because the Minister of State for Defence (Mr. Andre) is here. If another Minister had been here, something else may have come to my mind. It is a question of priority when a Government at any level borrows.
That brings me to the subject of food. During the last number of days we have heard much about what is occurring in the international grain market. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer), and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) have, in effect, told Canadian grain producers in all provinces that they not only have to compete in the so-called free and open domestic market for lower prices, but that they also have to compete by themselves against the treasury of the United States and the treasury of the European Economic Community.
I listened to the responses of the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board in which he said that $1.47 billion has been spent directly and indirectly to benefit agriculture. That is true, but all of those payments are for things which happened in past years. Payments to the railroads under the Western Grain Transportation Act are not just for the benefit of grain producers. Those payments benefit every producer and manufacturer who ships anything by rail from Winnipeg to the West Coast. It is unfair to prairie farmers to call that a payment to western grain producers when the improvement of the infrastructure of our railway system in western Canada benefits all shippers and receivers.
Yet the finger is continually pointed at the grain producer. This is a $650 million subsidy and the Government has the unmitgrated gall to add that to the amount it says is being paid out as a benefit to farmers. If we did not produce a single bushel of grain starting tomorrow, those railway lines would still have to be fixed up to haul all the other commodities. Grain occupies only 14 per cent of the capacity of those main lines into Vancouver through Calgary and Winnipeg. Yet the finger is always pointed at the farmer. Look at him, they say he is getting $650 million to haul grain. The name of the Western Grain Transportation Act is a misnomer. It should be the Western Transportation Act because it is not just for grain, it is for all other commodities. It was and is recognized that the two railways, one public and one privately-owned, cannot separately or together generate enough capital to upgrade and modernize their plant on their own. They require public financing. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. It would not matter what party is in power, that is what would have to be done. I find it extremely unfair that the Government would count that as some kind of subsidy to grain producers when it is meant to upgrade our railway transportation system in western Canada for all shippers, receivers and producers.
Another $1 billion in the form of a self-liquidating debt should be added to this Bill by way of a deficiency payment for grain producers in western Canada. I described earlier how this and previous Governments, Liberal or Tory, going back long before the Canadian Wheat Board existed, expected individual farmers to compete with the treasuries of nations which were much larger than Canada. I find it strange that the U.S., the European Economic Community, Australia and the
April 11, 1986

Argentine go to extraordinary lengths to make sure their grain producers can compete on a reasonable and equitable basis in world markets, but we do not.
Surely it is long past time that this nation as a whole share in the cost of making our agricultural producers able to compete with those other nations. If the U.S. support prices are somewhere in the order of $5.50 or $6 a bushel, and they and the EEC are selling wheat in the international market at from $2.50 to $3.50 a bushel, while Canadian producers, given the announcement on initial prices, will get about $3 a bushel. While their competitors are getting an additional two or three dollars a bushel from their respective Governments or economic organization, every single one of our farmers is expected to compete with that and lose money while raising grain. Everyone recognizes that the cost of production of a bushel of grain at the moment exceeds its selling price. I am sure my hon. friend from Red Deer could give us chapter and verse of individual and classic instances of that.
The Government says that payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act will be announced on Monday. Unless I miss my guess, that will likely put the fund in a deficit position. Fair enough. It makes no difference under the legislation whether the fund is in surplus or deficit. The Government can and will at its whim make payments out of the fund. It is the farmers' money, including the two-thirds portion which the Government put in. I suppose in some respects it is something like a pension fund, only this is an income stabilization fund. However, it is their money. Yet the Government suggests that this is some kind of free gift or hand-out when the law of the land requires that the fund make payments whenever prices fall below a certain amount. It is the farmers' money. They kicked in hundreds of millions of dollars. It has nothing to do with what is happening today or for the rest of this crop year or the next crop year. It is because of their experience over the past year. That is why a deficiency payment is required at a minimum of $2 a bushel for all export grain. We need a two-price system. The presumed domestic grain should be at parity prices. It was Mr. Diefenbaker in the 1940s and 1950s, along with the CCF, who said: "We need parity, not charity".
The other bad thing about the Western Grain Transportation Act is the way it is set up. My friends from the Conservative Party were with me when we fought Otto Lang to a dead stop on his first grain stabilization Bill. We went to court, myself and four farmers, and won $100 million for western grain producers. We forced him to withdraw his first Bill. He then brought in a second one, the one we have now. Well, Sir, the trouble with it is that the farmer who sells the most grain gets the highest payment.
We could not figure that out in the early and middle 1970s either. We said to the Government that if it ran the national hospital and medicare Acts on the same basis, once illness passed a certain level it would trigger a payment from a national health fund, and the person who was not sick a day in their lives would get the highest payment. If you were to set up
Borrowing Authority Act
the Unemployment Insurance Act on the same principle and unemployment passed a certain level, which would trigger a payment from the UIC fund, the fellow who worked full-time would get the highest payment. That has been on the statute books of this country for these past 10 years or so on grain stabilization. Aside from that, it is still the farmers' money and it is designed for income stabilization over the previous year.
What is needed is a deficiency payment which provides a minimum of $2 or $2.50 a bushel for export grain. That means grain producers get the same price as their counterparts in the U.S. or the EEC. Now what could be fairer than that? That places our farmers on what Tories like to call a level playing field. Surely that is the least we can do as a nation. If you pay a parity price for domestically consumed grains it may well mean a three, four, five-cent increase in the price of a loaf of bread. Grain prices have been falling every damn year for the last five years and bread prices did not go down, they went up.
Even if there are legitimate increases in the price of a loaf of bread that is not the time to talk about subsidies to farmers, that is the time to talk about a subsidy to consumers, for the poor and the sick. That is the time you pay a consumer subsidy, whether it is by way of food stamps or through the income tax system or whatever.
Surely to goodness if we are going to keep western grain producers, those in central and eastern Canada, the Peace River country of British Columbia as well, if we are going to prevent any more of them from going out of business, a deficiency payment is the only way, and the only way to answer what the United States Farm Bill and what the European Economic Community is doing to us.
Even the Government of Argentina for the last several years has not charged their farmers anything by way of freight charges to ship grain to export position. Admittedly they do not have to ship it more than a couple of hundred miles at the most and we have to move ours, on the average, a thousand miles. Australia produces its grain, 90 per cent of it, within 200 miles of salt water. We are in the middle of the northern part of the North American continent. To expect our agricultural producers, not only of grain but livestock and other products, with that kind of geographical disadvantage to compete on an even basis with the United States or the other exporting countries is not only obscene and harmful to the national interests, it is totally unfair to our agricultural producers.
Therefore, if the Government can get up now and say that it will increase that borrowing bill from $22.6 billion to $24.6 billion, and a billion of it goes into housing and cleaning up our environment and a billion of it goes into agriculture, they will have the support of everybody in the House and the nation as a whole. I believe Canadians know that all of us together-it is called co-operative federalism-have to share in the cost of being a nation in which all of us are treated fairly and equitably.

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, as one who represents an urban riding it is always of particular interest to hear the problems of the wheat producing area described by a veteran Member who knows that area, has represented it very well and understands the issues. I would like to ask the Hon. Member who has, in fact, suggested some additional expenditures for the Government at this time, whether he is in favour of some kind of bond issue for farmers who are in particular difficulties at this time, e.g. the agri-bond that was part of the Conservative political platform in the last election?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the lady for her kind and complimentary remarks. I have one problem with it though; whenever a Conservative or Liberal does that I wonder what it was that I said that was wrong. It is like getting a favourable editorial in the Leader Post; I must have done something wrong. I do thank the lady for her remarks. Not knowing too much if anything, about it, I think the idea of agri-bonds is sort of a desperation gasp, a last gasp effort put forward as some way or mechanism of helping the agricultural community. That does nothing more than increase debt cost on the Government which in turn will pass those costs on to taxpayers without having really solved the problem, not only of income equity, but income stability of the agricultural community. I am not suggesting I am opposed to them. If they are put forward in some concrete legislation my colleagues and I-my colleague from Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) is much more expert on that than I am-would be prepared to look at them with some consideration, sympathy and objectivity. I cannot say that we might end up agreeing. If it were to help the agricultural community in a positive manner then okay. It is like a rabbit track that runs off on a side direction, and really still does not deal with the point I just made about the stability of income, and being in a position to compete with grain producers in other countries, what is the point?


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it seems clear in the House those of us who represent central Canada really have to be very much more concerned with the difficulties of grain producers than at any other time, because quite clearly the international pressures are worse than they have been in many years. Recognizing that, has the Hon. Member any suggestions on how to make Canadians in general more aware of the need for greater sharing, and possibly for remedial programs for western Canadians?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. That is a good question. I thought we had made some headway in that regard. I remind the Hon. Member, and the Government House Leader will recognize too, that during the debate on the abolition of the Crow's Nest Pass rate I was very pleased and proud of the fact that members from my Party, from British Columbia and Ontario got up and spoke two, three, four times to fight to preserve the Crow rate for western grain producers, as did members of the Conservative Party
from eastern and western Canada. I know there was some sympathy from Members of the Government side at that time for that same thing. I do not think for one moment that the people in downtown Toronto, or Montreal, or Vancouver would oppose for one moment any kind of a measure that would provide equitable treatment for their fellow citizens in other parts of the country. We never have. If there is any one thing that has made this country work as well as it has, it is the fact that we have, in many instances, by way of various kinds of programs and legislation brought in regimes that took into account our geography and our climate, where our people are located and where they produce and manufacture their goods. Whether it involved transportation subsidies or programs of other kinds in other parts of the economy, they were designed to hold this nation together, but also to keep us in the marketplace internationally. That is why I submit there is a need for a deficiency payment on grain, and from time to time it may be necessary on corn, beans, fish, barley, livestock, chicken, or for any product in respect of which our international competitors treat us unfairly. It is totally unfair to ask our agricultural producers to compete with those countries' treasuries. They are more than willing to compete with the farmers of other countries. We have tens of thousands of farmers in this country who have been more than efficient. They know how to produce efficiently. They are the best farmers in the world. However, when they are victimized by the treasuries and consortia of other nations, it is up to this country to pick up the difference so that they can compete on what the Tories like to call a level playing field.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions or comments?


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 29 LOWER GRAIN PRICES-SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: Before resuming debate, earlier today the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) requested an emergency debate under Standing Order 29. 1 deferred my decision at that time. I am now ready to rule on the matter.
Members will be aware that the House adopted an order on March 26, 1986, by unanimous consent, setting up a Special Committee on the Pricing of Domestic Wheat and its Products, with wide ranging powers, to report to the House not later than Friday, May 9, 1986. Members will also be aware that the membership for this Special Committee was struck yesterday and that the committee is organizing today.
Standing Order 29(5) states that the Chair must consider: "The probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means". I must therefore reject the application.
April 11, 1986



[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Barbara McDougall: That Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority.
After he brought down his Budget on February 26 of this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled a Bill asking the House for a borrowing authority of up to $22.6 billion for the financial year 1986-87. According to the Minister, that amount corresponds to the net financial requirements of the Government as estimated in its financial plan for 198687.
However, my conclusion is that this Bill demonstrates the Government's failure to provide leadership in conducting the economic affairs of this country. We all know how, during the election campaign, this Government accused the previous Government of putting an undue debt burden on Canadians and how the Conservatives criticized that Government's deficit. However, the present Government's request for a borrowing authority of another $22.6 billion to add to our national debt and to the Canadian Government's deficit, now means-and it is important to mention this, and one wonders whether the Conservatives were really serious when they said that the previous administration had mortgaged the future of our people, of our children, by the debts it had incurred-that at this very moment, 25 per cent of our national debt has been directly incurred by the Conservatives since they came to power, if we consider this request by the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall), who are seeking the permission of the House to borrow another $22.6 billion.
We already knew how inexperienced the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance could be, and 1 would even say incompetent, when we saw how they reacted to the bank crisis in this country. I have no hesitation in saying that the Minister of Finance and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance are to blame for the way western banks have been disappearing. It is because this Government reacted the way it did and took the wrong kind of action for the wrong reasons and at the wrong time, that we had this bank crisis which, unfortunately, is continuing to have an impact week, after week, after week. We realize not only that two western banks had to file for bankruptcy but that other Canadian banking institutions are in trouble owing to the incompetence of the Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and his colleague the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall).
Borrowing Authority Act
When I was young my parents taught me that Conservative Governments invariably meant bad news for Canadians.

"Tory times are always tough times".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: I think it is clear that those Tory back-benchers feel the pinch when I say that Tory times are tough times because their reaction is very eloquent.
Let me bring to their attention an article published by Don McGillivray in The Citizen which clearly indicates what I am saying. The article states:
Richard Bedford Bennett would feel right at home in today's House of Commons. So would William Lyon Mackenzie King and James Shaver Woodsworth.
Bennett was the Brian Mulroney of his time, the Tory prime minister from 1930 to 1935.
King was then in the role now played by John Turner, a former Liberal prime minister reduced to leading the opposition.
And Woodsworth was the 1930s' version of Ed Broadbent.
All three would feel at home because the 1986 Commons is starting to sound very much like the parliaments of the Great Depression.

It seems obvious to me that we are in a bind, given all the difficulties our country is experiencing. Never in the past did Canada's banking institutions walk a tightrope, but our banking system was shaken down to its foundations with the advent of a Progressive Conservative administration. Not since the days of the Great Depression did the agricultural community have to cope with the kind of problems it faces now. Interestingly enough, in his column, Mr. McGillivray points out that we must now strike a committee to study domestic wheat prices-and the Chair has just ruled on that question.
As we know, and I quote Mr. McGillivray:

And Opposition Leader John Turner opened the question period by telling Prime Minister Mulroney that the Western provinces, "already reeling from lower oil and gas prices find themselves in a wholesale crisis" because of a 19-per-cent drop in the initial grain price to be paid by the Wheat Board.
When the 1930s Commons talked about inflation, it wasn't trying to find ways to fight it. It was trying to get it started, to get prices rising.

Unmistakably we are again beginning to see the signs of a great depression in Canada, very difficult times ahead for consumers, farmers, workers and retired people.
Again I emphasize that the current situation coincides with the advent of the Progressive Conservative Party in office. The similarity is too striking not to mention it. It seems clear to me that the Government has already shown its true face to the people.


Mrs. Mailly:: That is why Canadians support us.
12150

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act


André Ouellet: It has demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that it has no social conscience with respect to destitute Canadians, the underprivileged in our society.
As evidence, there is a reply given by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition rose in the House to ask that the Minister make the necessary adjustments to her employment program so that an organization which has been distributing food to the people most in need in Vancouver can continue to receive assistance from her department under a program aimed at creating a number of jobs in Vancouver and which, most importantly, can be useful during a period of special economic difficulty for hundreds and even thousands of poor Canadians. What did the Minister answer?
The Minister simply said no, that the poor in Vancouver, who were at least able to feed themselves thanks to this organization, would now have to find employment and food elsewhere because the Canadian Government has no money to help them. This shows a heartless attitude, but 1 am not surprised at the answer of the Minister because, a few weeks ago, I asked her department to re-establish an assistance program which used to exist in my constituency of Papineau to help senior citizens and the most destitute families. The idea was to create a number of jobs under a make-work program so that people would, once a week, bring hot meals to senior citizens living alone in Montreal apartments, or else, during the summer, to allow young people to do cleaning jobs in the homes of the poorest people, who are often very old and who do not have the health or the ability to clean their apartment properly. These programs to help the oldest and neediest among us in their own homes had existed for a number of years and they provided hundreds of jobs in the Montreal region to people who would not have found any work otherwise and also provided a very important social service to the most disadvantaged in our society. Once more, the Department of Employment and Immigration refused to maintain this program and said no to the destitute in our society.
Mr. Speaker, when we relate this to the absolutely horrendous amounts this Tory Government is handing out to the multinational oil corporations, those big corporations which were provided with information or with an interpretation of the Income Tax Act such as to avoid billions of dollars in tax payments-we are not talking about a few hundred or a few thousand dollars but about billions of dollars that were given to those big multinationals and those rich Canadian families- it is beyond me how this Tory Government can go on ignoring the weak, the underprivileged, the poor in our society.
This is a major discrepancy in the basic interpretation, the basic philosophy that we should be expecting from a Government. The Tory Government is there only to help its friends, to help the strong, the rich in our society. It does not care about the others. This is done on an on-going basis: this week, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote)
tabled a competition Bill in which he completely abdicates his responsibilities for the benefit of the larger Canadian corporations, and at the expense of Canadian consumers. I am also told that very soon, according to the media and their speculations, he will be tabling in this House a Bill that will favour the multinational pharmaceutical corporations at the expense of Canadian consumers, at the expense of the aged who have to purchase drugs.
Where is the decency, where is the very basic concept of good administration? We do not want to prejudge that legislation, but certainly if the Minister has failed to secure from the multinational pharmaceutical corporations guarantees on employment, investment and price control, we will have no other choice but to oppose a bill that would be detrimental to the interests of Canadian consumers.
What I find most unfortunate in the Bill is that this Government's economic strategy does not work. The Bill now before us is the most striking evidence. Indeed, the Government wanted to regain the confidence of the financial world, of both the Canadian and the international financial communities. And one way of measuring the confidence shown by the international financial community is to look at the rate of exchange of our dollar, and also whether Canadian interest rates are stabilizing or going down. Well, the first reaction of the international financial community was not a positive one, as must be recognized. In order to regain ground, the dollar had to be supported by an absolutely unbelievable effort, a massive intervention by the Bank of Canada. And had it not been for that massive intervention, involving additional Government expenditures, our dollar would have sunk below 70 cents, which I understand has never happened in the past, in all of Canada's history. At one point, its value even fell to $0.69 U.S., a damning record for this Conservative Government which claims to be the most capable to deal with economic issues in Canada.
Although this Conservative Government can brag that interest rates went down recently in Canada, we find that interest rates on international markets are still much lower than in Canada. We need only have a look at what happened recently in Germany and what is happening now in the United States to realize that interest rates in Canada are still much too high and demonstrate the lack of credibility which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has on international markets. The real interest rates in Canada are excessively high. Although they never exceeded 4 per cent between 1960 and 1979, they now fluctuate around 8 per cent in real terms, namely, interest rates less inflation.
This situation is suddenly very embarrassing for the Government when compared with that in the United States, where rates are 3, 4 or even 5 percentage points lower than ours, while the inflation rate is about the same.
For that matter, the gap between the interest rates in Canada and the United States is also excessive. While the difference between the lending rate of the Bank of Canada and
April 11, 1986

that of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has traditionally been between 1 and 3 per cent in favour of the United States; as recently as in mid-March, the rate was nearly 5 per cent lower in the United States. More specifically, on March 6, 1986, the lending rate of the Bank of Canada was 11.74 per cent, while that of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was only 7 per cent.
Clearly, this situation which cannot be explained is unacceptable. It is clear that the Conservative Government which had told business people: "Once elected, we are going to reduce the national debt and make a major effort to help the economy recover", has failed miserably. The Government is now not only responsible for 25 per cent of the whole national debt, but because of a series of incredible blunders which have cost billions of dollars, it has not delivered the goods, so that business people have now lost all confidence in the Government's ability to deal efficiently with economic issues in Canada.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) knows perfectly well that what he just said is utter nonsense. For instance, he knows very well that the Progressive Conservative Government was not to blame for the bank failures. We had to pick up the pieces of an energy policy in the West that had been created by the Liberal Government and supported by the New Democratic Party. We picked up those pieces, and we did the best we could to protect, not the big banks and not the multinationals but the depositors, who had placed their trust in these institutions when they believed the economy was really going to take off in the West, once the Liberal Party's energy program, which had been so detrimental to the West, had been amended as it indeed was.
The Hon. Member for Papineau likes to quote a columnist whose philosophy resembles his, so I would like to draw his attention to what Jeffrey Simpson, a columnist, said in today's Globe and Mail, and I quote:

The double whammy of falling oil and grain prices could not have come at a worse time for the three Prairie provinces.
Just when oilmen had escaped from the National Energy Program-

The Liberal Party's energy program, which was supported by the Hon. Member



-the international oil price tumbled. Gone were the Government's fond hopes of making energy the "engine of economic growth"-

He doesn't say it was the Conservative Party that caused the crisis. It was the circumstances that created the crisis. He goes on to say:
Borrowing Authority Act

Canada's 140,000 grain farmers are also suffering. International grain prices are falling fast, and the Chicago Futures Market predicts they will go lower- perhaps much lower-

He goes on to say:

Ottawa, too, should continue to show the faith it exhibited in assisting the ongoing work for the heavy oil upgrader.

In other words, we have already taken steps to help the West with its problems by proceeding with the development project.
So when the Hon. Member says that the Progressive Conservative Government is the cause, in fact he knows perfectly that it is the effect, and that this Government is trying to provide ways to cope with the situation.
Furthermore, he also knows that today the bank rate is 9.33 per cent, the lowest level we have had in a long time. He also compared our situation with that of other countries.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, traditionally, the spread between interest rates in Canada and the United States has been about 2 per cent. However, during the 4-year term of the previous Liberal administration, there was a 4 per cent margin. We were 4 per cent behind the United States. We are now .33 per cent behind them. This indicates that we have taken the necessary steps.
Therefore, I say that the allegations made by the Member for Papineau really fall short of his experience in Government.
And before I conclude, I should like to make a last comment. The Member referred to a program meant to help older people at home. He knows quite well that there are provincial programs which can provide similar services and this is why as a result of an agreement between Quebec and Ottawa, the duplication of services has been reduced more specifically because we do not have enough funds to waste them as the Liberal Party has done in the past.
In conclusion, I should like to ask him a question. He says that Tory times are tough times. How is it that the Quebec Liberal Government has just adopted precisely the same guideline in the statement made by the Minister, Mr. Gobeil, in which he took exactly the same steps in the same economic areas? He has cut housing programs which he thought ineffective as we have done. He has also dealt with the deficit. Taxes will probably be increased. This is exactly the same guideline.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we have set an exemple for Quebec's Liberal Government which is intelligent enough to realize it and act accordingly.
Now could the federal Liberal Member say something in reply to that question?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to answer, because what that very long statement finally boils down to is two small items. The first is that the Hon. Member is trying to give herself some credit for what the Quebec Liberals are

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
doing, the premise being that Mr. Bourassa's Government somehow would be aping the Mulroney Government. I must point out to her that she is badly mistaken-the moves made in Quebec are quite different from those that are being forced upon all of us Canadians by this Tory Government.


Claudy Mailly: That is absolutely not true.


André Ouellet: There is a big difference looking especially at this Tory Government's prejudice in favour of the big multinational corporations-


Claudy Mailly: Please, let us have an example.


André Ouellet: -as opposed to the favourable attitude of Quebec's Liberal Government towards the most in need. The difference is so striking that one must be blind not to see it.
Secondly-


Claudy Mailly: By cutting de-indexation.


André Ouellet: I listened politely to the Hon. Member, I gave her a chance to make her long statement. I would hope that she would extend the same courtesy so I can answer without her interjecting and blowing her top.


Claudy Mailly: Give me an answer, not a speech.


André Ouellet: I am telling her that her statement showed .. . and indeed she quoted a Globe and Mail report that clearly illustrates my point, namely that "Tory times are always tough times". It is an obvious truth which the Hon. Member finds embarrassing, but it is true nonethless and everyone should recognize it: Since the Conservatives have been in power, things have been bad. They are bad for people in the oil industry, for the farmers, for the over 1 million workers who cannot find a job and for all the young people who still expect to find the jobs they were promised during the last electoral campaign.
Finally, I can tell her that I shall take great care to quote the sentence she used in her short intervention when she spoke about the money wasted by the Liberals for programs to help people bring food to the neediest in our society, and-


Claudy Mailly: It was a duplication.


André Ouellet: -and to have young people do cleaning jobs for the poorest families. If the Hon. Member thinks that this is a waste of money-


Claudy Mailly: A duplication, a duplication!


André Ouellet: -I am convinced that the public will judge her as she deserves.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Papineau knows very well that I spoke about the duplication of programs and not about a waste of money on social programs. He also knows very well that I quoted from the article of Jeffrey Simpson who said, and rightly so, that the international situation is at the root of the problems in the oil industry and of the price of wheat. He also knows very well that, as you
announced earlier, Mr. Speaker, a special committee of the House on which one of his colleagues sits will examine the domestic price of wheat, precisely because the international situation is creating problems in Canada and not the opposite.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, even though the Hon. Member sits with the Official Opposition, he has not learned virtue. He still has a tendency to make very dramatic and political comments which are very far from the truth when all is said and done.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I accept the retraction of the Hon. Member. I am aware that she realizes that she made a mistake in calling these very important social programs a waste of money. She now wants to call them a duplication.


Claudy Mailly: Just read the blues.


André Ouellet: This is quite typical of the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker. Each time that a program is cancelled, the Conservatives say: "There is no need to do this because others will do it for us."
We have here a Government which was elected to solve problems, but its way of solving them is to pass the buck.
This program was working well, but the Government no longer wants any part of it. The provinces are expected to take over and assume all responsibilities. These were job creation programs, but the Progressive Conservative Government does not want to create jobs. It hands them over to private sector interests and tells them: You do our work, you create the jobs. This Government is shirking its responsibilities and does not deserve the confidence of Canadians.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak against the Bill that would have us borrow $22.5 billion for the general expenses of this Government. I speak against it because this summarizes, or it is an opportunity to summarize, what I think is most deeply wrong with the policy of this Government.
Most people in the country, including me, do not have experience with billions of dollars, but most of us have had experience with being in debt. We know that it is really often easier to get into debt than to get out of debt. We have had a series of the old line politicians saying, "Vote for me and I will get the country out of debt". We vote for them, and they get the country further into debt. I think it is time that the matter was examined more deeply.
Three years ago we had a statement from a commission of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, a statement about unemployment which went beyond statements that are sometimes made by public spokesmen, including leaders of the churches. It went beyond simply saying that unemployment is unfortunate, that unemployment hurts
April 11, 1986

people. It said further that the unemployment we have is not necessary, that we have the unemployment because we have a bad way of arranging our public affairs. Of course, some people got upset and said that the bishops should not talk about public affairs; they should just talk about heaven or hell or some place that does not matter to politicians. In fact, the bishops won a great deal of attention in this country for their statement. They won a great deal of attention for declaring a principle which has been part of the teaching of their church in recent years called the preferential option for the poor. The general principle is that when you have a choice between helping the rich and the poor, you help the poor.


An Hon. Member:: The rich get richer.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Somebody beside me here, on my nominal left but obviously much to the right in terms of politics, advocates the rich getting richer. What the bishops advocated was to make the poor a little richer, even if it means that the rich become a little poorer or, as is more likely, they do not become any richer quite so fast. This is a principle that was made more famous in other countries than Canada, and I will come to that. In general they argued that it is not only better on moral grounds-that is because the poor need the money or need the food or need the housing more than the rich do; that is obvious-but they also argued that it is better on practical grounds because what the poor would have to get would be, for the most part, necessities rather than luxuries. This even applies more deeply in a country that is developing its savings, its capital resources. It develops it for providing the necessities for a broad market, it is more stable and can more reliably provide and pay for employment than a country that focuses narrowly on the needs of the rich, whether it is their consumer needs for the price of a second yacht or another trip around the world, or whether it is their capital preference which is to invest in the highest rate of interest, even if it means shipping the money out of the country so that it is no longer of benefit to the people who did the work that made that money possible. They defend the preferential option for the poor both because the poor need it immediately-there are people dying now in Canada who should not be dying and they are dying because they are poor and they should not be poor-and because, for the general health of our country including our economy, looking after the bottom end means that everybody in the long run benefits more than if we look after only the top end.
This Government's policy has been the opposite as its predecessor's policy was the opposite. Money is found to bail out a bank. We heard a sob story a few minutes ago from a Member opposite about the poor depositors of a bank. Those depositors, for the great part, were people who knew well that they were investing in a risky operation at high interest rates. They were doing it because they were greedy. They knew that the law, as it was, did not protect them over a certain level. When their greed led them into trouble, they asked this Government, which talks about private enterprise and not intervening in the economy, to bail them out and pay the debt
Borrowing Authority Act
which they incurred with their eyes wide open, and this Government agreed to do it.
It is the same in another way with the oil companies. When they want to be paid to explore for oil and then claim ownership of the oil that the public paid them to find, this Government wishes to give them even more of that free gift that the previous Government did, and it is doing that. The same thing applies generally to the large corporations in this country, whether they are in transportation or communications or extraction of raw materials or manufacturing. The Government argues that it will give the most to those who have the most in a rather perverse twist of an earlier teaching which said that of those who have much, much will be expected. I refer to the result of this policy, not just in this Government's time, but during its predecessor's time, and during a predecessor Government led by this same Party 20 years ago or 25 years ago. For the whole period since World War II and increasingly as people get farther away from the "dirty thirties" or the Great Depression, the whole principle has been what some people call "trickle down"-give it to the rich, they will spend it; it will come to the affluent, they will spend it; it will come to the lower middle class, they will spend it; and it will come to the poor. This is supposed to benefit everybody, but it does not because those who say "pour it in at the top and it will trickle down to everybody" are careful not to say where they got that stuff they poured in at the top. They do not take that money from the rich to pour it to the rich. They take that money from the working people, even from people on unemployment insurance. Those are the people who have to pay the great bulk and personally pay the great share of the taxes that are now used and are poured in at the top. The Government tells people: "Hold on, tighten your belt. If you live long enough, some of this that we took from you will come back to you, and we will ask you to thank us for giving back to you a few years later a little bit of what we are taking from you now". That is the very opposite of what the Roman Catholic Church and other churches have been teaching in this country which calls itself Christian.
I said that the principle of the preferential option for the poor has become more prominently taught in other countries. I am thinking particularly of Central and South America where the question of rich and poor is much sharper than it is in Canada, not because they are worse than we are but because a general trend in the world has progressed farther there than it has yet in Canada. We would do well to look at those countries to see whether that is the road we are heading down, whether that is the road we want to head down.
When I was in Chile last summer, our then Ambassador told me that the Government of Chile was right to lower the incomes of the people of Chile so that they could compete better in the international market, and he said that Canada must do the same thing. In other words, it is a deliberate policy of reducing the incomes of the people of Canada, so that Chile can sell its copper cheaper and Canada can sell its copper cheaper. Chile must now produce three tons of copper to get

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
the dollars that it got six years ago for one ton of copper. Is that supposed to make Canadians or Chileans better off? It is nonsense, except for a very small privileged minority.
What we have, Mr. Speaker, is very clearly shown in Guatemala. Three Members of this Parliament visited that country last week as an all-Party observer delegation to the Latin American Parliament that met in Guatemala City on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I was privileged to be the representative of our Party. I was there also on work for the Labour, Employment and Immigration Committee. I learned a little bit more about what has happened in Guatemela.
Ninety per cent of the farms are less than one hectare of land, less than is necessary to support a family. Eighty per cent of the children are malnourished. I have seen farms before at a 45 degree angle, up on hillsides in Honduras. I wondered how the farmers could do it. In Guatemala I saw farms, I swear I didn't have a protractor with me, but some of them were at a 60 degree angle. A journalist told me that the farmer sometimes falls off his field or ties himself to a tree so he can work in his field. Those are the farmers who have been driven into the hills by the large landowners who have taken over by force-not only in Spanish times but in modern times-the fertile fiat plains. They have driven the campecinos and the Indians up into the hills where they cannot make a living.
Those landowners are backed by their brothers, cousins and nephews who are the army's generals who cause people to disappear if they disagree. This is an infamous fact about Guatemala that may or may not be coming to an end. When I was told that the freely elected President of Guatemala sleeps in a different house every night with 20 bodyguards, I wondered how deep democracy goes in Guatemala.
Behind and alongside the landowners and the military are the foreign banks which have now brought Guatemala into debt bondage, to external debt, and the U.S. arms industry and the U.S. aid to the Guatemalan army, which army is not being used and for 32 years has not been used to defend Guatemala from outside intervention but only to suppress the hungry campecinos and Indians.


Claudy Mailly: This has nothing to do with the Bill.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I have been there, Mr. Speaker. I have seen the fields. I have read the reports by our Department of External Affairs and from many other sources. The Hon. Member across the way can giggle and chirp, but what I am saying is true. I challenge her to investigate and show otherwise. The result of all that is death squads, disappearances and a growing danger of international war in Central America. An international war if it starts will not stop with Central America.
Against that, what I am asking for is that we look and see what the options are when it can happen that the rich can take a country to destruction so that we stop in Canada before we go any farther down that road.
What I am asking is that we respect this principle which is being taught by more and more of the leaders of the Christian church and of other religions in the world, but in our country particularly the Christian church, that we respect the principle of the preferential option for the poor. Instead of focusing on making corporations richer and instead of finding ways to give tax breaks to lure foreign capital into Canada while Canadian produced capital is shipped out by the billions to New York, or God knows where else, instead of kowtowing always to the people with the most money, we should be directing our programs immediately toward feeding the hungry, clothing the people who haven't got clothes, housing the people who are not decently housed according to our minimal standards, improving the education system instead of starving it as at present it is being done, and improving medical and health care instead of creating a crisis as has been done in the health care system in Ontario at this time.
W'e should also be giving working people a voice in their own decisions. By working people I mean anybody who makes his living by his work rather than getting his livelihood exclusively from somebody else's work. That includes most Canadians who are now mostly excluded. It would mean workers in a factory would have something to say about that factory and whether the factory will shut down next year, as did the factory where I worked for 18 years. A few years after I left it was bought by another company, it was shuffled around and men and women 50 and 60 sixty years old were thrown out on the street because they were redundant.
That sort of decision would not be made if workers had some voice in how this country's work is done. I believe the decisions would be made in a way that could produce efficiently but without destroying human lives. We would have better morale in the workforce, better public co-operation, less crime.
If you want to see what unbridled competition produces, look at a country that has more armoured cars per capita than any other country in the world. I am speaking of Guatemala where the streets are not safe at night. If you visit there, the Canadian Embassy will tell you so. You can look at how the Canadian Ambassador and his staff drive about. They drive in an armoured car with a guard carrying a machine gun. There is free enterprise. There is the option for the rich. You cannot move around the city without a gun. That is where they are heading. Do we want to go there?
If we concentrated on producing for people's needs instead of producing for the profit of a very few, we would also be able to open up our trade relations with many more countries than just the United States where we have our problems. We would find also that we are in a much better position to work with other countries for world peace. There are a great many benefits for all the people, even the rich, who do not like to be killed in war and who do not like crime on the streets. All the people in this country could benefit if the Government and this Parliament and the other Governments of this country would begin to choose the preferential option for the poor. In other words, we should think of the use of the world's natural
April 11, 1986

resources and the use of human labour to produce the things people need to use rather than producing only what will produce a profit for a few.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Mr. Fontaine:: When I listen to the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), Mr. Speaker, 1 can easily understand why the December 30, 1985 Globe and Mail's headline read: Bob White Asked to Lead New Democratic Party. It would appear that current Members do not qualify, so they have to look outside Party ranks. 1 find it hard to understand why the Hon. Member should speak against this Bill, considering that the socialist Party likes to spend money freely. He ought to be in favour of still more borrowing because their policy has always been to spend more in order to get less. I wonder just how their comments can possibly reflect the philosophy of the socialist Party.
Today, they object to the House granting us money to finance our programs; "yesterday or tomorrow" they will ask the Government, instead of allowing the private sector to create 560,000 new jobs, to increase the number of civil servants on its paylists; yet, they do not want to grant the Government the sums of money required to create these jobs. "Tomorrow or yesterday", they will ask the Government for more programs for needy people, more pensions, more social assistance. Yet, they will not let the Government borrow. We can't afford it. Tomorrow, they will ask the Government to keep a great many civil servants. When it wants to retrain employees and streamline the Public Service, they will object, saying that it would result in 5,000 or 15,000 jobs being lost. Yet today, they do not want the Government to have the money to finance its programs. Where is their philosophy then? Have they anything consistant to say? They will turn their attention to corporations, when the time comes to adopt new legislation. They will ask the Government to impose more constraints on corporations, to increase their costs and reduce their benefits, resulting in a loss of income tax. And they do not want the Government to borrow, while at the same time they want to reduce the income tax. Where is their consistency, Mr. Speaker?
They are going to ask us to expand the Government apparatus. It will be great. Everybody will work for the Government. But where is the money going to come from? And they will still object to the Government's borrowing. What kind of logic is that?
Mr. Speaker, as soon as we have programs to deal with specific problems in business and industry, they will get up and tell the Government: Subsidize the automobile industry, the shipyards, the textile industry and the agricultural industry. They are going to say: Let's pay even more. Where do these socialists think the money is coming from? They don't want us to borrow, and the way they are going, business won't be paying taxes at all. Mr. Speaker, they want business to pay
Borrowing Authority Act
more. When it comes to legislation, they will want business to pay their employees even more. But that means business will not be as motivated, will make less profit and thus pay less income tax. Where is the money going to come from?
What kind of logic is that, my socialist friends? You are in favour of uncontrolled expansion of programs, and you want our businesses to die. Have you ever considered that we need money to finance Government programs? I wish you would explain once and for all what your philosophy is, if you have one. If you do not, I think you should try and disappear from the political map. I hope you succeed.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) for his question.
1 wish the Member had been here at the beginning of my remarks. Perhaps he was, but was busy doing something else. He apparently missed my opening point, that being that 1 oppose this Bill because of the spending policy of the Government, that of its predecessor, the predecessor of that Government being the Government of the late John Diefenbaker, and that of its predecessors. I oppose the policy of spending primarily to satisfy the whim and greed of the rich rather than to meet the needs of the people.
I am in favour of spending for the needs of the people. 1 am clear on that. I would be happy to sit down with the Member and talk about what the people need. Hundreds of thousands or millions of Canadians lack basics such as food, clothing, and a place to live where they won't freeze in the winter. We need a program in Canada to find out what people in Canada need, how to meet those needs, and how to divide the work up among ourselves. I would be happy to discuss that with the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) at any time.
I have spoken against a policy which ignores human need. Instead, we say that if we give money to the rich, some day the rich, including the blabbermouth who is standing in the aisle and interrupting me, will let some of that money come down to the poor. I wish the Hon. Member had not totally missed the point of what I was saying.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's "Mr. Blabbermouth" to you.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, could the Member inform the House whether the policy of the New Democratic Party in the next election campaign will be to cut wages of workers all across the country? Does the Member think that rather than an increase in wages, Canadian workers should experience a decrease in wages? Is that the new policy of the NDP?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will not be asking for a wage cut. We will be asking, as we have in the past, for a selective degree of control on prices. The power of a few companies to raise prices without any competition or negotiation, as Bell Telephone is doing, is almost unlimited.

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
Beil Telephone may be slowed down for a year in its efforts to raise the price of telephone services but, by hook or by crook, it will get what it wants. Before there is any talk of wage limitations, we would want to see the promises, made in the past by certain Governments with regard to price limitations, become a reality.
Although the Hon. Member did not say so, possibly what he has in mind is the difference in wage levels in Canada and Guatemala. If we had a program in Canada which was addressed to meeting the needs of Canadian people, I would certainly favour using a much larger share of our Gross National Product to help countries such as Guatemala to recover from the economic ruin into which European conquerors have led them for the last four centuries. If the Hon. Member is suggesting that we should use more than the one-half of 1 per cent which we presently do to help those countries which we have wronged in the past, I fully agree with him.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member endorse the call of the Leader of the New Democratic Party in the Province of Alberta for a reduction in the proposed deficit of that province?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot comment on the Hon. Member's statement because I have not read the statement of the New Democratic Leader in Alberta and do not know the context in which he made it. I do not believe that either increasing or decreasing the deficit has any universal or absolute meaning. I find that Hon. Members opposite and Hon. Members in the Liberal Party are quite happy to increase the deficit to benefit their friends and quite happy to invoke deficit reductions with regard to unemployment insurance payments for working people. I would like to know the context in which the Leader of the New Democratic Party in Alberta made his statement regarding the deficit.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks in debate today to Bill C-99. Clause 2 of the Bill brings to our attention the fact that the purpose of the Bill is to authorize the borrowing of $22.6 billion. Through the three short paragraphs in the Bill we are being asked to give the Government the authority to borrow that amount of money. Clause 2 says in part:
- as may be required for Public Works and general purposes.
I would like to address my first remarks to the amount of money which the Government is asking to be allowed to borrow. One must ask whether these figures are well calculated. The Government projections, as given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the Budget and elsewhere, suggest that the price of oil is calculated at $22.50 per barrel. For every $1 drop in the price of oil it is estimated that the Government loses $110 million in revenues. Of course, that is not an exact figure, but an approximation which gives us a mark by which to assess the impact of the declining value of oil in the international market. If this is the case, and we can see that presently the spot market for oil has been ranging over the last week or so somewhere between $8 and $13 a barrel, then
we can see that this assessment of $22.50 a barrel is not realistic. That suggests that the revenue estimates are also not realistic. In short, with present prices, the deficit would be $1 billion higher than anticipated. That suggests the Government will be coming back asking for more money to borrow against the future.
The second point 1 would like to talk about concerns investment intentions in this country. The Minister of Finance in his Budget Papers foresees a 7 per cent increase over last year, suggests it will be a 2.5 per cent increase. The difference is some 4.5 per cent. If the difference is only, say, 2.5 per cent, that will have a considerable impact on the growth of the economy. We are told that a decrease of 1 per cent in economic growth will result in a deficit increase of $1 billion. It is not hard to project that if investment intentions are somewhere between those figures and not nearly as optimistic as those of the Minister of Finance, it could add still another $1 billion to our deficit which the Minister of Finance has not anticipated.
While I will not go beyond a third factor, there are certainly many other factors which financial analysts and specialists have brought to our attention. However, the third factor is that of interest rate projections. The Minister of Finance projects interest rates of 9.5 per cent in the Budget. Apparently the Conference Board does not quite go along with that. They believe it is going to be higher and suggest there is, again, another $1 billion to be added to the deficit. While the public has been lulled to sleep or brought to a state of euphoria in thinking that the deficit will be brought down, perhaps the Government should re-examine its figures on the basis of those three factors alone, if not the others, be honest with us and tell us it is going to be back for more money later. That is just the light commentary. I am sure this has been explored in committee very thoroughly and repeatedly. This matter has been looked at in the media as well as in the studies I have referred to.
I would now like to turn to the second part of this phrase in Clause 2 of Bill C-99. It asks for $22.6 billion as may be required for public works and general purposes. It is that part dealing with public works and general purposes that concerns me greatly. What is this money being used for? How is it being spent? What is the vision of the role the Government of Canada is to play on behalf of the people of Canada?
One thing we can say without contradiction is that the spirit of the Tory Conservative Government is certainly not that of the Statue of Liberty. Enshrined on the statue's base is the call to send the weak, the sick, the needy from around the world. People from all over the world were called upon to come to the U.S. and populate it, to make it a great nation. It would be a nation made up of the poor, the weak and the ragtags, those who were rejected by the rest of the world, those who escaped fighting wars as cannon-fodder for princes, those who fled from oppression in the Old World. That was the idealism of the pioneers who established this part of the world. That
April 11, 1986

certainly is not the philosophy of the Tory Government. As it goes about establishing its policies on immigration, for example, it emphasizes that the welcome mat is out for those who have money to invest. Let the rich come. Our doors are thrown open. Let those who can invest mightily in our nation come here. That is the kind of person the Tory Government has in mind to populate and enrich this land. There is nothing wrong with inviting the rich, but there is not a comparable call to the poor, to the refugee. In fact, the policy of bringing to this country those related to those already here, the policy of reuniting families, is not part of the philosophy of the Tory immigration policy.
When I think of how the Tories are going to spend this money they want to borrow, I know they will certainly want to spend it to publish advertisements throughout the world to entice the rich to come here and invest. Perhaps Mr. Marcos might be a good candidate. He would have lots of money to invest. People of that type, after all, have money and would fulfil the qualifications. However, 1 think there are other things which indicate how hungry the Tories are for money. They have also increased citizenship charges. If you want to become a citizen it is going to cost you more. Of course, under Tory philosophy that is good because it means those who are successful become Canadians. Those who are not will have to wait a little longer. After all, financial success is how you judge people according to Tory philosophy. Of course, if you want to come over or have your friends and relatives come over, visas cost money, a great deal more money. Tories make sure there are user-fees. They want to make sure those who can afford it come over, and those who do not have a lot of money to spend will be discouraged. We really want to reach out for the wealthy. We certainly do not have a Statue of Liberty philosophy on the subject of immigration.
I cite that as just one example of the kind of philosophy which underlines the Tories' approach to spending this money. Let us go to another example, that of multiculturalism. You only have to look at an article in one of today's newspapers written by Margaret Polanyi entitled "Multicultural Groups Feel Threatened". They feel threatened by the policies of this Tory Government towards multiculturalism. Right at the present time there is, as is described in this article-I am not using some kind of pejorative term. He quotes:
- a slick conference on multiculturalism and business opening today in Toronto-
So nearly everything the Tories are doing is related to business. Talk about immigration, it is whether or not you are going to get businessmen over here. Talk about multiculturalism, it is whether or not it is business in multiculturalism. Everything ends up with the dollar figure. It certainly is not a nation that is throwing open its doors to the needs of humanity. It is a nation that is throwing open its doors for its bank vaults. That is the philosophy upon which this nation is now being reorganized.
Borrowing Authority Act
What does this article say? Well, it says:
A group of community organizations, representing 208 groups in Canada, is banding together today to voice its opposition to announcements of possible policy changes on multiculturalism.
It is based on this conference. It goes on to point out as follows:
Most of the organizations that came together arc under funded, so that when an additional freeze or reduction is added to this existing under-funding problem, then it leads to quite a precarious situation.
The following is in quotation marks and it says:
"Brian Conway of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants in an interview.
Now, that gives us an idea of what the inclination of the Government is as perceived by the multicultural groups. The article goes on to say that the new direction will hurt many at the expense of a few ethnic entrepreneurs who have already established themselves. Again it is the entrepreneurs who will get the assistance and the attention. It is the multicultural entrepreneurs, the guys with the money who are going to be our new multicultural direction. We are expanding to reach out for them with our hands of love.
So this leads me to Daiva Stasiulis, Professor of Race and Ethnic Relations at Carieton University in Ottawa, who said:
To have this emergent theme, which tries to confirm this connection between ethnicity and profit-
And that is spelled p-r-o-f-i-t, Mr. Speaker.
-sits uneasily beside current efforts to reduce ethnic inequality and racism.
The professor continues:
I think it's going to hurt the least advantaged segments of the community. I think it's probably going to be done at the expense of crucial concerns like fighting racism.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to borrow money for the Government of Canada to carry out more of these unenlightened policies which give encouragement to the entrepreneurs and the rich, and which discriminate against the weak and the poor. It is going to cost more money to come to this country. Only the rich really have the welcome mat laid out for them. It costs more money to get a visa, and it costs more money to become a citizen of Canada. That is a tragic retrogressive direction this country is taking under the Tory Government. If we see these policies now in immigration and we see these policies now reflected also in the multicultural policies of this Government, we have to say that we find them, in fact, in almost every area of concern.
The third area where there is one of the most tragic repercussions of this unenlightened policy of the Government is what this policy is doing to the young people. It is the priority of this Government to see that banks can be bailed out, that capital gains of $500,000 can be given to those who have that kind of money to invest for themselves, that there is more money for armaments and the armament makers, and there is plenty of incentive to bring over the Thiessen Company to Cape Breton Island to manufacture armaments which

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
the German Government will not let it manufacture, but there is no money for the young people. You take the money away from the young people in order to feed those needs. That is the policy of the Tory Government, and that is what it is trying to borrow money for, to help the rich so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The number of people who are going to places where food is handed out to the poor, to soup kitchens in Toronto, where no soup kitchens existed years ago, are back now in business and there are not one or two, not ten or 20, but dozens and dozens and dozens of places where the poor now have to go to find food and shelter in order to exist. That is how the rich are getting richer. In a city like mine, in Toronto, the poor are getting poorer subject to the policies of a Government that is insensitive to those that are weak and in need.
It does not have to be against the rich, but it does not have to be at the expense of the poor. When we look at what has happened to the young people and how the money has been spent, we see that this Government has, first of all, cut off $2 billion in post-secondary educational grants as projected by the formula. We see that this Government has cut funding for research councils, and yet it says it is concerned about research. It is incredibly hypocritical. The money it is giving to the research councils will amount to little more than inflation. It is so kind as to offer incentives to businesses to come in and involve themselves in financing research. Imagine any business financing research in the social sciences, or in pure sciences for that matter. Business has to go where there is a profit. It is inevitably a death sentence for research in any other field except in the short-term profitability range of science and technology.
The Government has cut 40 per cent of the seats in the community colleges that were being used for training and retraining of young people. That is 40 per cent gone from those community colleges and the ability of the provinces to provide education in its totality for their students.
The provinces are the ones that are suffering the war against the deficit because the federal Government cuts away the money and loads the responsibilities on the provinces' backs. It is not eliminating any deficit, it is just passing the deficit on to the provinces, in the junior colleges, in the community colleges, in the universities. It is shoving off its responsibilities onto the provinces and onto the backs of the poor. That is the charge I am making.
A further concern about what it is doing to students is the fact that this Government has cut student loan levels, held them frozen while, as we know, inflation continues. It has cut out the Katimavik Program, a $20-million program which has proven its merit and is of international reputation. People are sending letters constantly, even to this day, to me in my riding, to the Members of this whole House, pleading that that program be continued. It is of value to young people and cannot be replaced by job-training programs, which have their value. Yes, they should be done too, not instead of. The Government has cut the First Chance Program for the young
people. It has cut the budget of the Youth Minister as well as cut the help for foreign students. We stand condemned as a nation for having a Government that is shortsighted and does not call out to the world, as our forefathers did of old, to send us their people who are in need, and from them we will forge a mighty nation, the kind of nation that is made now of their descendants, the scientists, the entrepreneurs and the humanitarians that inhabit our land.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I am forced to rise because I can hardly believe that the Hon. Member represents the same Party that was in power in 1982 when unemployment went up 3.5 points and that Government put 400,000 people on the bread lines. It is that same Party that was in power through those many years with Prime Minister Mackenzie King and Prime Minister St. Laurent when we saw the heart they showed for the refugees of Europe in those dark days of postwar years.
Those of us who have spent our lives building a caring community are particularly sensitive to accusations that we do not have a heart and do not have a conscience because we will win the next election on social justice. That will be the direction of our Party.
The Hon. Member's speech contained a number of inaccuracies. An immigration policy that has increased the immigration level to 115,000 this year-up by some 25,000 or 30,000-is showing much more heart and openness in all areas. Almost 50 per cent of that immigration will be family reunification. Refugees are our highest priority, and the Hon. Member knows that.
We have spent considerable time in the last year exploring ways to try to do something about deplorable human rights in all parts of the world, whether it is in Central America, South Africa, the Soviet Union or elsewhere. We are sensitive to that need and we are a model for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who looks to us for policies that are fair, open and available to all who need them.
With respect to the comments made about the Canadian Jobs Strategy, as Parliamentary Secretary I am willing to make myself available to those Members who would like to have a special briefing. We have put in place a program that gives training and real work experience. We want young people and others to have that practical experience which can be put on a curriculum vitae. We do not want the make work projects of the past or some short term effort that will ultimately put people back on unemployment insurance. The name of the game is to put people back to work, and that is what we are doing.
The Hon. Member talked about multiculturalism. We are cognizant of the need that people must have support for their culture, heritage and traditions, but we are even more cognizant of the fact that they need real jobs. The Hon. Member
April 11, 1986

was here when his colleague told us about 70 per cent unemployment among Jamaican youth of our community between the ages of 15 and 24 and 40 per cent unemployment for those between the ages of 25 and 35. That is intolerable. Those people and all other target groups must have an equal opportunity in this country because only then will we become more productive.
That is the message we will send. It is a message of hope, confidence and inspiration.
One only needs to read the newspaper to see what is happening in this country. Housing starts have risen dramatically and there are more building permits. Retail sales have greatly increased. Unemployment has risen with 574,000 new jobs being created in the last 19 months. Five year mortgage rates have gone down 2.75 points. That is a savings of $92 a month on a $50,000 mortgage. These are the steps we are taking to instil confidence in the people of our country. They will be there in 1988 or 1989 when the cornerstone of what we have accomplished will not only be national reconciliation and economic renewal, but social justice as well.


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to deal with some of the points which have just been put forward by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary.
First, one of the tragic things we see taking place in the House of Commons day after day during Question Period, when members of the opposition Parties express their concern about an unacceptable level of unemployment among young people, is that we are simply given comparisons to what the unemployment figures were during a world-wide recession.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roland de Corneille: We are not told about the unemployment figures before the world-wide recession. The Government continually tells us what the unemployment figures were in 1982 and what they are now. The fact is that the Government has not returned us to the level of unemployment that existed before the recession. The Government should be absolutely ashamed that this country still has not got off its knees when the rest of the world is in incredible prosperity. That is no record to be proud of.
According to the Senate report on youth, there are 750,000 young people still out of work, but the Government does not lift a finger to provide more money for programs. It wants to cure the deficit on the backs of young people while claiming it is trying to help them by eliminating the deficit. Such hypocrisy is unequalled and unmatched anywhere.
Second, I agree with the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary when he said that the record of Mackenzie King-


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Hon. Member accused us of hypocrisy. I believe that is unparliamentary language, if I am not mistaken.
Borrowing Authority Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member used the word in general terms.


Roland de Corneille: Quite correct, Mr. Speaker. 1 was not accusing any individual in the House. I hope the Member will soon become a more accomplished parliamentarian and more familiar with the rules of the House instead of interrupting and taking the time of another Member with such nonsense.
I was saying that the policies of Mackenzie King-a Liberal Prime Minister-toward the refugees from Germany who wanted to come here was unacceptable and an appalling policy. He was acting on the bad advice of his advisers, but he should have known better, whatever their advice was. 1 personally have no pride and in no way defend his position or policy.
However, because he was wrong in that case does not make the present policy of the Government right.
The Hon. Member said that his Government has a heart in social policy. I wish the Government would begin to show more heart in this area. I am not saying that it is not continuing some of the programs that were in place, but it is placing emphasis in the wrong area. Its concern is not where it should be in terms of social policy. This does not mean that it is not showing any concern but, as I pointed out in the examples of young people, immigration and multiculturalism, the Government's emphasis is on the rich. As 208 multicultural organizations have pointed out, when the Government spends money on multicultural entrepreneurs, it is taking money away from those weaker, less well off organizations and giving it to those who have money. It is another typical Tory policy.
In conclusion, I want to make it very clear that I certainly do not identify myself with the policies of Mackenzie King on refugees.


Mr. Gervais:: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to direct a question to the Hon. Member who just spoke. He stated that the number of jobs being created in Canada today is a result of our coming out of a recession, and that the reason his Government did not create many jobs a few years ago is that there was a deep world-wide recession. I must concede that we were in a world-wide recession and Canada naturally suffered, but prior to the recession the unemployment rates in Canada and the United States were about equal. During the recession, the unemployment rate in Canada shot up to being about 3 per cent or 4 per cent higher than in the United States.
The Hon. Member states that we are creating jobs because the recession is over. Will he explain why we are outstripping the U.S. economy and creating employment at a higher rate by 2 per cent or 3 per cent than in the United States?


Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, I believe our unemployment rates for young people are far in excess of what they are for

April 11, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
young people in the United States. But I do not want to totally take away credit from the Government totally because I am so happy to see any recovery happening at all. I would also like to point out that it is a false approach, a sham, for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to throw figures at us when we bring our concerns about the existing unemployment rate for young peple to him.
That is what 1 am talking about. It is not fair to throw figures at us about what happened during the recession to show how things are now. It is not a decent answer in the House of Commons to a question as to what the policy of the Government is going to be in dealing with present day unemployment for youth. We cannot accept the present levels of unemployment. Something must be done or we will lose a generation of young people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, when I decided to speak during report stage of this Bill, the one thing I did not want to do is to get caught in the middle of a spitting match between the Bobsy Twins from Bay Street. That little exercise is in fact a portrayal of two sides of the same coin. We do not have to go back to Mackenzie King. We had the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who came in with a lot of good will, charisma and intelligence in 1968. He had written books, taught at a university and had a radical background of fighting for justice for workers in Quebec. But after a very short time in office, we in the Sudbury Basin as well as my colleagues in British Columbia, had the spectacle of the then Prime Minister of this country giving the finger to unemployed workers at Salmon Arm and Sudbury and, indeed, right across the country. He is a man whose respect for his colleagues in the House of Commons led him to state that Members of Parliament were nobodies once they were 200 yards away from Parliament Hill. In his book entitled Up the Hill, a former Cabinet Minister of the defeated Liberal Government tells us that the former Leader of the Liberal Party really was a one-man show in making decisions.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: How about "fuddle-duddle"?


John R. Rodriguez: He was the same person who said "If you think 6 per cent unemployment is high, you just watch me". We saw that former Prime Minister fight inflation on the backs of the unemployed. He was the man who said at Banff that it was still possible to scare the hell out of Canadians with high unemployment. That is just in the recent past. We are not going back to Mackenzie King. We are just going back to the Liberals' former Leader.
On the Conservative side, we have a man who ran in an election campaign in 1984 promising that he would not reduce the deficit on the backs of poor people. He made all sorts of promises about things he said were sacred trusts. Everything was a sacred trust. He is now the Prime Minister. I recall that when interest rates were rising during the initial time of the Conservative administration we were being told: "Well, there
is really nothing that we in Canada can do because our economy is so closely tied to the American economy. Naturally, if its interest rates are going up, ours have to go up". How is it that members of the Government can rise and take credit when rates are falling? Of course, they cannot. Our interest rates are falling because American interest rates are falling. If American interest rates start rising, Canadian interest rates will rise. That indicates to me that there is still no difference in the economic policy of either the Liberals or the Conservatives, the "Lib-Cons". There is no difference between the "Lib-Cons". We still do not have a "made in Canada" interest rate. We still do not make economic decisions based on the needs, hopes and aspirations of Canadians.
It does not matter whether it is the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau or his clone, the present Prime Minister, they both have brought the same basic ideological mentality to the job of leading the country. I heard the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Weiner) say: "We created 500,000 jobs". I was reading the other day in one of the journals that in fact what has happened is that the bulk of the jobs the Government is calling new jobs are really part-time jobs. I hear groans. Well, I want to put on the record a specific example from my riding. We have a Sears Company in my riding. Sears had full-time workers. What it did was simply to take five full-time workers and cut their hours down to less than 15 hours a week. It then went out and hired five more part-time people. So on paper 10 jobs were created, but there are really no 10 jobs. I have known of miracles, and being of that tradition I know that two loaves and five fish could be made to feed 5,000 people, but for the Government to take five full-time jobs, create 10 part-time jobs and call it creating "a lot of jobs", I find hard to believe. They are not the kinds of jobs which existed before because they are part-time. Of course, the reason that was done is that once these people are on that minimum number of hours a week, the company does not have to pay unemployment insurance premiums and a lot of other benefits. Statistics Canada has reported an increase in so-called jobs, but most of these new jobs are part-time jobs.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Eighty-three per cent are full-time.


John R. Rodriguez: And they are low-paying part-time jobs.
We are faced with three serious problems. Unemployment is one problem. We still have over one million people unemployed. We have to face the whole question of the base of one of our western provinces, namely, the energy sector, the oil industry in Alberta. That is a very serious problem. This Government went to sign the Western Accord saying: "The private sector is the engine of growth. We have to go to the market-place". But we have heard all of that before. It is like phoning the Bell Telephone Company, finding the line busy and a recording saying: "This is a recording". We have heard that recording before.
Look at what has happened in Alberta, Mr. Speaker. We have the reality of an economy which could very well be devastated. But what does the Government announce? It is
April 11, 1986

going to study upgrading the heavy oil upgrader again. What is the direct action the Government intends to take? We have lost 6,000 jobs in the oil industry in Alberta already. We in the riding I come from want to know what the Government intends to do with respect to resolving that very serious problem for the people of Alberta. There is no selfishness in this part of the country which says that just because eastern Canada can obtain cheap oil it is all right to destroy the Albertan economy. I do not think there is a Canadian in central Canada who would ever accept such a proposition. I think it is the responsibility of the federal Government to show some leadership. The Government of Alberta is faced with a very serious problem in that the underpinning of its economy is being completely destroyed. Perhaps that is what the Government wants to see happen.
In my hand I have a copy of an article from the Report on Business from today's The Globe and Mail. It is written by George Linton who points out the danger of what could happen to the small oil producers in Alberta. He says that they will be forced to sell out to the large operators or be forced to fold up. What will really happen is a reassembling and the establishment of new oil monopolies in the Province of Alberta and in the country. Mr. Linton describes Canada's oil industry. He says that it is in a state of shock. The world price for oil is at less than $15 U.S. per barrel. We must ask the Government what it is going to do about this situation. To judge by its actions to date it will do nothing at all.
The PGRT has to be looked at in terms of its removal. The Government is locked into the view that it has to reduce the deficit. It is taking a blinkered approach to bringing down the deficit. In fact, the Government is forced to do nothing about one of the more serious problems facing western Canada, particularly Alberta, in terms of its oil industry.
Anyone who watches the proceedings of the House of Commons knows that Government Members ask set-up questions of Ministers from time to time. Why do they not ask tough questions of Ministers? Why do they not ask what the Government plans to do in terms of eliminating the PGRT immediately? If the question were to be answered honestly, we know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would have to forgo $1 billion in revenue. Of course that is what he would have to do. However, that is the commitment the rest of the country has to make through the Government to the people of Alberta in order to protect the economy of that province.
I know I speak for many people in central Canada when I say the following. I do not want to drive a car on 15-cent-a-gallon gasoline in the tank when brothers and sisters in Alberta are going down the tubes. The situation is ludicrous. If we bring the deficit down, then the whole economy of a province will be wiped out. I think members of the Government once said that they would bring a different view to the federation of Canada. They said that they would bring about a sense of cohesiveness, co-operation and collegiality, not only between
Borrowing Authority Act
the federal Government and the provincial leaders but between the people of the country and their Government. If ever there was a Government which had the opportunity to do such a thing it is this Government.
We are no longer talking about the bulwarked Trudeau years when all Government support came from one part of the country. In the years when the previous Prime Minister and the Liberals ruled Canada they had very little representation from the West. In fact, it was a Government which was central and eastern-based. Today, the Government has a golden opportunity since it represents people right across the country. Why is it giving up this opportunity? Why is it missing such an opportunity?
We are now faced with another problem. It is to do with the wheat farmers in western Canada. The price for their product is dropping through the floor. I am told that they are now faced with the lowest wheat prices in 25 years. In fact, they are faced with the lowest prices since the "dirty thirties"-since the Bennett buggies. It seems that we have gone from "Tory times are tough times" to "Liberal high unemployment". We are caught in a spitting match in which I said 1 did not want to become involved. Yet here it is, another problem facing the Government. The farmers have to have some assurances in order to make their plans. Yet what has the Government responded in answer to our questions? "Wait and see". 1 think that the Government has again locked itself into the view that it has to reduce the deficit. Again, it is reacting to all these problems with its blinkers on.
However, when it came to the situation involving the CCB and the Northland Bank, somehow or other that blinkered philosophy was shelved. "Squander Woman" came up with a billion bucks for the banks. There was no problem at all in doing that. No one said that paying out that sum of money would raise the deficit. We were told that it was essential to secure a western bank. We were told that we have to develop western banking interests. Do Hon. Members remember that argument? An Hon. Member opposite gets out his violin. He will have to play it low and soft. Is it important that our wheat farmers continue to exist? Is it important to our economy? The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) nods his head and says, in effect, of course it is important. The Minister is dressed in red today. What he says is right. Is it important to the country that the oil industry continue to exist and prosper? Everyone would say that of course it is. It should not exist in the hands of just a few large oil companies. According to the philosophy of the Government it is important that the small producers also have an opportunity to exist since, after all, what has happened is beyond their control.
What is happening to the farmers is as a result of a spitting match between the European Common Market and the United States. The western farmers are caught in the middle. Thus we cannot hold to the principle that we have to reduce the deficit come hell or high water. It seems to me that when members of the Government lock themselves into that type of philosophy they cause great harm to the people of the country. In effect.

April 1 I, 1986
Borrowing Authority Act
they have tied their hands with respect to dealing with their problems in a realistic fashion.
Yesterday evening I was out in New Brunswick. My trip had to do with another aspect of deficit-cutting. I was out at a place called Oromocto. 1 met with about 200 people, men and women, who have been affected by the recent change to the Unemployment Insurance Program. All of these people were very upset and angry. Their own Members of Parliament did not attend the meeting. Their own Tory Members were nowhere to be seen.


James Douglas Manly: They were out talking to the people of Alberta.


John R. Rodriguez: I told them that in order to see one Member they would have to go to South Korea to do it.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the Hon. Member does not want to mislead the House intentionally. I think that for his benefit alone it is important to point out that the Tory Members to whom he alludes were both in Ottawa because they had not received an invitation to attend the meeting. However, they attended a meeting some two weeks ago at which the Hon. Member was not in attendance. I wonder why.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I know that one of the Members who was supposed to be in Ottawa was at the opening of the New Brunswick Legislature two days ago in Fredericton.
Those people were very upset because in fact it was the same principle of cutting the deficit. The Minister of Employment and Immgiration (Miss MacDonald) has written to them indicating that the Government had to reduce the deficit and therefore had to cut the deficit in the Unemployment Insurance Program. This is why $100 million will be taken out as a result of the pension change. Those people found that to be unfair and unjust. They think that the Government has picked on them. In the same breath, the Government gave a $500,000 capital gains tax break to the wealthy people of Canada, a break which will cost taxpayers $1.5 billion by 1990-91. Those people found that very difficult to comprehend, and I do not blame them. The Liberals used to display the same reaction when they were in Government. Their friends always had their ear, their friends from Bay Street got all the breaks, and ordinary working men and women were shafted every time. I can assure Hon. Members opposite that just as the people across the country brought them in on a wave, they will put them out in the next election.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine).


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I think I have to
give him some credit for saying that for the first time in several decades, we now have a truly national Government.
As for the rest of his speech, it is not terribly significant. The Hon. Member compared the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. He said their positions are similar. I can inform him that the Conservative Party consists of administrators whose objective is to legislate a balanced use of our resources. It is an objective people have forgotten. The Liberals were socialists. Their philosophy was to pay people's grocery bills and spend more by borrowing more and making this country carry a debt load of $240 billion.
Your job is to criticize. You always criticize but never suggest anything constructive. It is about time you did, which would be something new.
When we want to spend more you say no. When we want to save more you say no. When we want to raise taxes you say no. When we want to reduce taxes you say no. When we want to borrow more you say no. When we want to borrow less you say no. The pattern is becoming quite clear.
You quoted The Globe and Mail because you feel it has some credibility, so I will quote it too. Your leader is looking for a replacement. He is tired of playing an actor's role, but he does not think that any of the 30 others sitting there can pass muster. There lies your problem. You are unable to raise important issues. Think about it. You are unable to raise important issues and marshal a consistent and enduring defence of your own theories. That should be your role as legislators, but you are still asleep and never did anything constructive.
This is just a reminder. Do explain your theories if you can. [English]


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member said that the Conservative Government is made up of administrators, bankers, accountants and tax lawyers.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Ordinary people.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, the Government is made up of ordinary rich Canadians. I do not know how consistent the Conservatives are. I am not impressed with their ability to administer. For example, a Budget came down in May, 1985 which was to deindex pensions. They were all over the ballpark on that one. They were telling us that the National Energy Program was a bad thing. They brought in the Western Accord. They could not even project what oil experts were saying six months down the road. They could not project what the experts were saying, telling or writing about the oil industry. They exposed the whole Alberta economy to the whims of the Sheikhs of Araby. Now they have a new sheikh-Sheikh Getty of Alberty. He is attempting to climb in the tent, and they are all sitting around. However, they recognize that he is not a true sheikh because his eyes are blue. They knew that he did not really belong there. They told him to go out and cut his production and then come back to join them. I do not know where they are in that ballpark now, but they are dealing with wheat prices. I want to
April 11, 1986

know how they are administering it. What are their views? What do they intend to do? What are their projections?
We in the New Democratic Party have done constructive things.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: I remind the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) that since the fall of 1984 we produced a document called Canada Unlimited. That document is composed of opinion and thoughful analyses of the economic situation. It contains very concrete and specific proposals in respect of dealing with Canada's most serious problem-unemployment. Then we put a youth task force on the road and produced a positive document which makes recommendations to the Government. There was Tax Probe 86 in which we made some concrete proposals to the Government about a more fair, just and distributive income tax system. They sit on their fins and what do they say? They say that they believe in the private sector. I think they have all gone to kindergarten and have repeated that the private sector is the engine of the economy. I think they have been programmed to spit that out. The people
Borrowing Authority Act
of the country will remember in the next election, and they will be spat right out.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Mrs. McDougall, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-99, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and passed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the third time and passed.
Some Hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 14, at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, April 14, 1986