1987-03-09

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67, I have the honour to table on behalf of the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall), in both official languages, the 1987 corporate plan for Teleglobe Canada.


PETITIONS
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions, Nos. 332-488, 332-499, 332-521 and 332-643.



COMMONWEALTH DAY


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, today, March 9, is Commonwealth Day, which has particular significance this year for Canada.
In October, in your own City, Sir, of Vancouver, we will host the next meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. In that same internationalist tradition, Canada will welcome the second Francophone Summit to Quebec City in September. These are both family meetings for Canada, taking us back to the roots and traditions which shaped our unique country, but also, as strong and vital families, helping us reach
out to new influence and new opportunities in a changing world.
It was once the style to be nostalgic about the Commonwealth. Today, it is one of the most relevant and effective associations to which Canada belongs. Under its auspices we are involved in ocean development in the Caribbean and the South Pacific; in technical co-operation in Asia and in Africa; in scholarships and research on all six continents; in cooperation at Geneva on international trade; and continuing dialogue among countries whose conditions range from the poorest to the most advanced.
In Chittagong, in Bangladesh, last month, I met a Canadian who had been involved in the first Canadian project under the Colombo Plan. That was the beginning of our program of external aid and the beginning also of Canada's reputation in the developing world as a trusted, modern power.

Mr. Speaker, in the past two years, Canada has used the forum provided by the Commonwealth to exercise effective pressure against the evil of apartheid in South Africa. I would like to take this opportunity, on Commonwealth Day, to report to Parliament on recent conversations the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had in Africa, on my own meetings with some of our Commonwealth partners in Great Britain and Asia, and on consultations held by the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Landry) and the Minister of State (Immigration) (Mr. Weiner) with representatives of several South African countries.
Canada played a very active role in launching the activities of the Eminent Persons Group and drafting the first set of Commonwealth sanctions against South Africa. We have applied every sanction and every measure approved by the Commonwealth in Nassau and London. In fact, the Prime Minister is playing a major role in this respect among Commonwealth leaders, both personally and as chairman of the Vancouver meeting.
It was in this spirit that in January at Victoria Falls, he met with the leaders of three Commonwealth countries, members of the front line States: President Kaunda of Zambia, Prime Minister Mugabe of Zimbabwe and President Masire of Botswana. He saw for himself the potential danger that the violence inherent in apartheid represents for fragile economies. From all sides, people voiced their concern that increasing violence as a result of South African intransigence and aggression would lead more and more victims of apartheid to give up ail hope for a negotiated settlement.

March 9, 1987
Statements by Ministers
The Prime Minister reiterated Canada's commitment, expressed in the following terms on October 23, 1985 at the United Nations, and I quote:
Canada is prepared, if there are no fundamental changes in South Africa, to consider sweeping sanctions against that country and its repressive regime. If there is no progress in dismantling apartheid, we may have no alternative but to break off completely our relations with South Africa.

The front line states understand that Canada does not seek, through sanctions, to bring the South African Government to its knees, only to its senses. Our approach is steadily to build international pressure on South Africa as we restrict its trade. Canada will invoke further measures when we consider that they will have the most impact. We have told the front line leaders that we think that for them being on the front line itself means economic sacrifice and political risks. They should not be held to a rigid timetable on the questions of sanctions, costly as they would be to them and vulnerable as they are to South African retaliation.
In the Nassau Accord the Commonwealth has called for a suspension of violence on all sides. Our Commonwealth partners in the front line states understand Canada's position that we cannot support violence, although we can understand the feelings of those who have felt the full effect of the violence of apartheid. Indeed, part of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) purpose in going directly to the front line states was to demonstrate again that they are not alone in this fight against apartheid, or in their work to build and to maintain their own economies.
Canada is determined to provide material as well as moral support to South Africa's neighbours. At Victoria Falls, the Prime Minister signed an agreement to build a $50 million electrical interconnecter line which will permit Botswana to tap into the electrical resources of Zimbabwe and Zambia. This is only one of many ways in which Canada is helping South Africa s neighbours to reduce their vulnerability to South African sanctions. Over the next five years, we expect to contribute approximately $30 million annually to the South Africa Development Co-ordination Conference, SADCC. That is in addition to the $400 million we will be providing in bilateral assistance to southern Africa over the same period. In New Delhi, I discussed with Prime Minister Gandhi means by which Canada might work closely with the Fund for Africa, established by the non-aligned movement, particularly in the work of ensuring secure transportation routes. The Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) was in Botswana for the most recent SADCC meeting, and discussed similar projects.
At the same time, we have been working to assist the victims of apartheid in South Africa. In the current year, $1.5 million is being disbursed for assistance to the families of political detainees, and we have mounted a $7 million education program. Nine days ago, in Montreal, Dr. Alan Boesak
suggested to me other ways in which Canadian humanitarian help could be effective in South Africa.
The Prime Minister of Canada is the only leader of an Economic Summit country to have been to southern Africa since the pressure for change has built against apartheid. He has discussed the issue regularly with our Summit partners, and will put the question on the agenda of the Venice Summit.
Since the African National Congress plays such a major role now in South Africa, and will be closely involved in any resolution of that problem, the Prime Minister and I look forward to meetings with the President of the African National Congress, Oliver Tambo, in the next few months. Mr. Terence Bacon, our former High Commissioner to Zambia and Zimbabwe, has been seconded to the Commonwealth Secretary-General as special adviser on southern Africa.
As was noted last week in the Standing Committee on Human Rights of the House, by the New Democratic Party Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy), the issue of the fight against apartheid has risen above normal partisan considerations in Canada. It is a common commitment of this Parliament and country.
In a broader sense, so is our commitment to the Commonwealth. What was once a connection to our past has now also become a principal instrument of contemporary policy, and a symbol of the breadth of spirit, and the breadth of alliances, which this special country Canada will require to achieve our interests in the future.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I wish to join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in this recognition of Commonwealth Day, and underline the importance that this day presents to Canadians because of the major responsibility and obligation that the Commonwealth increasingly has to deal with the issues of great concern to people around the world.
We are pleased with, and so register, the opportunity that Canadians will have to see the Commonwealth in action as it holds its major meeting here in October. I am sure that all parliamentarians will find the occasion of Canada hosting that very important meeting to be one that we hope will focus more clearly on Canadian positions on the South African issue. In that manner, it will become not just a matter of bi-partisan support, but a matter of clear commitment by all Canadians of the actions that must be taken.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that the Commonwealth has now been brought under the front stage of world events. I think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is correct in saying that. The value of that organization as a way of bringing countries with a wide variety of points of view together is one that we can only see now in its clearest and most honest evaluation that such organizations are of incredible value in today's world. There are not many like them with that particular type of composition.
March 9, 1987

As we saw at the last meeting in Nassau, it provides an opportunity for initiatives to be taken. The question that must be asked is what will be the initiative that is taken at the Commonwealth meeting in Vancouver in October? Quite clearly, we are faced with the tragic failure of the Eminent Persons Group which we all regret, because we certainly supported that initiative. It is clear that the Government of South Africa had no intention of responding to that initiative, and I think that events would show that since that initiative it has undertaken even further Draconian actions, and the further detainment of people. The last figure or estimate is that close to 20,000 people, both black and white, in South Africa are under detention by that Government. The restriction of freedom of the press, perhaps one of the most fundamental freedoms, gives even further cause for anguish.
We should not underestimate the importance and the difficulty which that meeting will face. It is only six months away,and on behalf of our group I wish to urge that some careful planning and policy-making be initiated, so that the developments of the Commonwealth meeting will have the proper anticipation and development leading up to it.
We were encouraged by the meetings taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his tour of southern Africa, and the efforts made to establish clear communication with the front line states, and with other African states. I believe that our leader has said that we applaud the Prime Minister for that initiative. However, what we raise as a question is the continuing ambiguity that seems to be apparent in the Government's position on the issue of sanctions itself.
During his meetings in Senegal, the Prime Minister stated, and I quote from his words, that "The Commonwealth Summit Meeting will be the determining factor in announcing a complete sanctions package". That sets a very clear timetable. However, last week when the Secretary of State for External Affairs was before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the same question was asked, we certainly detected less of a willingness to commit to that type of statement made by the Prime Minister.
One thing that cannot be afforded in this most important of all foreign policy initiatives of the Government is any sign of ambiguity or confusion. If Canada is to take the lead in the Commonwealth, as it should, and as it has the opportunity to do, it is absolutely essential that there should be no hesitation or doubt as to where we stand, and what we will do about it.
I wish to use this occasion to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to take that into account, and to understand the commitment made by the Prime Minister in his statements in Senegal, and in other places in South Africa. These statements were reported in Canada with eight-inch headlines, that Canada was prepared to undertake full, total, comprehensive economic and diplomatic sanctions. If we now begin to draw away or back away from that position, it will weaken our possibility to provide the strength of purpose and direction that will be required in October.
Statements by Ministers
One of the ways that the Government could clearly signal that there is no hesitation on its part is to now begin the type of discussion and development with those areas of the Canadian business community that are presently engaged in economic relations with South Africa as to what would be required for a total sanction package; how will we go about the disinvestment, how will we go about applying total sanctions? If there is to be any clear signal given, then by demonstrating that we have a blueprint, that we know how we will do it, I think we will strengthen our position, and give strong and undeniable messages to those who need to receive the messages.
I agree with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last week in the Human Rights Committee, that one of the primary roles for Canada to play is not only in initiating actions for our own purposes, but in trying to influence the actions of others, of the United States, certainly Great Britain, and members of the European Economic Community. By Canada initiating action now, putting in place the building blocks toward a full sanctions package, it would provide the strength of that message to these important allies and convince them to do the same. We have already had the example of the U.S. Congress substantially overriding the position of the administration in this regard. There are certainly signs that members of the EEC are now prepared to begin that kind of plan.

I urge the Government to provide, perhaps in honour of Commonwealth Day, the kinds of steps we can take domestically to show that we mean business when we get to the meeting in October. I want to make clear that that in no way takes away from what I accept as being the unequivocal commitment of the Government. However, I want to see that commitment followed by action. The action itself should become as important as the commitment in sending out the kinds of messages we want to send. We hope that the meeting in October will provide the platform on which a wide variety of countries can take a further step toward ending apartheid and toward presenting to the world a set of proposals on how that anguished country might move toward a democratic system. If Canada plays its proper role at the Commonwealth Summit in October, hopefully the next time we celebrate this very important day it will be in more positive terms.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to have been chosen by my Party to join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in speaking in recognition of Commonwealth Day.
The Commonwealth, to those not a part of it, must seem a curious institution. Created by conquest, it has become a model of international co-operation based upon the shared values of justice and equality among a diversity of peoples around the globe. Transcending race, transcending religion,

March 9, 1987
Committee Reports
and transcending cultures, it has taught Canadians that our own nation can develop strength and vigour through diversity.
As we have become a multicultural and multiracial nation and have demonstrated our commitment to independence, selfdetermination, economic development, and to the end of oppression and racism, Canada has assumed a position of leadership in this most friendly of international associations and in the world. It has been most particularly in the fight against apartheid that Canada has established a position of leadership within the Commonwealth, displacing even the mother country as its Government struggles to understand that justice is not equivocal or to be delayed.
As noted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the people of Canada and the Parliament of Canada see the issue of apartheid as a question, not of partisanship but of justice. All of us support the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he said, "if there are not fundamental changes in South Africa, we are prepared to invoice total sanctions against that country and its repressive regime. If there is no progress in the dismantling of apartheid, our relations with South Africa may have to be severed absolutely".
We are concerned, however, that the promised action has been so long delayed. The South African regime has become not less oppressive but more oppressive; not more conciliatory, but more recalcitrant. Thousands have been displaced from their homes in ruthless pursuit of the still existing homelands policy. Thousands more have been jailed, tortured, and killed, including very small children, under the present state of emergency. Devious manipulation of a tortured people has turned black against black, as a curtain of darkness imposed by the evil regime keeps from the world the dark details of its evil oppression.
Even as we applaud the Government's international leadership we must mention, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs failed to do, that Canadians expect more, as was so clearly demonstrated just nine days ago in a meeting of groups opposed to apartheid in Montreal.
As stated in the reports of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations and the House Committee on Human Rights, they want full legislative, mandatory, universal, economic sanctions imposed against South Africa, and they want them now.
We share, as my colleague in the Liberal Party shares, the concept that Canada must act to demonstrate leadership and to provide a model of what others should do. It has been our consistent position that we exhibit an appropriate model when we exhibit leadership, by applying what most can be done by the country. We have hesitated too long in doing what we can do and should do. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs has within his vest pocket permission from the Cabinet to proceed with increased sanctions. It is the position of my Party and most Canadians that he should proceed now, so that when the Commonwealth meets in Vancouver in the fall Canada can exercise its leadership, having demonstrated what
should be done by others, most particularly what should be done by the mother country.
I am most pleased, as I am sure are other Members of the House, that the Government, through its Prime Minister, has made a commitment for increased aid to the front line states, for they will suffer, as he has indicated, most of all by acts of retaliation by a South African regime already engaged in actions to destabilize those nations. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed the full commitment of his Government when he was asked last week at the committee hearing whether the Government was prepared, in co-operation with other nations, to provide those means to the front line states by which they may protect themselves against South African aggression, those very establishments we have helped fund to enhance their transportation facilities and to allow their economic growth and development. It will do no good if we give them aid for development while we sit idly by and watch an aggressive military regime undermine our contribution.
We should not forget in that context our commitment to the freedom of Namibia. We should take conspicuous note of the inconsistency involved in our efforts in the front line states, while the United States of America provides $100 million for South Africa's allies in undermining the Angola regime and in resisting the freedom of Namibia.
We join together with all Parties in expressing our national commitment to justice, particularly justice for the South African majority population. However, along with other Canadians, we hope we will not hesitate any longer in expressing the leadership for which so many have called in leading the fight against apartheid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. This report deals with the management of Indian bands and moneys.
In a 1984 decision involving the surrender of Indian bands, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Department of Indian Affairs had a fiduciary duty to Indian people and awarded damages of $11.7 million to an Indian band. Approximately 100 other lawsuits against the Crown are pending, and 25 per cent of these claims with a dollar value represent a potential liability of $1.77 billion. The remainder have no stated dollar value.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts believes that Indian people should receive the same standard of asset care that all Canadians would expect from a professional trustee. In
March 9, 1987

addition, the Department must protect the Crown from future legal liabilities.
The committee has noted a number of areas where the Department has not met professional standards in the management of lands, estates, and moneys. The Department has indicated three types of responses to these deficiencies which will be monitored closely by the committee.
[Editor's Note: see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I have great pleasure in presenting a petition on behalf of Canadians. The certificate of the Clerk of Petitions is attached. Your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to restrict the Department of National Defence from using, utilizing, purchasing, leasing or in anywise establishing a military base on the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, particularly the Highwood River Valley area abutting the Kananaskis Provincial Park as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present petitions on two matters. One is a petition signed by members of the Senior Citizens Association, Imperial, Saskatchewan in which they say that the proposed amendments to the Patent Act will unfairly hurt Canadians whose health needs require the purchasing of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis and the proposal that the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial drug plans. Therefore, the undersigned, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions from citizens of Deer Lake, Newfoundland, Calgary, Alberta, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and Fredericton, New Brunswick. These petitioners request Parliament, on the grounds that transportation is a natural monopoly without economic regulation, that the Government's Bill C-18 will create unnecessary chaos in transportation as well as a
Introduction of Bills
deterioration in the quality, type and frequency of service, to have Bill C-18 withdrawn and to reject the proposals therein.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty and the honour to present a petition from approximately 110 constituents from the riding of Kent. This petition is certified by the Clerk of Petitions. The petitioners indicate that they wish the Government to reject proposals to change the Patent Act because they feel the amendment will raise the cost of prescription drugs.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition that has been duly certified. It documents the extent to which fishermen across Canada depend upon the Unemployment Insurance Program. It expresses their concern that this program is being taken away from them, and calls upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) rejects any recommendation that would deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance. It also calls upon Parliament to ensure that the Minister enters into consultations with all representatives of fishermen in Canada in order that improvements to the program offered to fishermen are made.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present on behalf of citizens of the Prince Albert district a petition which calls on the Government and Parliament to reject proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians and thereby establish a recognized level of purchases of prescription drugs.



TERRITORIAL LANDS ACT


Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-43, an Act to amend the Territorial Lands Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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.
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1987
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be aswered today: Nos. 66 and 73.


Mr. Gauthier: As of March 31, 1986, what was the actuarial surplus of the Public Service Superannuation Account (PSSA), the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account, using the assumptions contained in the most recent valuation report of these accounts that was tabled in the House of Commons but with (a) an annual inflation and salary increase scenario of 3.5 per cent and 4.5 per cent respectively; (b) an annual interest rate scenario of (i) 11.0 per cent for 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 (ii) then reduced by 0.1 per cent for each of the next three years (iii) then reduced by 0.2 per cent a year until an annual rate of 7.5 per cent a year is reached, and (/v) continuing thereafter at a rate of 7.5 per cent a year; and (e) for the PSSA a current service employer rate equal to (i) 1.25 times (ii) 1.50 times, and (iii) 1.75 times the employee contribution rate?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Based on the hypothetical factors provided in the question, the calculation is estimated to be:
($ billions)
(i)	PSSA	8.1(ii)	CFSA	7.5(iii)	RCMPSA	.9
The Public Service Superannuation Account employer current service contribution rate does not affect the calculation.


Mrs. Finestone: 1.	Was a 10 per cent tariff on English language books imposed by the Government on June 6, 1986 and, if so, to date, what was the total amount collected?
2.	What nations' book sales to Canada were affected and what amount of the total sum collected was attributable to each country?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Effective June 6, 1986, the Customs Duty on Books Remission Order (1982), which allowed duty free entry of certain books, was revoked. Consequently, novels, works of fiction, some periodicals, publications to encourage enrollment in educational institutions outside of Canada and books of printed music reverted to being subject to the legislated duty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem under the most favoured nation tariff and the U.K. and Ireland tariff.
Other books, including text books or works of reference included in the curriculum of any university, college or school in Canada; books for bona fide libraries; books and periodicals in any other than in the English language; books which have been actually printed and manufactured more than 12 years;
books for the promotion of medicine, the fine arts, law, science, technical training and the study of languages, are not affected by this change and remain duty free.
The amount of duty collected from June 6, 1986 to November 30, 1986 (date of the latest available statistics) was $11,142,000.
2. Of the $11,142,000 collected in duty on books imported under tariff items 16900-1, 17100-1, 17800-6 and 18200-2, $9,741,000 was collected on books imported from the United States; $979,000 from the United Kingdom; $109,000 from Hong Kong; $85,000 from Japan; $47,000 from Italy; $44,000 from Belgium and Luxembourg; $37,000 from Spain; $14,000 from West Germany; $14,000 from Switzerland; $2,000 from France; $1,000 from Ireland, and the remaining $69,000 from other countries.
[ Translation]


Philip Derek Lewis: I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that because of the Ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 23 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m. today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a Legislative Committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, I rise today to seek approval of Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority. As Hon. Members are aware, the Financial Administration Act requires that statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament in order for the Government to borrow. Specifically Part IV, Section 36 of that Act requires that:
No money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament.
This refers to new money only, rather than the refinancing of existing debt. Under Section 38 of the Act, there is continuing authority to borrow funds to repay maturing debt. While Section 39 provides for short-term temporary borrowing, statutory borrowing authority must be obtained from Parliament to permit the Government to implement a regular debt program to meet its financial requirements.
March 9, 1987

There can be no doubt that the timing of the Bill before us is appropriate. The Government is following the pattern for an improved budgetary process that was set out in a paper the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) tabled in May 1985. The same pattern was followed with the last borrowing authority Bill. One of the suggestions presented in that paper which the Government has been actively pursuing is that parliamentary approval of borrowing authority for each upcoming fiscal year should be sought at the same time as the Budget is presented. The logic behind the proposal was that the Budget presentation in February would set out the financial information for the new fiscal year for parliamentary study. This is a course of action now being taken and I would hope that debate on the Budget and the fiscal stance presented by the Government will be helpful in examining this borrowing authority Bill.

Allow me now to give you a few details concerning the provisions of the Bill and the reasons why this borrowing authority is being sought.

The largest amount is $24.3 billion in borrowing authority requested for the next fiscal year, 1987-88, as set out in Part II of the Bill. I will discuss that in more detail later in my remarks. First, however, I would like to deal with the circumstances underlying the request in the Bill for supplementary borrowing authority in the current fiscal year which ends March 31.
Part I, Clause 2(1), seeks supplementary borrowing authority for 1986-87 of $3.6 billion. This amount is equal to the amount of borrowing authority that has already been used to acquire U.S. dollar reserves during the period from April 1, 1986, to January 31, 1987. While the Government does have a non-lapsing reserve of $2 billion carried forward from borrowing authority legislation in 1984-85, this reserve is not sufficient.

The Government therefore is seeking to borrow an additional amount of $3.6 billion to replenish this $2 billion reserve and have the operating margin required to react on the exchange market when further interventions become necessary between now and the end of this fiscal year.

Clause 2(2) of the Bill provides for the cancellation on March 31, 1987, of all borrowing authority conferred by the above Section that remains unused in this fiscal year 1986-87 and to the extent that it exceeds borrowing pursuant to Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act undertaken between February 18 and April 1, 1987.

Hon. Members know that Section 39 empowers the Governor in Council to borrow when it appears that there will not be
Borrowing Authority
enough money in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make expenditures.

This action is designed for short-term, temporary use only. The term of the borrowing may not exceed six months and each borrowing requires approval by the Governor in Council.
Financial requirements are seasonally high in the first quarter of a new fiscal year, especially in April when they typically exceed what can be financed through a feasible borrowing operation in that one-month period. Thus, fiscal 1986-87 year-end cash balances will have to be built up in order to help meet these heavy seasonal requirements and this will be done on a temporary basis through short-term borrowings pursuant to Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act.
The Minister of Finance announced on February 26 that authority under Section 39 was being used to provide for a net increase of up to $600 million in Treasury bill borrowings this week. Funds borrowed under this Section cannot be rolled over in the regular way as under Section 38 and will require new borrowing authority. Thus the Bill provides for borrowing authority to the extent it equals money borrowed under Section 39 in 1986-87 to be carried forward into 1987-88 to roll over the maturing debt issued to build up cash balances in the current fiscal year.
The primary reason for seeking supplementary borrowing authority now is the impact on the Government's borrowing operations arising from the recent volatility in the exchange markets which has been quite extreme. Our actions to maintain an orderly exchange market in this volatile environment, in the face of upward pressure on the value of the Canadian dollar during January and early February, have resulted in a very substantial increase in the Government's official reserves. Domestic borrowing was therefore increased to obtain Canadian dollars to finance this increase in reserves. There no longer remains sufficient borrowing authority to facilitate additional borrowings. As a result, the Government found it necessary to use Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act to enable it to continue its debt operations, and I should note that Section 39 was used in similar circumstances in 1983 and 1985.
It is most important that the Government be in a position to maintain an orderly, ongoing debt program so as to rebuild its cash balances. Speedy passage of this Bill will help to achieve this objective and will reduce the need for heavy reliance on short-term borrowings pursuant to Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act.

Now, Madam Speaker, allow me to tell you about the borrowing authority we will need for the next fiscal year. Part II of the Bill provides borrowing authority of $24.3 billion for the year 1987-88. This amount covers the $21.3 billion financial requirements set forth in the Budget plus a $3 billion non-lapsing reserve for unforeseen outlays, including a new

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
build-up of international official reserves during the year 1987-88.

In light of recent exchange market developments, the $3 billion reserve amount being sought is appropriate. In the month of January alone, about $2.5 billion in borrowing authority was used as a result of exchange market operations. The proposed $3 billion reserve will provide the Government with the ongoing flexibility that is needed to rebuild its cash balances.

If I may, Madam Speaker, for your information I should like to table a document explaining the source and use of the borrowing authority for this fiscal year until February 28 1987.	'

One of the fundamental principles of fiscal policy as set out by the Minister of Finance is that the Government should ensure substantial year-over-year reductions in the Government's financial requirements. This is of particular interest to the House because, over three years, the Government will have reduced financial requirements by 28.5 per cent: from $29.8 billion in the year we took office to $21.3 billion in this coming fiscal year. This steady reduction in the demands made by the Government on the nation's savings is one of the most important factors underlying our steady economic advance.
In conclusion, the borrowing authority requested by this Bill is reasonable in the circumstances. The added flexibility we are seeking allows us to cope with sudden large demands for funds and to moderate exchange market fluctuations. It is, I submit, a prudent measure in light of the potential volatility of the exchange markets. The authority we are seeking to cover next fiscal year's financial requirements reflects the Government's ongoing policy to bring about steady and substantial reductions year by year in the federal Budget deficit.
[DOT] (M50)

Ever since this Government took office, the Minister of Finance has clearly expressed our determination to stay within the bounds of financial responsibility. In the context of that policy I urge the House to pass the Bill.
IMr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides): Madam Speaker, in speaking to Bill C-40, our normal reaction might be that the Budget Speech has been read, the Main Estimates have been tabled and that the debate on the Budget Speech is extensive enough to warrant keeping our comments on the borrowing authority Bill to a minimum. However, I think we would not be doing our duty as the Official Opposition if we were to give such short shrift to a Bill that will add to the national debt as much as $30 billion, if we consider the borrowing authority being sought by the Minister in clause (2), that is, $3.6 billion between now and March 31, 1987, the $24.3 billion for current expenditures and a contingency fund of $3 billion, something for a rainy day, but $3 billion just the
same. This Bill seeks borrowing authority for all these amounts.
As I said before, we could go back to what we said in our speech in response to the Budget Speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), but I think we should dig a little deeper and put this borrowing program into perspective, in the light of the commitments made by this Government during the 1984 election campaign and also in the light of what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance during the weeks and months following the 1984 election, statements that have been repeated many times both in and outside the House.
Madam Speaker, the group of which I am a member believes it is essential that public administrators act prudently when administering the affairs of this country. We believe in fiscal responsibility, and I may remind the House of what was said by the Leader of my Party, now the Leader of the Official Opposition, in the weeks preceding the election campaign, and of my own comments on financial matters. We have explained many times why, during the 1984 election campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada limited the number of promises and the commitments it made. It was because of a financial situation that was largely the result of an economic recession that had affected not only Canada but the entire western world. The impact of this economic recession has been compared with that of the Depression in the thirties, and if its impact was not as dramatic, this was undoubtedly because of our social programs that helped maintain the purchasing power of Canadians and ward off disaster from many Canadian families.
In other words, throughout the 1984 election campaign we took a position favouring fiscal responsibility not only in words but in actions as well, and I am referring to the kind of limited election program we were advocating. We on this side of the House and the Leader of the Liberal Party who was then Prime Minister, myself and many of my colleagues reminded Canadians of this harsh reality. During that time the Conservatives travelled throughout the country making promises. We counted roughly 330 of them, all rather an expensive drain on the public treasury. Yet at the same time as they were making election promises right and left they also told Canadian consumers they would get new funds through various programs or projects, they were told the deficit would be reduced because it had become imperative to gain control over the public debt. A very conservative approach, quite contradictory of course! One day they were making promises, the day after they were saying they would do this and that. I have had opportunities to debate this issue with many people as it often happens during election campaign, open debates before student groups and various associations, and my experience has always been the same. In the same breath the Conservatives were saying: We will give more and spend less. Altogether contradictory.
March 9, 1987

As 1 have done in earlier debates, Madam Speaker, we might recall the statements made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance concerning the solemn commitment that a Conservative Government would not raise taxes. It was imperative not to raise taxes. We were even told that it would be against the economic well-being of all Canadians. So what have we seen since their Party took over? Taxes have gone up dramatically. If we look at tax increases for the years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87, we find that personal income tax will have increased by 53 percent during that period because of the combined effects of income tax increases brought about by deindexation of tax tables, rate increases, withdrawal of benefits, and so on. Individual taxes, that is personal income tax and taxes on consumer products, will have increased by 53 percent while corporate taxes, including income tax and taxes paid by oil companies, will have decreased by 18 percent. Individuals will pay 53 percent more and corporations 18 percent less.
Madam Speaker, there are two possibilities. Either the Conservatives made promises that they knew they could not keep, which would have been a very petty political game, or else they did not know what it meant to govern the country. I still do not know which is true, but one thing is certain, and that is that this Government has not only neglected to keep its electoral promises, but has also done the opposite of what it had said it would do. It is one thing to promise a bridge and quite another to destroy a bridge. In this case, not only has the Government not kept its promises, but it has done exactly the opposite of what it said, namely brought about a very large tax increase.
Madam Speaker, does this increase, especially in individual income tax and consumer taxes, do these increases of billions of dollars ... The 53 percent tax increase within a three-year period which I mentioned earlier means an increase of $22 billion, or nearly $1,000 for each man, woman, child and senior citizen in Canada. There are new taxes. If we consider the fact that a very large number of people, such as children, pay no taxes, it means that the Mulroney-Wilson Budgets of the Conservative Government will put an additional burden of nearly $2,000 on each Canadian family even though we had been promised lower taxes.
Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that the popularity of a Government which fails so flagrantly to keep its electoral commitments would fall to 22 percent in Canada as a whole. Only 22 percent of Canadians still have confidence in this Government, and the figure is as low as 18 percent in Quebec. This is not surprising since the Government has failed to keep all its commitments.
I said earlier that taxes had been increased even though the Government had said that this would not occur. What effect has this had on the budgetary deficit after three years of a Conservative Government since, according to the Conservatives, the deficit was to be their main priority after the elections? The 1986-1987 deficit keeps to practically the same level as in 1983-1984 when this Government came to power,
Borrowing Authority
that is for the last full year of the previous administration. After increasing taxes by $22 billion, they now come up with more or less the same level of deficit.
And looking now at the impact on the national debt, Madam Speaker, the debt increased to a level where at the end of the fiscal year under review in the estimates and the Budget Speech, this Tory Government will have added $10,000 to the debt burden of each Canadian man and woman, an absolute record for any Government over such a short period of time! In brief, not only did they not honour their commitments with regard to income tax, not only did they just about fail to alter the deficit to any extent, Madam Speaker, we are now coming to a situation where the national debt has increased from $16,000 to $26,000 because of this Tory Government's management.
Madam Speaker, with this legislation we are to all intents and purposes requested to approve a possible $30.9 billion in total borrowings. But, essentially, this Tory Government has succeeded in concealing part of its deficit. This they did in a tricky way in their dealings with businesses. You know how things go-businesses pay out wages and salaries, part of which they withhold for income tax purposes and hand over once a month to provincial and federal Governments. This Tory Government has now decided to go and get that money twice a month. And during the initial phasing-in period-the result will be the same-because once the system is onstream during the initial implementation year, 1987-1988, they will be getting $1.2 billion more over the fiscal year.
Of course, those $1.2 billion will add up to this Tory administration's actual deficit, which will then go up from $29.3 billion to $30.5 billion. Those are the facts. After three years of Tory administration, after an economic recovery that has been going on since 1983, after increasing taxes by $22 billion on the backs of Canadian taxpayers, they now have come up with a $30.5 billion deficit. And is that the last trick used to arrive at that deficit figure? No, there is yet another one. There is the $1.2 billion windfall. There is the deferral of a $200 million expenditure with regard to the Department of National Defence. Another tricky way of saying: We will spend those dollars but we will not pay them out-we will wait until next year. And this means they are adding to the deficit. This is another $200 million to be added to the deficit figure. And, finally, in the envelope-since they changed cash management methods with respect to the envelope for public assistance to development, they succeeded again in coming up with an artificial saving of $150 million for this year only. All this means, Madam Speaker, that without handling anything, simply by presenting figures on the same basis as in previous years-because clearly, changing the accounting basis alters the basis for comparison-the actual deficit for fiscal year 1987-88 amounts to $30.8 billion, even before making provision as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has himself stated for the ice-breaker that was announced with great fanfare by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) last week.

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
There is no provision nor estimates either for implementing the Prime Minister's commitment with respect to child care programs. There is no money either provided for the anti-drug action referred to by the Prime Minister and the Minister for social affairs in their speeches. There is no provision for that.
We have no reservation either against granting assistance to western farmers who in 1988 will probably face the same conditions as in 1987 with respect to wheat price and the Government had earmarked therefor $1 billion which means, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Finance and the Government are trying to tinker with the books. Actually, the 1987-88 deficit will exceed $29.3 billion and it already does as a result of tricks used by the Minister, but if we take into consideration all those commitments made since the Budget Speech for which no estimate has been provided, the deficit will be considerably higher. This is the reason why the Government was wise enough to cover up because when a Bill is introduced asking the House the authority to borrow, since the money can be used for almost any purpose and allotted to any department, the debate deals almost entirely with public administration. In order to avoid that, the Minister have resorted to a double dodge. He said: Since we are in March, today being March 9, we will earmark $3 billion for the period ending March 3l'
1987,	and another $3 billion as a reserve for up to the end of
1988.	This means that the Minister of Finance has arranged for some room to manoeuvre ranging between $3 and $5 billion so that he would be in a position to borrow further amounts without having to come back to the House and face another public debate and relevant questions. We have before us the first instalment, the first $3.6 billion which will be used to repay the loans made by the Minister of Finance to protect the Canadian dollar on the exchange market.
Madam Speaker, I wonder why a Government which would like to see the interest rates decrease-this is at least what the Minister has said, although he has maintained that there is no magic formula . . . Last year when the dollar was dropping I asked the Minister what he intented to do. He told us that he had no control over interest rates and the dollar value. In his Budget, he congratulated his Government for having succeeded in reducing interest rates. He cannot of course have his cake and it eat too and cannot say when conditions are bad that interest rates are controlled by the United States and that the markets are controlling the value of the Canadian dollar, and take credit when conditions are better. I think that the Minister would do well to correct his statements and remain consistent in his comments .
However, more recently it has been suggested that up to $3.6 billion should be borrowed to avoid an overvaluation of the Canadian dollar. Madam Speaker, there is now a gap in interest rates between Canada and the United States on 90-day Treasury Bills-or at least there was up to last week-end- of between 130 and 140 percentage points, that is to say, between 1.3 per cent and 1.4 per cent. I wonder if, instead of overcharging the loans, the policy of the Department of Finance should not be rather directed toward lowering interest
rates, in view of the fact that the Canadian dollar, under pressure from the market, is somewhat stronger. I wonder why the Government is artificially maintaining interest rates at that level, when it could easily reduce the gap by, say, as much as 50 percentage points, thereby making it possible for Canadian men and women to benefit from this situation, instead of fighting against foreign speculators who, under pressure from the United States for a devaluation of the American dollar, are taking refuge in Canada and buying Treasury bills and other Canadian securities because the funds available to them must be invested somewhere and I do not see why the Minister of Finance is so anxious to take these so-called speculators, to tax instead of allowing interest rates to go down a little as a result of the current gap. I imagine $3.6 billion amount being sought could have been lower. I have already mentioned of course with regard to the forecast deficit, the $3 billion reserve.
As I stated a while ago, Madam Speaker to reflect facts without decieving Canadian men and women the real deficit for fiscal year 1987-88, should have been estimated at $30,850 billion. But when we consider the other moves made by this Government, we realize that part of its deficit has been transferred to the provinces and municipalities in the following ways:
Let us begin with municipalities. Municipalities table their budget once a year, as we all know, and their budget must balance. By changing sales taxes, by widening the sales tax base to include components of asphalt and prestressed materials, concrete, etc., we have transferred to municipalities an additional charge which forces them to either curtail their services or raise their taxes. We have in fact transferred part of the deficit to municipalities by forcing them to pay to the Federal Government taxes which they did not pay before. Secondly, by also raising the tax on gasoline-an input which is of course used by public utilities, transport commissions, etc., bus and subway services-we have added to the financial burden of municipalities. The deficit has been shifted in part from the federal Government to the municipalities.
This is even truer and more striking in the case of provincial Governments. 1 have mentioned this before in the House, but 1 would simply like to recall the impact of the federal Government's decision to curtail transfer payments to finance health programs such as hospital insurance and medicare, as well as post-secondary education, a program so essential that it bears repeating and one which cannot be turned on and off like water from a tap. No act or ministerial decision can regulate the number of people who are ill or will suffer health problems in a province, whether in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick or British Columbia. Provincial autorities who are responsible for the administration of hospitals, health care and post-secondary education are faced with the urgent needs of users. At a time when provinces were making considerable efforts to control their expenditures, the federal Government decided proprio motu after offhandedly notifying the provinces of its decision,
March 9, 1987

to reduce by 2 per cent the growth rate of federal transfers for the funding of those programs. What it means is that, instead of sharing in the evolving growth of collective wealth, the Gross National Product, it was decided transfer payments would be geared to the Gross National Product less 2 per cent.
Madam Speaker, according to figures that are quite precise even though they are preliminary, that represents a deficit transfer from the federal to the provincial Governments of about $8 billion, give or take a few billions, in the next five years.
That amounts to $2 billion for the Province of Quebec and about the same for the Province of Ontario. The federal deficit has simply been shifted to the deficit of the provinces. Then they boast that financial positions have been substantially improved. Madam Speaker, if the financial statements of Canada were presented on a comparative and real basis, we would realize that after three or four years of economic recovery, after tax increases of billions of dollars, the deficit the federal Government made one of its top priorities after the election is at the same level if not higher than in the last full year of the Liberal administration.
Madam Speaker, this Government has transferred part of its deficit onto the provinces and their taxpayers, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. There is no exception, all Canadians provinces will have to share this loss of $8 billion. Maybe the Hon. Member disagrees with the decision made by his Government. He should say so. The figures agreed upon during the federal-provincial conferences on the subject show that between 1987 and 1991, that is the next five years, there will be a transfer of $8 billion. In other words, the federal Government will contribute $8 billion less to Medicare, hopital insurance and post-secondary education.
Who is going to pay? Are we going to forbid people from being sick? Are we going to deny a college or university education to our young people? Is that what we are going to do? Are we going to ask families to contribute more substantially to the cost of education in CEGEPs in Quebec, colleges in other provinces and universities? Unless the Government asks or forces the provinces to eliminate some services? That is-during the weekend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) was on a radio program, and I heard him say that he had no reason to believe that provinces should spend that much money. I hope he is the only one in his group to think that way and that Hon. Members from all provinces are aware of the importance of postsecondary education, aware of the importance of Hospital Insurance and Medicare, especially for an aging population, and will not echo this rubbish from the Parliamentary Secretary who says that Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces can merrily cut into the financing of their hospital insurance, Medicare and especially post-secondary education programs.
This Conservative Government has transferred part of the deficit to the provinces in order to reduce somewhat the debt and the borrowing it will have to do-without that the amount
Borrowing Authority
in Bill C-40 would be higher-and, now, the Ministers of Finance in Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces will have to go and borrow on the financial markets instead of this Minister.
But also there were drastic changes made in equalization payments. Madam Speaker, the equalization formula was changed in 1982. It is true. The purpose was to extend the base for arriving at the average for comparison purposes. And since in that equalization formula, agreed upon in 1982 by all provinces and the Government of Canada, there was a danger that the new formula would not bring about the same results as the former formula, the then Canadian Government had guaranteed that the payments made under the new formula would not be lower than those granted under the previous one. And as evidence of its good faith, the federal Government said: We will guarantee that for three years. Because it was felt at that time by everyone, the technicians included, and it was actually believed that that was going to happen. Unfortunately, the projections proved to be worse than had been foreseen, and after three years, a correction had to be made, because the guaranteeing formula had operated for three years and as it was coming to an end, a correction had to be made.
Madam Speaker, that correction was made. That is true. Except that, in usual Tory fashion, an injustice was produced that I have been denouncing in this House since the impact is known. The then Minister of State (Finance) had stated from her seat, speaking on behalf of the Government, that each province would receive in equalization payments at least 95 per cent of the money it had received the previous year. The additional money that were voted by this House ensured that all provinces got at least 95 per cent with one exception, Quebec. Why those double standards? Why did the Government refuse and still refuses to honour its promise and the commitment made in this House by the Minister of State (Finance)? Why impose on Quebec taxpayers alone the burden of levying or paying those $66 million that have increased to nearly $90 million?
Why that discrimination against one single province? Madam Speaker, if such commitment had been made by the Parliamentary Secretary or by a back-bencher it would be understandable, but it was actually made in this House by someone in the Government. We thus see that this Government not only reneges on its election commitments but then it does not even honour the commitments made in this House by a Minister answering from his seat on its behalf to a question put by the Opposition. If those commitments had been honoured and part of the deficit had not been transferred to the provincial Governments through the financing of established programs, if such firm commitments made to the provinces had been kept, we would see that the management of the public debt and the deficit by the Conservative Government is far less wonderful than what the Minister of Finance and other Government Members would like to have us believe in their comments inside and outside this House.

Borrowing Authority
Bill C-40 is an example of how the Government mismanages public funds. The Minister of Finance has used a number of tricks to camouflage part of his borrowing. He asks to borrow $3.6 billion for his operations in order to maintain the value of the Canadian dollar. He asks for another $24.3 billion for regular government operations. He asks for an additional $3 billion just in case.
I suppose the additional $3 billion for the end of the year could not cover the commitments made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) with respect to building an icebreaker, since there is nothing in the Estimates to finance even part of it. Will this additional $3 billion be used to finance the day care system announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last Monday? Or will it be used to cover the expenses of other programs which have been announced by different Ministers and for which there are no figures provided in the Estimates? If this is so, then the deficit for fiscal year 1987-88 will not be $29 billion but something closer to $34 billion. We know that the real deficit is higher than the one contained in the Budget Speech.
The Minister has used a number of tricks to hide certain expenses. We know that he transferred a part of the deficit to the provinces as a result of changes in the way the Established Program Financing arrangements are financed and also as a result of changes that have been made to the equalization formula by the Government.
We realize that the Government has not lived up to its promises. We heard members of the Government make a number of promises during the election campaign. In the House and outside the House we have heard the Minister of Finance say that he will never increase taxes. Yet we know that he has increased taxes by billions and billions of dollars. It is unbelievable that a Government can so openly deny all its commitments and then bring down a Bill such as this, which is similar to the one passed in 1985-86 and which will add thousands of dollars on to the shoulders of Canadians. That is the increase per worker in the national debt under the Tory Government.
These are good reasons for the Official Opposition to say that we intend to vote against the Bill. In doing so we will ask the Government to live up to its promises. The Government promised a certain number of things to Canadian taxpayers. We realize day after day that the promises are broken day after day. In voting against Bill C-40 we send an additional message to the Government to be responsible and to live up to its promises.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, i wish to participate in this debate on Bill C-40 more out of a sense of sorrow than out of a sense of anger, since it effectively continues some of the concerns which my Party has raised in the course of the debate on the Budget. I appreciate the courtesy of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) in
March 9, 1987
giving us some insight before the Bill was brought forward. We have had some discussions with him about the purposes of the Bill that was brought forward in terms of borrowing for the exchange fund and in meeting the Government's budget borrowing requirements as a consequence of the deficit forecast and the cash requirements of the 1987 Budget. I also appreciate that some self-interest was involved on the part of the Government because there is a deadline with respect to this Bill. Its passage is required by the end of the month, and the Minister was seeking to have some co-operation from opposition critics.
Co-operation does not necessarily mean support. We in the New Democratic Party remain concerned about the failure of the Government to take any meaningful action with respect to regional disparities in Canada in the course of the Budget. Of course, this borrowing Bill does not hit at that directly but it certainly hits at it indirectly. It speaks to a recipe for deficit reduction which people in my Party find uncomfortable and unacceptable to live with.
In terms of deficit reduction the Government's view seems to be that deficits can be reduced in two ways. Taxes can be increased, particularly those on individuals, and that has been done with a vengeance. Since the Government came to power revenues from personal and sales taxes have increased by more than 50 per cent at the same time that revenues from the corporate sector, in terms of taxation, have actually gone down. Taxes on individuals can be increased in order to combat the deficit, or programs can be cut back. The Government can cut back on its Canadian Jobs Strategy, for example, something which directly affects disadvantaged Canadians. These are people who are out of a job and who need assistance in getting back into the labour force or who need assistance in terms of obtaining training for the new skills that are required in the 1980s and the 1990s. The Government can cut back on spending in economic and regional development, as it has done with a vengeance since taking power. Or it can cut back on the programs of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, as it has also done since taking power.
In other words-

-the Government's economic policy for getting rid, of the deficit is either to increase taxes that affect us personally, such as sales tax, or cutting Government spending, and especially spending that affects individuals such as job creation, the Department of Employment and Immigration's job strategy and the regional industrial expansion programs in the Government's Budget.
That is their policy. However, Madam Speaker, there is no concern about the need for a full employment policy, the need for getting rid of the unemployment that unfortunately still exists in our country. The Budget offers nothing in this respect, and in fact, Bill C-40 merely reflects the Budget as far as unemployment is concerned in this country. In fact, the Government is saying we will have to accept the employment
March 9, 1987

situation, instead of setting goals for reducing unemployment, just as the Government sets goals every year to reduce the deficit.
Madam Speaker, I would like to quote from a speech given last Friday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) at the Macdonald-Cartier Club in Calgary, which was about the Government's policy, not just how it affects the West, but the Government's policy in general.
We know to what extent the vacuum in terms of leadership in the Government has allowed power to drift back into the Department of Finance. We also know what happened when the present Minister took over the Department of Finance two and a half years ago. He was one of the few Ministers to still be in the same position two and a half years after the Government came to power. He found a group of advisers who were, relatively speaking, of like mind with the Hon. Minister. They are increasingly taking charge of the Government.
You may recall, Madam Speaker, because you were a candidate in that election, how the Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised that there would be jobs, jobs, jobs immediately the Conservative Government came to power. For example, in the Province of Quebec there is still an unemployment rate of over 11 per cent in the city and region of Montreal, one of the two metropolises of our country.
After two and half years, that is not good enough, but that is the result that we have had from the Government, and from the policies put forward by the Minister of Finance. These policies reflect a wing of policy of his Party. 1 also believe that they reflect the views of the business community in Canada, and the traditional views which have been put forward by the Department of Finance for many years. At times they win, at times they lose. Now they are on a roll because of the disbandment by a Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, of the ministry responsible for economic development, because of disbanding and other efforts to balance the control and direction of economic policies within the Government, and because of the fact that the Department of Finance has therefore become much more powerful than it was two or three years ago.
In Calgary on Friday, in the conclusion to his speech to the Macdonald-Cartier Club, the Minister of Finance said this, "In my remarks today, I have stressed the fact that the government you elected," and "you" is underlined, "in September, 1984, has carried out your program," "your" is underlined, "your desires for fiscal rejuvenation", "your" is underlined, "your principles of a market-driven economy," "your" is underlined, "and your commitment to stimulating the private sector." "Your" is also underlined. I would challenge any Conservative, including Conservatives from Calgary, to tell me that there was a large group of unemployed Calgarians or Albertans who were in the hall of the Macdonald-Cartier Club when that meeting was held on Friday;
Borrowing Authority
that there were a great many single mothers who are on welfare; a large number of native people; a large number of handicapped people; a large number of poor people. Were they in that hall? No, they were not. The people who were in that hall were representatives of the business community in Alberta who came together to hear the Minister of Finance.
I recognize that a serious downturn has occurred in the Alberta economy because of changes in the energy sector. This has affected the business community, as well as other people in the population of the Province of Alberta. My Party has also recognized that in calling for specific action. My Leader has been calling for specific action to take the revenue from the increase in taxation on gasoline and use it for the small producers of oil and gas who have been shut out by the Government's policies of catering to the large producers and the multinationals, and not to the small producers.
What is interesting is the blatant, unabashed, and unashamed manner in which the Minister of Finance said to the representatives of the business community that we are following "your program, your desires for fiscal rejuvenation"-that means cut the deficit before other priorities-"your principles of a market-driven economy, and your commitment to stimulating the private sector".
Over the weekend I refreshed my memory of what has been occurring in politics over the last decade or so in terms of the dying years of the Trudeau Government in its first and second manifestations, the brief blip when the Conservatives were in power under the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), and now under the Government of the present Prime Minister. The point that was made in an excellent book which I recommend to all Members of Parliament, Ron Graham's book, One-Eyed Kings, is that there has been in the past something of an accommodation in terms of Government policy between accommodating the interests of the business elite in the country on the one hand, and also ensuring an adequate policy in terms of job creation, and in terms of a net of welfare services for average Canadians. That was followed under previous governments, often because of the efforts and pressures of the New Democratic Party.
A Government to stay in power, if it is one of the two old Parties, has probably no choice but to try to balance the needs of ordinary Canadians, and accommodate its friends in the business elite. I say quite bluntly that what has happened is that the policies that are reflected in Bill C-40, and are reflected in the Budget, are policies which are designed to accommodate the business elite and ignore the needs of ordinary Canadians. That is one of the reasons the Conservatives have fallen to the abysmal levels in terms of public esteem. It is not only that they violated public trust, although that is an extremely important factor, it is that they have violated the trust ofthe people in expecting the next Government of Canada to be implementing its promises of jobs, jobs, jobs in every region of Canada, and to be demonstrating fairness to every Canadian in terms of job creation and in

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
terms of the tax system. These are things which the Government has failed to do.
I wish to cite a few points made by the Minister of Finance in his speech, and then comment on them. In his speech to the business elite in Calgary, he said that he believed "we"- whoever that is-"share a common purpose-that is to restore the economic health throughout this country". Every Party talks about restoring economic health throughout this country. We, as a Party, believe that this is not a matter for rhetoric, it is a matter for action.
When you look at the fact that between January, 1986, and January, 1987, of the net creation of 137,000 jobs across Canada, all but 5,000 of those new jobs were in the Province of Ontario, mostly in southern Ontario, and there were only 5,000 new jobs created in net terms between Newfoundland on the East Coast and British Columbia on the West Coast, I ask what type of restoration of economic health does that amount to? The answer is damn little.
The Minister of Finance stated, and I quote:
I recognize that some regions in this country have not participated fully in the economic recovery, and that a good deal of the growth has been concentrated in other parts of Canada, besides Alberta.
The Minister of Finance euphemistically ignored the fact that today the unemployment rate in seven provinces in Canada is higher than it was at the height of the 1981-82 depression. It is higher in two provinces than it was in September of 1984 when the Conservatives came to power. There has been a certain amount of progress in most provinces since 1984. There has been some reduction in unemployment. But one has to ask if that reduction has been enough. 1 would certainly answer, as I think most Canadians would answer that it has definitely not been enough.
1 wish to cite some figures, and I do not wish to repeat my comments in the Budget debate, but in January of this year unemployment, on a seasonally-adjusted basis, rose again to 9.7 per cent from 9.4 per cent.
As we pointed out-

-in seven provinces, the unemployment rate today is higher than it was during the 1981-82 recession. If we consider two of our provinces, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was in September 1984. Madam Speaker, if we look at the situation in our major cities, we find the following: According to Statistics Canada, in January the unemployment rate was 15 per cent in Vancouver, the Expo '86 city; in Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, it was 14.6 per cent; in Edmonton, 12.5 per cent; in Saskatoon,
11.4 per cent; in Montreal, the metropolis of the Province of Quebec, the unemployment rate, according to the Parliamentary Secretary, was 11.4 per cent, while it was 10.3 per cent in Quebec City. In St. John's, Halifax and Saint John, unemployment was 10.8, 10.4 and 12.1 percent respectively.
Such is the difficult situation in our major cities, and you know quite well, Madam Speaker, that unemployment is often much higher in rural areas than in major cities.
If we compare this with the situation in Toronto, where the constituency of the Minister of Finance, Etobicoke, is located, we find an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent. I am well aware that there are unemployed workers in the Maritimes who spend two or three months working for the building industry in Toronto and that it is difficult to find workers in that city, where the situation approaches what could be called full employment. My son, who is 20 or 21 years old, now works in Toronto, where he has just found a job. It is not a very big job, but there are still jobs in the Toronto area.
However, saving Toronto and the economy of southern Ontario is not the same as saving the economy of the whole country. The Minister of Finance has said that the regions of this country have not participated fully in economic recovery and that much of the growth which has been concentrated in other regions of Canada has failed to occur in Alberta. He is speaking the truth since the major part of this growth has occurred in Ontario.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has said in his Calgary speech: "We, as national Government, must look at the problems in each region. And I can assure you that we are working and will continue to work night and day to guarantee that all Canadian men and women benefit from the economic resurgence in our country."
Madam Speaker, I have to ask: Where is the economic resurgence in Newfoundland? Where is the economic resurgence in Alberta? In British Columbia? It is not there.
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has also assured us that tax reform is on the fast track. This means that it is being prepared quickly, Madam Speaker. According to the Minister, his proposals will be published in the spring. He says that the Government wants to lower rates and to enlarge the tax base for personal and sales taxes and to reduce the number of tax categories.
However, Madam Speaker, the tone of the speech made by the Minister of Finance suggests that he now expects to achieve neutrality in terms of income, but only for personal and sales taxes. This means that there will be no transfer of the tax burden from individuals to corporations.
If we look at the situation in the United States, Madam Speaker, we find that Congress has just passed a tax reform project to transfer about $132 billion in taxes from individuals to corporations. What is the Minister of Finance saying? He says: "We know that unfair distortions remain in the corporate taxation system. We want to correct promptly-" Madam Speaker, the Government has been in power for two and a half years and it now promises changes and tax reforms although corporate taxes decreased since 1984. But I say that we want to correct promptly those distortions.
March 9, 1987

"Corporate tax rates", he says, "must be lowered to remain competitive in view of tax reforms taking place in the United States."
Madam Speaker, in the United States, taxes paid by corporations have increased by SI32 billion and here is our Minister of Finance saying that in spite of all the tax breaks given to corporations, their tax burden should not be increased at all and that corporate taxes will be lowered.
The Minister says that we will in effect eliminate some loopholes. That is a good thing. But we must also take into account the fact that corporate income tax has not increased at all, while personal income tax have gone up by 50 per cent.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the Minister said to journalists, before the Macdonald-Cartier Club in Calgary, probably answering a question about Petro-Canada: "We believe", he said, "that Petro-Canada has outlived its public policy purpose. Therefore the Government can now proceed to the sale of Petro-Canada."
Madam Speaker, a few Conservative Members agree to the privatization of Petro-Canada. As a New Democrat Member, I can say that the reasons for the purchase of Petro-Canada are still valid, that the Canadian people supported it when it was recommended-on whose suggestion? By a New Democrat under the minority Government of 1972-74. One of the reasons why New Democrats are now on an equal footing with Liberals in the Province of Quebec is because we, the NDP, recognize why Canadians wish to maintain Petro-Canada as a Crown corporation.
I am very concerned to hear Conservatives in the Flouse supporting the perhaps offhand comments made by the Minister of Finance in Calgary, suggesting that Petro-Canada no longer fulfilled any public policy role and therefore we could move ahead in order to sell it off. We think there is a public role. We think the Government should have directed Petro-Canada in the last two weeks not to go along with the increase in gasoline prices which was put into place by one of the multinational oil companies. We think-and Canadians think it as well-that one of the reasons for Petro-Canada is to have a window on the industry and to have a means by which to protect Canadians from being gouged at the petrol pumps by private multinational corporations. That was the situation which prevailed back in the 1970s. We feel-I think most Canadians feel it-we do not want to see a situation where we are once again held to ransom by privately owned oil companies if energy prices start to climb in a dizzying spiral, as they did at that time.
The Minister of Finance also talked about how he viewed the world. In speaking to a business audience-and there were certainly no poor people there-he said that the deregulation of industry in an approved climate to foster entrepreneurship and attract foreign investment and freer trade was part of the
Borrowing Authority
fundamental belief that the best economic decisions are those which are made in the market-place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Again Conservative Members are saying: "Hear, hear", as they listen to me quoting certain comments of the Minister of Finance.
The other day I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Finance why it was the Government, which has fallen over itself in order to try to attract foreign investment and show that Canada is "open for business again", in their words, had in fact done so badly. In 1985 and 1986 combined we had a net outflow of some $10 billion on job creating-the long term direct investment account. Direct investment by Canadians, Madam Speaker, accounted for a $10 billion outflow over those two years, $5.1 billion in 1985 and $4.8 billion in 1986.
What happened in terms of direct investment from foreigners? Direct investment by foreigners was up by $1.5 billion in 1986 but it had fallen by $2.5 billion the previous year. So over those two years Canada had a direct investment outflow, a disinvestment by foreigners of more than $1 billion. Yet the Finance Minister goes to Calgary and says "Look what a great job we are doing in attracting direct investment from foreigners". But he and the Government are doing a lousy job.
One of the miracles that was going to happen for the economy was that money would come flowing in in direct investment to help create jobs, particularly in the depressed regions of Canada, but that did not occur at all. In fact, the direct opposite occurred. American multinational corporations have been pulling investment out of Canada. We are seeing this even in the industrial heartland of Ontario. In the riding of my leader, Oshawa, in the chocolate factory, which has employed 400 people, a rationalization is taking place. Is it the Roundtree plant that is closing, it has been taken over by Cadbury's-perhaps it is the other way around-


Mr. Stewart:: Try Nielsens.


Michael Morris Cassidy: -but 400 jobs will be discontinued.
In the riding of Lakeshore represented by an able Conservative Member more than 1,000 jobs at the Good Year Tire plant are disappearing. Why? Not because the plant is not profitable but because the company is pulling manufacturing out of Canada for a year or two. The company wants to break the union despite the co-operation the union has given to make the plant more profitable. I have been there and those jobs are being sacrificed on what used to be called a kind of cross of gold. Now it is a cross of paper entrepreneurship. The U.S. parent company in an effort to fend off a buy-out by a British corporate raider borrowed very heavily to prevent the company from being taken over so as to protect management's prerogatives. As soon as that had been done, what happened? The U.S. parent company embarked on a cost-cutting exercise

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
which is leading to 1,000 or more jobs being cut. Those jobs in the industrial heartland are continuing to disappear, even in areas with relatively high employment. In other words, disinvestment rather than investment is taking place. We were promised the opposite.
What about the Canadian corporate sector? Our fundamental belief is that the best economic decisions are those made in the market-place. That is what the Minister of Finance says. What forecast is he making about the economic decisions that will be made in the market-place by Canadian business in 1987? He says there will be a real increase of only 1.5 per cent in business investment over the course of this next year. That is simply not enough in order to provide the job creation we need, the creation of jobs in the small business as well as the big business sector. We need the ability to remain competitive.
As well, one assumes there will be a continuation of Canadian direct investment in large sums into the United States and abroad. Instead of investing in Canada, which could be taking the jobless rate down and creating employment, Canadian business does not have the confidence of the Finance Minister's convictions to the point that it is prepared to invest here. The consequence, of course, is a situation of continued economic recession in most regions of Canada. But do we deserve it? If you look at the favourable treatment given to big business, the answer is no. We have given enormous concessions to big business over the course of that period of time. We have given tax concessions and tax cuts.
When talking about the deficit there continues to be an enormous overhang of tax losses and other deductions of which business has not yet even taken advantage, commenced under the Liberals in 1983. They passed rules which allow for an extension to seven years of tax loss carry-forwards and of investment credit tax carry-forwards. This Government inherited a situation where those carry-forwards were worth about $13 billion or $14 billion. Now they are worth double that. If the Government intended and wished genuinely to bring the deficit down, it could and should be acting in order to eliminate some of those carry-forwards to ensure that business pays a fair share. The Government would not have opened up new loopholes, such as the $500,000 tax concession to people on high incomes.
I asked the Minister of Finance about the situation and whether or not he was happy with the high unemployment rate. He shed crocodile tears in the Committee on Finance last week. He said, "Look, I am not happy with the 9.7 per cent unemployment rate, but it is better than 11.7 per cent. Aren't we doing wonderfully because Canada's growth rate has been higher than the other OECD countries". It is good that our growth rate has been higher because we have to run very fast just to stand still in Canada. When we still have 1.25 million Canadians who are out of work, we are doing not much more than standing still. The forecasts that come from the OECD, from the private sector forecasting groups and from our own economic council which indicate that we will have unemployment of more than 9 per cent into the 1990s and that we will
continue to have 1.25 million Canadians unemployed in perpetuity, make me unhappy as well. I would be more than unhappy than the Minister of Finance.
Canada needs a policy of full employment in which we make a commitment to bring down unemployment year by year to a level which is tolerable and sustainable. What is that level? It used to be 3 per cent, Madam Speaker. I note that in Japan the unemployment rate has risen above 3 per cent for the first time in 20 years. Perhaps we cannot do as well as the Japanese have been able to do but, nonetheless, if you look at the country and the hidden rates of unemployment they are a lot worse. If the participation rate of workers in Newfoundland was as high as it is in Ontario and if there were only the number of jobs that there are there today, we would have an unemployment rate in Newfoundland not of 18 per cent or 19 per cent but of 36 per cent or 37 per cent. More than one-third of the active population seeking to be in the labour force would be unemployed. Many women, older workers and youths are simply not counted as being in the labour force in that province because the situation of finding jobs is so bad.
We have to run faster just to stand still. In other OECD countries they have stable populations or a declining populations. We still have an increasing population because of immigration and fertility rates. We have a more rapidly growing population than the United States. It is almost automatic that we have to have a higher rate of job creation in Canada than in any other OECD country. The question is not how do we do compared to West Germany, Greece, Spain or the United Kingdom, but how are we doing in relation to what we need to do here in Canada? We are doing well enough.
I have a few other comments about the priority Canadians put on the deficit as opposed to action to reduce unemployment and to create jobs, which is a major and unused way of reducing the deficit. According to the Decima poll on the attitudes of Canadians relative to the deficit which was reluctantly made public by the Finance Department a few days ago, people in Canada still expect the Government to be responsible for the country's economy. The proposition put by focus groups was, "Even though we've got to rely more on the Canadian business sector for economic growth, I still expect the Government to oversee and manage the country's economy". Eight-eight per cent of the people polled by Decima agreed with that statement and only 12 per cent disagreed.
When people were asked back in 1985 what they felt was the most serious long-term threat in terms of economic problems, 44 per cent polled said unemployment and 28 per cent said the deficit. When they were asked what the federal Government was most concerned with, 26 per cent said that the federal Government was most concerned with the deficit and 28 per cent said it was most concerned with unemployment. Then those polled were asked what the federal Government should be most concerned with. Two-thirds of the
March 9, 1987

respondents said that the Government should be most concerned with unemployment and only 19 per cent said the deficit. Things have not changed very much since that time. The Government continues to put deficit fighting at the top of its priority list as reflected by Bill C-40 and the Budget, while Canadians continue to be most concerned with unemployment.
The comment I made a few moments ago about the needs, priorities and perceptions of Canada's elite versus the needs, priorities and perceptions of ordinary people across Canada is,
I believe, well taken. Perhaps the elite who speak to the Minister of Finance are concerned about the deficit. However,
I must say that ordinary Canadians are much more concerned about unemployment and about what will happen to them. That is what we have to see the Government take action on over the course of the next two years and beyond.
I would like to say a final word in regard to the tax system. As I said earlier, I was disappointed to hear the Minister of Finance indicate in Calgary that he believes that there should be tax neutrality and, therefore, no transfer of tax burdens between individuals and corporations, and that he will put back on to individuals every penny they save on income tax by means of the business transfer tax. I suspect that that means among other things that he will tax food with a business transfer tax and ordinary Canadians will be given a minuscule tax credit to compensate for this major new tax on a necessity of life.
We have pointed out again and again to the Government, confirmed by the Government's own figures, that some 80,000 companies across Canada are profitable each year but do not pay corporate tax. The Government told us a few months ago that 12,000 of those corporations are paying taxes and that the Government is making some progress on that. However, when we asked the Minister of State for Finance for the figures, we found that the figures were somehow obtainable by him to make rebuttals in the House of Commons but were not accessible to members of the Opposition.
We have estimated that corporate tax breaks are now costing the federal Government some $10 billion per year in forgone revenue. Some of that money might go back into the corporate sector for job-creation programs, but that $10 billion suggests that corporations may only be paying half of their way in terms of income tax. When we talk about the need for action, job creation and regional development and the vital need for a national program of day care, we are lectured constantly about the deficit. I would suggest to the Government that it is about time it looked in the mirror to see how much revenue is being lost because of the tax system and how much could be gained.
I would like to suggest a few principles of tax reform that I think should guide the Government. We believe and recommend to the Minister and the Government that there should be a shift to direct taxes and that we should be seeking to raise revenue primarily through the direct taxation of individuals and corporate incomes rather than through indirect sales, consumption or payroll taxes which are not geared to ability to
Borrowing Authority
pay. We think income should be taxed equally, regardless of how it is earned, and that the current bias in favour of investment and property income as opposed to wage and salary income should be eliminated. We believe it is necessary to cut corporate tax breaks and to restore a fairer balance in the tax system between individuals and corporations through such things as a minimum tax on corporations and the elimination of the transferability of dividend incomes between corporations without tax. We think that incomes taxes should be progressive so that they rise as people's ability to pay rises in order to help redistribute income from wealthy and average-income to low-income Canadians. We think the tax system needs to be simplified so that it is as clear, simple and intelligible as possible. This will help restore public co-operation and trust. We believe the Budget should have accounted for tax expenditures which now come to some $30 billion per year because that is every bit as much a loss to revenue as payments by the Government. We believe that taxes on ordinary Canadians should be cut.
Those are some principles that I commend to the Government and the country. I suggest that if those principles were put in place, and if we were to have tax reform now, we could take a major step toward fairness as well as bring the deficit down, while at the same time achieve the goals of economic growth in every region of Canada.
[ Translation]


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, although we have been here for a few years now we find it very difficult to follow the essential points of the debates because the Opposition is bent on steering the debates towards something else. Today the debate has to do with additional borrowing authority, yet they are campaigning on the Budget. Well, Members of the Opposition-official and unofficial alike-are welcome to debate the Budget, we are prepared to accommodate them. However, on behalf of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin), 1 will explain the technical provisions of the Bill now under consideration by the House.
So if I may I should like to give some explanations concerning the technical aspects of the Bill and the reasons why this borrowing authority is being sought. The largest amount is $24.3 billion in borrowing authority requested for the next fiscal year, 1987-88, as set out in Part II of the Bill. I will discuss that in more detail later in my remarks. First, however, I would like to deal with the circumstances underlying the request in the Bill for supplementary borrowing authority in the current fiscal year which ends March 31.
Part I, Clause 2(1), seeks supplementary borrowing authority for 1986-87 of $3.6 billion. This amount is equal to the amount of borrowing authority that has already been used to acquire U.S. dollar reserves during the period from April 1, 1986, to January 31, 1987. While the Government does have a non-lapsing reserve of $2 billion carried forward from borrowing authority legislation in 1984-85, this reserve is not sufficient. The Government, therefore, is seeking an additional

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
borrowing power of $3.6 billion in order to replenish its $2 million reserve and to get the necessary room to manoeuvre in order to react on the exchange markets and face any situation which might arise before the end of the current fiscal year. Let Chicago speculators be warned that Canada is ready to face the music.
Clause 2(2) of this Bill provides for the cancellation on March 31, 1987, of all borrowing authority conferred by this clause that remains unused in the fiscal year 1986-87, (in other words, to eliminate all the other previous borrowing authorities replacing them with a new one) to the extent that the unused authority exceeds the amount authorized pursuant to Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act between February 18, 1987, and April 1, 1987. In other words, the unused portion of the temporary borrowing authorities are now expired and replaced by the provisions of this Bill.
Hon. Members are well aware that under Section 39, the Governor in Council may authorize a borrowing power when it is felt that there will not be enough reserve in the Consolidated Revenue Fund to make the necessary payments. The idea is to improve the Government's cash-flow. This action is designed for a short term, temporary use only. The term of the loan may not exceed six months and each borrowing requires the approval of the Governor in Council.
As a rule the financial requirements are high during the first quarter of a new fiscal year, especially in April when they exceed the financial requirements which can be met with a borrowing operation in that one-month period. Thus, the year-end cash balance at this period of the year will have to be built up to help meet the very heavy seasonal requirements, and this will be done on a temporary basis through short term borrowings under Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act.
On February 26 of this year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced that authority under Section 39 was being used to provide for a net increase of up to $600 million in Treasury bill borrowings this week. The funds borrowed under that section cannot be rolled over in the regular way, as under Section 38 and will require new borrowing authority. This Bill, therefore, provides for borrowing authority to the extent it equals money borrowed under Section 39 in 1986-87 to be carried over into 1987-88 to roll over the maturing debt issued to build up cash balances in the current fiscal year.
Madam Speaker, the Government is seeking this additional borrowing authority because of the impact the recent volatility on the exchange markets have had on the borrowing operations of the State. The steps we have taken to maintain an orderly exchange market in the face of upward pressures on the value of the Canadian dollar during January and February of this year have resulted in a subtantial increase in Canada's international official reserves. Domestic borrowing was therefore increased to obtain Canadian dollars to finance this increase in reserves, so that we lack enough borrowing power to facilitate additional borrowings.
The Government, therefore, found it necessary to use Section 39 of the Financial Administration Act to continue its debt operation. I should note that Section 39 was used in similar circumstances early in 1983 and 1985.
If I may. Madam Speaker, 1 should like to deal now with the borrowing authority we will need for the next fiscal year. Part II of the Bill provides for a $24.3 billion in borrowing authority for the Fiscal year 1987-88. This amount corresponds to the $21.3 billion financial requirements provided for in the estimates, plus a non-expiry reserve of $3 billion for contingency purposes, including a new accumulation of official reserves for the fiscal year 1987-88.
In the light of recent exchange market, developments, the $3 billion reserve amount being sought is adequate. In the month of January alone, about $2.5 billion in borrowing authority was used as a result of exchange market operations. The proposed reserve of $3 billion will give the Government the necessary flexibility to make it possible to rebuild its cash flow, in order to face all the contingencies of the volatility of the Chicago Market which, according to the Minister of Finance, cannot direct the financial future of our country.
Let me conclude, Madam Speaker, by stating that the borrowing authority requested in this Bill is reasonable in the circumstances. The added flexibility we are seeking is not exaggerated, and it allows us to cope with sudden large demands for funds and to moderate exchange market fluctuations, and it is undoubtedly a prudent measure in light of the present volatility of the exchange markets, whether it is spontaneous or speculative. The authority my Government is seeking to cover the next fiscal year's financial requirements reflects the Government's ongoing policy to bring about steady and substantial reductions year by year in the federal budget deficit, in compliance with the November 1984 Economic Statement and with the 1986 Budget and the new 1987 Budget.
As clearly stated by the Minister of Finance since our Government has been in power, in 1984, we are committed to take the lead to fiscal responsibility and we refuse to choose the easy solution of the cheque without funds which will be paid later, say by the next generation. In the context of this policy, I therefore ask this House to pass this Bill as quickly as possible.


Mr. Garneau:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke if he agrees with the Government's decisions to reduce financial and fiscal transfer payments under established programs financing for health services, hospital insurance, health insurance and post-secondary education, which means that the provinces will have to provide a far greater share of the financing from their own resources. In other words, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he agrees with a decision made by the Conservative Government to transfer part of its deficit to the provinces.
March 9, 1987


Claude Lanthier: Madam Speaker, I think it is high time we set the record straight. I would like to know on what grounds they are talking about a reduction. After all, it is common knowledge that without being under any obligation to do so, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) already answered the question in a very positive way when he stated that last spring, the Progressive Conservative Government authorized payment of an additional $110 million to the Government of Quebec alone. So there is an increase, not a reduction.
When they say that we are shipping the deficit out to the provinces, Madam Speaker, that is just not true. I remember when 1 was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I attended a number of meetings in preparation for the consultations with the provinces to find a new formula for transfer and equalization payments. The Government will very shortly be introducing a Bill to enact the new equalization formula. Meanwhile, our Minister of Finance, always acting on the principle that we must transfer as much as possible to those who need it most, and to do so, stop giving to those who do not need it at all, our Minister of Finance was able to find $110 million to transfer to Quebec alone. I wonder about all this talk of cutting equalization payments and shipping out responsibilities when the Canadian Government transferred $110 million more to the Quebec Government alone.
Madam Speaker, I certainly do not agree that the Minister of Finance has been acting as suggested by the financial critic of the Opposition. Of course 1 understand the present policy being followed by federal Liberals from Quebec, who are hanging on to the provincial Liberals' coat-tails to strengthen their claims, because the federal Liberals from Quebec are like losers trying to get on the bandwagon with the winning team. Madam Speaker, if that is the case, it isn't going to work. I think the Hon. Member should find some other subject, because today, there have been no cuts and in fact our Government has increased payments, without being under any obligation to do so. And I am referring to those additional payments that were made to the Province of Quebec.


Ms. McDonald:: Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary
Secretary raised the matter of the Government intending to reduce the deficit. Can he define the term "deficit reduction"? Would it not be better to admit that the deficit is going up? We have a large accumulated deficit and when you add $32 billion or $30 billion or $29.7 billion, or however many billion you add to it each year, the deficit is still increasing. At the very most the Government should say it is going to increase the deficit by a slightly smaller amount than it did last year.
Would he also not agree that deficits since 1984 have been larger than the deficits in the Trudeau years? The Member can compare them year by year or take an average, whichever he prefers. However, they are in fact larger. We are hearing a
lot of rhetoric about deficit reduction but the deficit is not going down, it is going up.
Finally, would the Member not agree that the great deficit slasher in Canadian history is Tommy Douglas? When he was Premier of the Province of Saskatchewan they actually reduced the deficit. Year by year, over a 20-year period the deficit, which had been accumulated under Liberal management in Saskatchewan, actually went down. That is what Canadians understand by deficit reduction. The present Government is actually still increasing the deficit.


Claude Lanthier: Madam Speaker, I think there is confusion concerning the terms.

We must differentiate between debt and deficit. Debt is a longterm accumulation of deficits, but the deficit is annual.

According to the question here, the deficit is reduced. It has been declining steadily ever since we took office in 1984. Every year we try even harder not only to reduce it, but even if we maintain it we will reduce it as a result of the diminishing value of the dollar due to inflation. But not only that, we reduce it every year. Even so it is important to say today that we are adding to the debt. But according to the long term program set forth by the Minister of Finance, by 1990-91 we will have gained control over the annual deficit and then we will be in a position to come to grips with the national debt. Of course we must avoid confusing the two words debt and deficit. As we said, the deficit has gone down and I believe the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State (Finance) are aware that the deficit is carried over from year to year; the national debt will go up, but the deficit declines every year, we are holding it in check and will soon gain control over it. Indeed private enterprise and financial sectors have shown confidence in our financial policy by increasing their investments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When debate is resumed there will be three more minutes for the period of questions and comments following the remarks of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). For the time being, it being 1.23 p.m. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.23 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1987

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on September 6, 1984, a young Ottawa woman was the victim of an odious and indescribable sexual assault.
After consuming alcohol in a bar, the young woman went to the apartment of a friend of the eventual assaulter. There, the young woman lost consciousness and the two men raped her, shaved her and introduced beer bottles and other objects in her vagina. In addition, they videotaped their horrible acts.
These two men, who had a criminal record, pleaded guilty not of rape, but of gross indecency and were condemned only to 18 months each in prison.
Mr. Speaker, this was not an act of gross indecency, but a criminal act, nothing less than a rape. The judge in the case said that the victim had given her consent to the incident since the plaintiff had consumed alcohol and had gone voluntarily to the apartment. In addition, the fact that she was unconscious made the act less serious. How can there be any talk of consent in such circumstances? The young woman was unconscious and had never imagined such an aggression possible. To speak of consent reduces the impact of horror and the seriousness of this assault. To identify such an attack with gross indecency instead of sexual assault minimizes the appearance of seriousness.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Department of Justice, the Canadian Bar Association and all judicial bodies in Canada to hold retraining classes for judges to give them a different approach and different attitudes when confronted with cases of sexual assault.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I and the residents of Moose Jaw were horrified and outraged to learn that a man convicted of kidnapping a young boy and threatening the child's life is eligible for parole only 10 months after receiving a five-year sentence for his horrendous crime.
The sentence was already too lenient, as any compassionate and reasonable person will conclude after reading the frightening details of the crime conveyed by The Globe and Mail last February 27. Now he is eligible for parole only 10 months after a premeditated, calculated kidnapping of a young boy. This young boy was drugged, bound, and forced to kneel in a car and taken over 1,000 kilometres from his home before the
kidnapper, a paedophile, was caught by an alert and courageous Ontario Provincial Police officer.
Parole only ten months after sentencing? The kidnapper had already assaulted a 15 year-old boy, a 13 year-old boy, two boys aged 12, and another aged seven. Five children were assaulted before he lured the boy from Moose Jaw into his car. Surely justice demands and the public deserves to see less leniency in this case.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 1985, RCMP raided the Duncan Sikh Temple as part of the investigation into the explosion at Narita Airport in Japan and the loss of Air India Flight 182, both on June 23, 1985.
Although the raid found no evidence for the investigation, it did violate the sacred space of the Sikh people and placed the entire Sikh community under suspicion.
Given the central place of religious freedom in the Canadian Constitution, the police should have had extremely well-founded reasons to believe such a raid would produce important evidence.
Last year I asked what reasons existed to justify the raid but was told that the information to obtain a search warrant was sealed until January 13, 1987. This has been extended to June 1, 1987.
In the interest of religious freedom and fairness to the Sikh community, I call on the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to unseal this information.

[ Translation]


ABORIGINALS
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government and all Canadians I extend congratulations to the Quebec Great Cree Council for having been designated a nongovernmental organization by the Social and Economic Council of the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
The status granted the James Bay Crees is particularly significant because this is the first time a Canadian native people group has been recognized as such by the United Nations.
March 9, 1987

As a result of the adoption of the Cree-Naskapi Act in 1984, the Crees found ways to set up the kind of local government which they chose and which respects the spirit and the letter of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
I particularly want to commend Great Chief Ted Moses and his assistant Matthew Coon Come for the effort before the Social and Economic Council of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. I am convinced that the Crees will use their new status to promote the well-being of their people and of other native people in Canada and elsewhere in the world.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, next September Canada will host an international conference in Montreal to complete negotiations and, hopefully, to sign an international treaty to control the release of chlorofluorocar-bons and other substances that damage the ozone layer. Canada has been a leader in the search for a solution to this global problem, and we welcome the initiative.
Chlorofluorocarbons are used to propel aerosol sprays, manufacture foam plastics, and operate refrigerators and air conditioners. When released into the atmosphere chlorofluorocarbons are broken down. The chlorine released damages the ozone layer, allowing more ultraviolet radiation to reach the ground. Increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation would increase the incidence of skin cancer, slow the human body's immunological response, and reduce the productivity of some of the world's most important food crops, including wheat, rice, corn and soybeans.
Problems with such far-reaching implications for the entire world require co-operation on a global scale. Hopefully, we have a model here for the solution of complex international environmental issues in the future.


AEROSPACE INDUSTRY
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, the many involvements of the Conservative Government in the aerospace industry in the Montreal area have created a rather unusual situation, that is a shortage of specialized manpower. Thus,
according to the director of the National Aerotechnical School in Saint-Hubert, in the riding of Chambly, job opportunities are excellent in that sector. Thanks to the efforts of our Government, students who are being trained for the aerospace sector and are registering at the National Aerotechnical School are now sure of a job, and some of the companies are even hiring them before they complete their schooling.
Our Governement has given the aerospace industry in Quebec a new impetus taking part in many projects involving companies such as Pratt & Whitney, Canadair, Spar Aerospace, CAE Electronique and several others. Statistics clearly indicate the development of manpower in that sector since our coming into power in 1984. Close to 4,000 new jobs have been created in 1985 and 1986 while the Centre for Aerospace Manpower Adjustment in Quebec expects the creation of some 3,000 new jobs between now and the year 1990.
Mr. Speaker, our Government is honouring its promises, especially in the Montreal area and in the riding of Chambly, so much so that our area will be seen as the turntable for the Canadian aerospace industry in creating jobs and giving confidence to our younger people. This is what the Conservative Government is all about, Mr. Speaker.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, a national poll commissioned by the Inuit Committee on National Issues and conducted by Decima Research between February 17 and 20 of this year reveals majority support for aboriginal selfgovernment and its constitutional protection from every region of Canada. Some 84 per cent of Canadians want the federal and provincial Governments to come to an agreement on aboriginal self-government. Some 77 per cent of Canadians want that right entrenched in the Constitution. In just 17 days that final and unique opportunity presents itself at the Constitutional Conference here in Ottawa.
While the majority of Canadians want action, the process is blocked by the Liberal Premier of Ontario, along with his Conservative and Socred allies in Saskatchewan, Alberta, and B.C. Even here in Ottawa the largest majority Government in Canadian history led by a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from Quebec refuses to produce its written position on aboriginal self-government. Last week the Prime Minister refused to meet with the Metis. Today he refused to address the National Assembly of First Nations just down the street.
On March 26 Canadians expect Canada and the provinces to recognize and entrench aboriginal self-government.

March 9, 1987
5. O. 21 REFUGEES


SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I commend our two Ministers responsible for employment and immigration for the measures they took to make it possible for Canada to continue to help genuine refugees who need our protection by attacking and deterring abuse of the refugee determination process.
These measures reflect the Government's commitment to provide genuine refugees with protection. However, to do so, we must prevent the refugee system from being undermined by abuse by phoney refugee claimants.
Canada has a long and honourable tradition of refugee and humanitarian assistance. Since the Second World War some 500,000 refugees have found new homes in Canada, and special humanitarian measures have helped thousands of other people. When the size of our population is taken into account, our record of aid to refugees in recent years is second to none.
I commend the Government for these actions which made it possible for Canada to gain control again over our borders.
I also commend the thousands of immigration counsellors for their dedicated and excellent service in the face of recent increased pressures placed upon them by so many illegal and bogus refugee claimants and queue jumpers.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Union's carefully timed release this year of a few prominent refuseniks and prisoners of conscience seems to be part of the Kremlin's effort to paint itself as humane. Given the abysmally slow pace of current Soviet-Jewish immigration, this individual case-by-case approach is a smoke-screen behind which the Soviet Government continues the brutal repression of its Jewish citizens, particularly the 400,000 who have indicated their wish to join their families around the world.
On March 8, International Women's Day, a brave group of Jewish women in the Soviet Union began a three-day hunger strike, a desperate act of last resort to bring their message to the world. I wish to quote part of their statement:
Many years have gone by since we first applied for permission to emigrate. Since that time we have been ousted from the social and communal life of Soviet society into the murky waters of the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist propaganda campaign. Almost all of us, and our husbands, are deprived of the right to work in our professional fields. We have suffered from acts of harassment, yet we've never violated law and order. Our efforts to bring up our children and educate them in the spirit of Jewish national traditions have been utterly defeated.
Have we no right to re-unite with our own people? Are we serfs of the state? Save us and our children!


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, just where does the Liberal Party stand on Cruise missile testing?
In January the National Liberal Convention passed a resolution calling for a ban on Cruise tests. Last Friday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said that Cruise testing should continue. The same day the Liberal caucus agreed on an immediate end to testing. But the caucus chairman said that was not the end of the issue. Today we read that at least one Liberal Member of Parliament will vote against his Leader on this issue. Now the Liberal caucus chairman says that he does not know how the Liberal Members of Parliament will vote.
That is only one issue. Where do they stand on trade negotiations with the United States? Where do they stand on deficit reduction? Where do they stand on cutting government expenditures?
In 1984 the Leader of the Opposition, the then Prime Minister, had a choice and he could not make it. When Canadians take a close look today, they will find that nothing has changed.


FISHERIES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, senior staff members of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans insist that there are no cut-backs in scientific programs as a result of restructuring and down-sizing at the Maritime Ecology Laboratory located at the Bedford Institute of Technology in Nova Scotia.
The Maritime Ecology Laboratory is comprised of an excellent mix of researchers, chemists, biologists, and physical oceanographers who are recognized as world class leaders in marine ecology. Their research has gained international respect. In addition, these scientists provide expertise for university professors and students, as well as private industry and the military. The Maritime Ecology Laboratory has been doing significant research in marine food chains, and the effects of long-term climate changes on the fishery. The dismantling of this laboratory by transferring key scientists to other regions of Canada will destroy our reputation for excellence in marine ecology, and curtail basic research in this important area of study.
March 9, 1987


TARIFFS
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, on March 6, 1987, the Canadian Import Tribunal determined that subsidized grain corn from the United States is causing material injury to the domestic grain corn industry in Canada. As a result, the Government introduced a countervailing duty on imports of grain corn from the United States.
Once again the Government of Canada has shown its appreciation and understanding of the unique circumstances that exist in the various regions of this country. In response to the concerns voiced by residents of British Columbia, we have acted on their behalf to ensure that this tariff does not apply to corn imported for consumption in British Columbia. In taking this action, British Columbia consumers are protected from a potential increase in the price of corn and the undue hardship it would cause.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and our Government are committed to treating every region of the country with respect and equality. This is living proof of the Prime Minister looking after the regions of the country.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, employees of Correctional Service Canada, particularly guards and other personnel working directly with inmates, have jobs which are very stressful and sometimes dangerous.
For more than 10 years these employees have been promised the same opportunities for early retirement as members of the Armed Forces, members of the RCMP, and air-traffic controllers, that is, the privilege to retire after 25 years of service if they so desire.
There is no doubt that the stress on correctional employees is as great or greater than on the peacetime army or the RCMP. We call upon the Government to proceed with this long promised privilege of early retirement, if employees wish to take advantage of the opportunity.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the mixed signals which cabinet Ministers are giving about the future of Petro-Canada. Canadians are witnessing shades of 1979. Last Friday in Calgary the Minister of Finance said: "I don't believe that Petro-Canada has any public policy role". This morning in St. John's, Newfoundland, the Minister of Transport, accompanied by the Minister of Energy, announced more exploration on Canada's East Coast and said:
Contrary to recent statements in the press, Petro-Canada has been and will continue to be a strong, positive force in the development of oil and gas activities in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I ask the Prime Minister to which of the views of his two senior Ministers does he subscribe? Can he tell us plainly whether or not Petro-Canada is for sale?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no inconsistency between the statements of the Ministers at all. The Minister of Finance was reported in the following way: "Mr. Wilson told his audience that there are no immediate plans to sell the oil company and he said the Government has not received any bids from firms willing to buy it. But he did say the matter is being looked at by the Minister of State for Privatization, Barbara McDougall". It seems to me that that is an entirely consistent position. The Government is going to examine assets of this nature and ascertain if they continue to play an appropriate role in public policy, and we will make a determination as we have in other cases.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Only this particular Prime Minister could find those two statements consistent, and that speaks volumes for itself.


DEVELOPMENT OF TERRA NOVA OILFIELD
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders, and I know all Canadians, welcome any news of activity off Canada's East Coast. What we do not welcome, however, is an announcement this morning in Newfoundland of Petro-Canada's intentions for the Terra Nova oilfield for 1991, coupled with statements by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of State for Privatization suggesting that Petro-Canada may not be around long enough to keep its commitments. Can the Prime Minister give the people of Canada, particularly the people of Newfoundland, an assurance today that the development intentions announced this morning by Petro-Canada for the Terra Nova oilfield will be carried out because Petro-Canada will be around long enough to ensure that they happen? Can he give us that assurance?
3950

March 9, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, will Petro-Canada be around? Well of course it will be around. Will it always be around in exactly the same configuration as today? That is a matter for the House to decide. Will it continue to serve Canada? Absolutely. I think my hon. friend would agree in retrospect that de Havilland having been privatized, for example, is giving great service to Canada and more jobs, as is Canadair in Montreal. These are perfect illustrations of where the Opposition opposed something which has now brought on new growth and prosperity.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Prime Minister's privatization mania would put Canadians back on their knees before OPEC; that is what it would do. The Government has abandoned security of supply for the country and has abandoned any attempt to use Petro-Canada as a means of ensuring a fair price for Canadian consumers at the gas pumps.


REQUEST THAT CORPORATION NOT BE SOLD
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, since the Government has absolutely no mandate, none whatsoever, from Canadians to sell Petro-Canada, will the Prime Minister give the House a commitment today that no such initiative will be taken until he has had a chance to bring this matter before the people of Canada in an election?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we campaigned very vigorously on raising the question of privatization and making the determination as to what instruments serve the national policy. I said clearly that we did not want companies financed by public money doing jobs that should be done by the private sector.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberal Party will have to make up its mind. Is it a traditional Liberal Party of St. Laurent and King, or is it the Liberal Party of Broadbent and the rest of them?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CRUDE OIL PURCHASES-NOVA SCOTIA BOARD'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Petro-Canada has told the Public Utilities Board of Nova Scotia that it may have to pull out of Nova Scotia if it is forced to disclose information on crude oil purchases publicly, as requested by the Public Utilities Board. Instead of trying to destroy public confidence in Petro-Canada, why doesn't the Government follow the recommendation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and use Petro-Canada's potential to help formulate orderly and good competitive practices in the industry?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada's mandate is defined in a piece of legislation adopted by this Parliament, which clearly indicates that Petro-Canada's activities and commercial standards should be acceptable to the business community of this country as a whole. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources cannot interfere in its daily activities, which is Petro-Canada's responsibility according to Parliament's decision on a bill introduced by the Liberal party when it was in power.
As a matter of fact, contrary to what a Liberal Party leader indicated in Toronto over the week-end, it is not Petro-Canada's duty and responsibility to get involved in the gasoline price issue in Canada. That does not come at all within its mandate. I urge you to refer to the legislation and the guidelines which the ruling Government of the day gave Petro-Canada. Neither in the legislation nor in any guideline were ever these issues put forward by the former Liberal administration or by our Government for that matter. There are trade practices in this country, and it is within these practices and standards that Petro-Canada must operate. That is what the Act says and that is what is happening.


ROLE OF PETRO-CANADA
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is the Government that changed the practices of Petro-Canada. What the Government is saying is that it is okay to blackmail the people of Nova Scotia and keep from them the information which they have every right to have. Why doesn't the Government forget about this craziness of privatizing Petro-Canada and just try to use it to foster some competition in the industry?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is resorting to the lowest kind of demagogy. Petro-Canada's responsibility, everywhere in Canada including Nova Scotia, is first and foremost to abide by the laws passed by the Canadian Government and the Nova Scotia Government. If it feels that Petro-Canada is not abiding by the law, the Nova Scotia Government should take the necessary steps to have it enforced.


CORPORATION'S MANDATE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On Friday in Calgary the Minister of Finance said that Petro-Canada ought to be privatized because it had no public policy role. In the context of the mandate that the Conservative Government gave to Petro-Canada changing its role, the Prime Minister will recall that immediately upon taking office his Government changed the role of Petro-Canada. In the words of Petro-Canada's
March 9, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I simply do not see the connection between the premise and the question. If my hon. friend is asking if the Minister made a statement, I refer him to what the Minister said. There is no inconsistency at all in that. We raised this question specifically during the election campaign and indicated that, if appropriate and if beneficial to Canada, we would take action in regard to privatization. That is exactly what we have done in some cases. I know my hon. friend does not always agree but I think he will acknowledge that we brought these cases forward, we explained them, and we proceeded with them. If we feel it to be in the national interest, we will do that in other cases, including Petro-Canada and others.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. According to the Chairman of Petro-Canada himself, until this Government was elected Petro-Canada had a public policy role to play. According to Mr. Hopper, the new Government changed that role and instructed Petro-Canada to behave just like Shell, Imperial Oil, and Gulf.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: A Tory down there is saying: "Hear, hear".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We do not say: "Hear, hear"; we say Petro-Canada has a responsibility to the energy sector and the people of Canada, not just to maximize its profits. Is it not hypocritical for the Government to change the role of Petro-Canada one day and then, having changed its role and destroyed its public responsibility, announce that as an excuse for privatizing it the next day?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the public policy role of Petro-Canada. Under the Liberad-NDP coalition, that public policy role was to gobble up the taxpayers' money and to compete with the private sector. That is exactly what was taking place.
We have just developed a very harmonious relationship with the management and direction of Petro-Canada, but we indicated in the election campaign that at an appropriate time we would examine whether or not this was an appropriate use
Oral Questions
of taxpayers' money and whether the national interest would best be served by maintaining that structure or by changing it.
We indicated in the past that change was appropriate and we introduced changes in the House that brought benefits to de Havilland, Canadair and others, and there may be others still. The Minister of State for Privatization was appointed specifically for the purpose of examining privatization because we believe that the private sector, and an expanding private sector, are very much in the national interest.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada let the Conservative Government of 1979 know what they thought of that idea during the 1980 election. If the Government wants to fight an election campaign on privatizing Petro-Canada, we will welcome that campaign any day of the year.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT RESTORE ORIGINAL MANDATE TO PETRO-CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question is directed to the Prime Minister. Instead of altering Petro-Canada's mandate whenever an energy crisis occurs or whenever we are faced with a price problem, would the Government consider restoring Petro-Canada's original mandate?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with this matter, just as we did with others, for instance Canadair where, I think, the House's decision is having a very beneficial impact on Montreal and elsewhere. It is an instrument of national development, and we are considering Petro-Canada from this point of view.

My hon. friend has referred to the 1980 election campaign. We will have time to fight another election campaign and quite properly we will be judged, but the NDP voted against the Conservative Government for 18 cents a gallon and then supported the Liberals all during the life of that Government while it increased gas by $1.18. The Hon. Member should be ashamed of himself. We will deal with his hypocrisy in the next election campaign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEVELOPMENT OF NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE OILFIELD
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders cannot be blamed today if they have mixed emotions abut the big announcement because they cannot really understand what the Government of Canada is saying with the Minister of Finance saying on the West Coast that Petro-Canada will be sold and with the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources saying in St. John's, Newfoundland, that there are long-term plans for Petro-Canada off the Newfoundland coast. Is the Government now saying that if Petro-Canada is sold there will be a guarantee in the contract of sale to honour the drilling and

March 9, 1987
Oral Questions
production plans announced today by the Government and Petro-Canada?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada's President clearly indicated that announcements made in St. John, Newfoundland, were based on a business approach. Canada's energy policy is conducted on the basis first of geology and second of market forces and the right to invest within that framework. For sure, there is a policy difference, and the NDP Leader is right. We have put an end to intervention in the area of energy, and it is within that policy framework that the Petro-Canada decision was made. It is a business decision. When the Government considers, as it has done, whether Petro-Canada should be privatized, it is clear that business operations will carry on.


FISHERIES
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the announcement today by the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Transport is the culmination of a week of fancy publicity in Newfoundland with half-hour television programs paid for by the taxpayer. We now have a booklet going out to every household in Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the Minister of Transport, the man responsible, if he really believes this fancy and expensive taxpayer-paid publicity is going to work. PC may stand for Petro-Canada today in St. John's but it stands for Propaganda Campaign throughout Newfoundland, master-minded by that PC in Ottawa, Papa Crosbie.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member certainly spouts poppycock.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am happy to advise him that a brochure is going to every household in Newfoundland today giving the facts on the Canada-France fishery boundary, and that I and others who appear in the film are not accepting any residuals so that the cost is considerably lower than it might have been.


PETRO-CANADA REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF PRIVATIZATION PROPOSAL
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister concerning the privatization of Petro-Canada. At this time in our history there is a crisis in the oil industry right across the country. If ever there was a time in our history when we needed a publicly-owned energy company, now is that time. Can the Prime Minister stand up and, in light of the need for a publicly-owned Petro-Canada, indicate that he is prepared to withdraw the proposal for privatization?
[ Translation]


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, there is always a crisis in the energy sector. When producers are not concerned, consumers are. Right now, the crisis stems from the fact that there is a glut of petroleum products, which affects the producing sector.
Working through a Crown corporation is one way among many others of establishing an energy policy. The policy now established by Canada is a market-oriented policy, contrary to the previous Government's policy. Although there was Petro-Canada, the Energy Department's policy was bad, it was an interventionist policy that produced the National Energy Program and the difficulties which befill Canadians. And that policy was supported by the NDP.
All this to say there are various ways of doing that. There are various public policy instruments. We have statutes, regulations, standards, criteria, taxes, departmental policy interventions, corporations, there is not just a Crown corporation-


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again directed to the Prime Minister. I believe the Minister who just spoke has forgotten our history. It was 1973 and we were captives of the large multinational oil companies. We New Democrats are proud that we brought Petro-Canada into existence. We are approaching exactly the same crisis now. I ask the Prime Minister to stand in his place and give a commitment to the people from one end of this country to the other that he will not throw Petro-Canada down the tubes.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, this Government has respect for people. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, any analysis, any reviews will take public interest into account.
March 9, 1987


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT OF LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF ZAIRE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our Gallery today of Mr. Kalume, First Vice-President of the Legislative Council of Zaire, leader of a parliamentary delegation that is visiting our country.


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES GOVERNMENT'S PRIVATIZATION POLICY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or to the Prime Minister. I am not sure which of the two can provide an answer, because the issue is not clear, and I am referring to the privatization of some of the Department's operations, namely its mapping division.
I have here a press release issued today by Lavalin, in which the president of the company confirms that recently, as part of its make or buy policy, Treasury Board started talks with his company and Bell to explore the possibility of privatizing certain federal services engaged in mapping.
I also have a press release issued by Treasury Board on March 6, which reads:
"Treasury Board has not negotiated any pilot projects with Lavalin or any other company, Mr. de Cotret stated-
Mr. Speaker, who is telling the truth?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for reading the press release. Quite frankly, we had some purely exploratory talks with several companies to discuss our make or buy policy. There were no negotiations or contracts or any attempts in this respect. There was never any attempt to engage in an exercise of this kind, as stated in my press release.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we were promised responsible government. I want to ask the Prime Minister to inform the House whether this Government intends to privatize the sectors in question, especially the mapping division. And what about the employees? Do their careers count for anything at all with this Government? Can we give them some assurance? Couldn't their morale, which is very low at this time, be given a boost by a firm statement from the Prime Minister: "No, we will not privatize these services."?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I may point out to the Hon. Member that in all the talks we have had about privatization so far, excluding these preliminary talks which concern an area that has never
Oral Questions
been the subject of a Government privatization plan, the interests of our employees have always been uppermost in our minds. That has been so in every case of privatization, Mr. Speaker. We have always said that the interests of the taxpayers and the employees come first. These two sets of interests receive equal billing in every privatization exercise.


BY-ELECTIONS ST. JOHN'S EAST-DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT PAMPHLETS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. He spent $40,000 of taxpayers' money on a TV film shown across Newfoundland last Thursday which was nothing but a blatant commercial for the Conservative running in the St. John's East by-election on July 20. Now the Minister is bragging about 135,000 pamphlets being mailed to Newfoundlanders. When the writ for the by-election has been dropped and all parties are restricted to election spending of less than $35,000, does the Minister believe the Government can shake off its reputation for mismanagement and dishonesty with this kind of sharp practice at the expense of the taxpayer?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have that question asked because I have in my hand a letter sent by the Leader of the NDP using the frank of this House of Commons and asking the people of St. John's East to vote for the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member has the gall and hypocrisy to get up and ask that question of me when his own Leader is using his frank to send this message to every voter in St. John's East.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: You should be ashamed of yourself.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Resign!


Some Hon. Members:: Resign, resign!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Honest Ed.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Fess up, Ed.


Charles Joseph Clark: The old double standard.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Now the truth comes out.


Mr. Blaikie:: Were you expecting that question, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: No.

March 9, 1987
Oral Questions


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Do you always carry Ed's letters around?


PROVISIONS OF ELECTION EXPENSES ACT
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Contrary to what the Minister says, when the New Democratic Party has mailed into St. John's East after the writs have been dropped, the New Democratic Party has paid for the mailings. In the spirit of the Election Expenses Act, will the Minister now do the right thing by the Canadian taxpayer and charge the cost of that TV program and that mailing to the Conservative Party rather than the Canadian taxpayer?
Hon, John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a pamphlet which sets out the facts in the Canada-France fishing boundary dispute.


John Edward Broadbent: Who paid for it?


John Carnell Crosbie: It was paid for by the Government because it sets out information which every Newfoundlander is interested in having, not the half-truths and specious nonsense which the NDP has spouted. In this hand I have the frank of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who said, "I hope you will work with me to elect a New Democratic Member of Parliament". That was paid for with the taxpayers' money.
There is nothing in here about voting for any Party. This gives the facts about the fishery. This is an election cry asking them to vote for the New Democratic Party. I will accept your apology humbly when it is offered.


Mr. Murphy:: What's the date on it?


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is with regard to the human desperation which I witnessed yesterday during my visit with the 20 Chilean refugees in Montreal whose families are stranded by this Government in Argentina.
Given that their families were caught in transit while the administrative changes were being announced in Ottawa and that no period of grace was accorded, and given that the United Nations High Commission on Refugees has deemed them to be bona fide refugees, will the Government not admit its mistake, stop any further procrastination, and allow these individuals to enter the country and rejoin their families here?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Last week, Mr. Speaker, referring to the case of Chileans in Montreal, the Minister of State Immigration explained how we are proceeding, particularly with respect to those who are now in Buenos Aires. I think he was very clear and I fully endorse his statement.
On February 20 we set up and applied control measures. We are now making every effort required to try to define exactly the situation of those people and, if they are authentic refugees, they will have the right and opportunity to come or come back to Canada. We are simply applying the measures, and again I repeat that we are doing what we are supposed to do and what we announced two weeks ago we were going to do.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the Minister and his Government should stop manipulating public opinion and inciting the backlash which we are seeing in certain parts of the country.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SHOW COMPASSION AND JUSTICE
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister if instead of denouncing the hunger strike he might deal with what caused it in the first place, namely people stuck in transit, people who are genuine refugees, and people who want to be re-united with their relatives. When will the Minister show the compassion and justice to which the Prime Minister was referring last summer?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member talked about compassion and help for the refugees. I would like to have more from the Liberal Party in particular. Last summer when we asked this Party what its position was on refugees, the Member told us we could open refugee camps.


Sergio Marchi: That's not true.


Benoît Bouchard: I listened to you. Can you please listen to me? Yesterday the Member was in Montreal. He needs more than photos with the people.


Sergio Marchi: Why don't you go visit them rather than going to Florida?


Benoît Bouchard: We need to know more. Where do you stand?


Sergio Marchi: Why don't you go visit them rather than going on holidays?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, the Hon. Member for Abitibi.
March 9, 1987


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation. For some months now, I have been trying to get adequate postal service for the Village of Umiujaq in Abitibi. Could I possibly have a positive answer this week, so that the people in that remote community can get adequate postal service, because Canada Post's fanthom President Landers has no concern for those people's isolation? Mr. Minister, I want action.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumers and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question, I enquired from officials of Canada Post Corporation this morning. They assured me that postal services will be provided to the Village of Umiujaq in the coming week.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Canada Post Corporation is now consulting with the town's mayor, and also with the Member of Parliament, to make sure that the service provided is adequate.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the Minister knows, the research director of the Special House of Commons Committee on Child Care has decided not to renew his contract with the committee, claiming that there has been interference with the work of the committee.
Would the Minister not agree that, given the urgent concern of Canadian families about the lack of affordable child care in the country, those families must have confidence in the integrity of the committee's report?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the House will receive that report this month.


An Hon. Member:: But tampered with.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I suggest to Hon. Members that they do not know the contents of the report. I think we would all be wise to judge the report and its contents when it is made public.
Oral Questions


FORMER COMMITTEE RESEARCH CONTRACTOR'S VIEWS
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I do not think he understands the question. The question is with regard to the concerns which have been raised by the research director of this committee who is reported to have said that his "concern was more the research integrity of the report, that the text itself was consistent with the data and what our understanding was of what the hearings had said". The director of research seems to be saying that there has been interference.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has obviously tried to be generous in this matter. However, it seems to me that the question directed to the Minister is about something which took place in a committee. Unless the Member can rephrase his question to address a matter of ministerial responsibility, the Member is getting very close to being out of order. Perhaps the Member could rephrase the question.


Neil Young: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could direct the question to the chairperson of the committee rather than to the Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member wishes to direct the question to the chairperson of the committee. Questions to chairpersons of committees are in order, but they are limited to scheduling and administrative procedures in the committees.
I think that in this case that would probably be out of order also.


Neil Young: Can I try the question anyway?


John Edward Broadbent: How do you know what the supplementary question is?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member could consider whether he wishes to place another question to the Minister. In the meantime I think it is appropriate to recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East.


INQUIRY WHETHER CANADIAN POPULATION WILL HAVE CONFIDENCE IN COMMITTEE'S REPORT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Since his Government has been procrastinating for two and a half years on the subject of child care, and it now appears that the Director of Research for the Committee on Child Care has resigned, we would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can guarantee that the Canadian people can have confidence in what will come out of that report, in view of the fact that although that Committee's chairperson has received a seven-page memorandum from three researchers she chose to keep it secret and would not even provide committee members with copies of the memorandum that criticized the process. Does the Prime Minister think that report will enjoy the confidence of the Canadian people?

March 9, 1987
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is very similar to one asked by a New Democratic Member, and which I answered. The answer is the same.


CONTENT OF FORTHCOMING REPORT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it was not the same question. Given that the Prime Minister refuses to answer specific questions but only wants to make general, grandiose statements with no substance-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Does he expect the Canadian public to have confidence in a committee report that is so bad that a seven-page memo criticizing the process was given to the chairman, which the chairman refused even to distribute to members of the committee? Does he expect the Canadian people to believe anything that comes from this so-called day-care report that is nothing more than a Tory sham?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of how the member operates. She does not know anything about it, she just has innuendo. She does not follow the rules of her leader who says to know the facts.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I have the facts.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: She throws out allegations and hopes they will stick. If she wants to talk about day care, let us talk about the facts rather than her fixations or the allegations about which she knows nothing.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Those are the facts.


INVESTMENT CANADA
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Investment Canada. It concerns this morning's announcement of Chrysler Canada Limited buying out a 46 per cent share in AMC in Brampton. Given that the Canadian Government committed some $60 million to AMC in 1985, will Investment Canada thoroughly review this takeover to make certain that the $60 million is protected and that it is in the best interests not only of the company but the job creation for which that $60 million was originally intended?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of this letter of intent which was announced as recently as this morning between Chrysler Renault car manufacturers concerning a per centage of 46 per cent of the shares which would be purchased by Chrysler Corporation, and we have indeed instructed Investment Canada officials to examine this transaction to make sure that it meets the benefit requirements.


REQUEST FOR JOBS GUARANTEE
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the tremendous amount of taxpayers' money involved in this deal, will the Minister make the guarantee of jobs the number one on the list of benefits?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this reply has already been given by Chrysler management when it indicated that no job would be jeopardized, and I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government of Canada is always concerned about job creation. We have already considered setting up a mechanism which would assure Canadians of new opportunities and employment, and we will respect this commitment.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the ridiculous new policy of the RCMP with respect to transfers of married couples who are both members of the Force. Four women who are about to graduate from the academy and become members of the Force have filed grievances because they have been refused postings near their husbands and, in fact, have been posted hundreds of miles away from their families and husbands. In two cases they have been posted thousands of miles apart. Does the Prime Minister agree that this policy of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is unfair and inequitable? Will he immediately instruct the Commissioner of the RCMP to adopt a more fair and reasonable policy with regard to this matter?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I will be happy to take the question under advisement. I assure the Hon. Member that I will look into it and discuss it with the Solicitor General as soon as he returns.
March 9, 1987


John V. Nunziata: In effect, these women have been given a choice; either quit the RCMP or leave their husbands and families.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down. That is not a question.
Oral Questions
committed to that process of justice. Everything the Government has done is consistent with trying to bring justice and dignity to the native peoples of Canada. I am at a loss as to why the Hon. Member would try to read something other than that into the entire process.


FORCE'S POLICY
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of his so-called commitment to women, fairness, equity, and equality, will he personally look into this policy of the RCMP and ensure that it is changed and a new policy is implemented that would be fair, reasonable, and equitable in the circumstances?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this, as I indicated in my response to the Hon. Member's first question. At this point, not knowing the facts, I do not necessarily accept the premise of the question. However, I understand the very legitimate concerns of the Hon. Member and can only assure him that I will talk to the Solicitor General and ensure that we look into the matter in every respect so that equity and probity are followed in this case, as in all others.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who is aware that aboriginal chiefs and leaders from across Canada are meeting this week in Ottawa to prepare for the First Ministers' Conference near the end of the month. Since the Prime Minister has refused an invitation from the Assembly of First Nations to address this assembly and thus has forgone the opportunity to clarify the Government's position not only to aboriginal people but to all Canadians, will the Prime Minister explain that refusal? Furthermore, since the aboriginal peoples of Canada did not give up their right to self-government in any of the 484 treaties signed between the Crown and the aboriginal peoples of Canada, will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why the Government appears to be preparing to deny that right in the upcoming negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what nonsense the Hon. Member is talking about. I have been available, I suggest, certainly more than any other Prime Minister in memory, for meetings of substance with the leadership of native groups here and across the country. We have had many meetings leading up to the very important series of meetings in the next couple of weeks. I do not know what the Hon. Member is referring to because he will know that we came very close to securing an agreement on a constitutional amendment two years ago. We are very much


John Edmund Parry: If the Prime Minister is unaware of the specific invitation I am sure we can arrange to have him invited personally.


ALLEGED OPPOSITION OF PROVINCES
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Prime Minister's protestations, what has he and the Ministry done specifically to try to convert the provinces that are apparently against the inherent right to self-government to a position that will validate and recognize that right of the aboriginal peoples of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, again I am afraid my hon. friend does not know all the facts. A very important ministerial meeting with the leadership is scheduled for March 13, in anticipation of the First Ministers' Conference that will be held a few days later. The Hon. Member asks what has the Government done and will it bear fruit. I do not know. That is the object of the meetings. The penultimate meeting on the thirteenth will be followed by the televised constitutional First Ministers' and leadership meeting. Are we seeking a constitutional amendment? Of course we are. Have we laid it out? We have done so with absolute clarity. Do we want the provinces onside? We have worked exactly toward that end. We hope we will bring justice to the people of Canada, but not by the supercilious and uninformed criticisms of the NDP. It has to be done by a national Parliament acting with a certain amount of unity and cohesion.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


VIA RAIL
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I ask the Minister if there is any truth to a report which appeared in The Sunday Star which states that starting June 7 VIA Rail will be reducing passenger rail service between Toronto and Windsor. If this is the case, does the Minister agree with these reductions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member realizes that VIA Rail is a Crown corporation and responsible for the administration and management of its own affairs. I understand that there are

March 9, 1987
Questions of Privilege
to be some reductions in service primarily in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. The modifications represent about a 6 per cent reduction in train miles in the corridor. They are being implemented to effect economies through the reduction of lightly used trains to make schedules more convenient for the majority of the users of the trains.
I do not think these are extensive changes. This is within the power of management, which is doing its best to run the system as efficiently and effectively as it can.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT CAN ASSURE SERVICES IN ATLANTIC, QUEBEC, AND WEST WILL NOT BE REDUCED
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if there are to be reductions in service in a well-travelled region such as southern Ontario, could the Minister indicate whether there will be reductions in service in the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Regions which are a lot less travelled than the Ontario region? Could he indicate to us whether there will be reductions in those areas which are already unsufficiently served?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the only reductions in service that I know about are the reductions that we have just been discussing here. Incidentally, it is the expectation of VIA that over five years this action will improve its losses by about $28 million and improve its occupancy rates. It certainly seems to be an objective worth attempting to achieve.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise the House that the time for Question Period has ended. I hope that Hon. Members from both sides of the House who were hoping to be heard today will speak with their Whips in order to get a little further up the list tomorrow. The Chair will certainly try to accommodate them.
The Chair has several questions of privilege to consider which must be dealt with now. There is a question of privilege to be raised by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) which, in ordinary circumstances, would take precedence in point of time. However, there is also notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie). An indication has been given to me by the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that he also wishes to raise a question of privilege which concerns the same issue. The Chair proposes to hear the Minister of Transport and then the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party on this issue. The Hon. Minister of Transport.


PRIVILEGE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I gave you notice before two o'clock this afternoon, as is required. My question of privilege has to do with a flagrant misuse of the House of Commons Stationery and Printing Services and free mailing privileges by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) who is the Leader of the New Democratic Party and who mailed a partisan political pamphlet soliciting support for his Party in the upcoming by-election of the federal riding of St. John's East to all households in St. John's East. I have the document in my hand, if it is necessary that it be tabled.
It states on the envelope: "A message from Ed Broadbent, MP". Inside the envelope there is a letter, a copy of which I hold in my hand.


John Edward Broadbent: Read it out.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will not read the whole letter because it would bore every member here to tears. However, in the second to last paragraph-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Read the whole letter!


John Carnell Crosbie: I simply will not be shouted down, Mr. Speaker, of that I can assure you.
In the second to last paragraph of the letter the Hon. Member states:
I hope you will work with me to elect a New Democratic Member of Parliament in the coming by-election in St. John's East. Together we can do it.
I do not know what they are hoping to do together.


John Edward Broadbent: You'll find out, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be very disappointed in what he gets to do in St. John's East.
By the way, this is a letter which was sent with a card. This card is a questionnaire the first part of which reads:
Yes, Ed, I want you to keep up your fight to make the Mulroney Government respect Newfoundland and listen to the serious concerns of Newfoundlanders.
It is also pointed out on this card that if it is mailed the postage will be free. So that is a double misuse of the frank.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: The frank was used to send this out to every household in St. John's East, and there is a card for the respondent to send back free. So it is free both ways. Everything is free with the NDP. I can assure the Hon. Member that he will not do it together or singly in St. John's East. This is a direct breach of privilege.
That this is a breach of privilege is clear from your own ruling, Mr. Speaker. I refer Your Honour to page 403 of
March 9, 1987

Hansard for October 16, 1986, with respect to an earlier case in which NDP Members from British Columbia-and we saw one of them today during Question Period trained in the deep traditions of the hypocrisy of that Party-abused their stationery, printing and frank privileges to carry out a mass mailing during the provincial election in British Columbia. So there is an emerging pattern of abuse here demonstrated in this letter from the Leader of that same Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: I refer you, Sir, to your own words on that occasion. What better could I do? On that occasion Your Honour ruled:
-that the Chair should not move without great care in ruling on whether or not a communication sent under the frank is a question of privilege. However, having said that, I think it is clear that there could be cases where, depending upon the content of the communication sent under the frank, it could be a question of privilege if the content worked against the right of Members to free expression and the carrying out of their obligations as Members.
It is just those rights which have been breached by the contents of the letter sent by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The purpose of this letter is to achieve a partisan advantage through the misuse of mailing privileges. The Leader of the NDP has placed part of the cost of his Party's campaign in the St. John's East by-election on the backs of the ordinary Canadian taxpayers of this country. It is the taxpayer who has to pay for this abuse which violates the clear guidelines on the use of stationery and printing services.
I refer Your Honour to the Members' Manual on Allowances and Services which states under the heading "Unacceptable Requests":
The following types of material may not be reproduced:
(a)	Material unrelated to activities of the House of Commons
(b)	Material of a partisan political nature such as:
(1) solicitations of party membership-
(3) requests for monetary contributions-
The letter states:
I believe Newfoundland needs a new voice in Ottawa, a voice that will ensure that Newfoundland is on the political map in Canada. I hope you will work with me to elect a New Democrat Member of Parliament in the coming by-election in St. John's East. Together we can do it.
If that is not material of a partisan political nature, then what in the name of heavens is it? For years we have been smothered with the sanctimonious sanctity and hypocrisy of the hon. gentleman opposite who tut-tutted and raised questions of conflict and scandal whenever he had the opportunity. Here we see the most frank and barbarous use of the frank, and an abuse of the mailing privileges of the Members of the House by the Leader of a Party.
What is this if not a violation? Other Members of the House cannot exercise similar freedoms without also violating the established guidelines of the House of Commons which are intended to prevent misuse of public funds. God help the people of Canada if that group ever gets into a position to expend public funds.
Questions of Privilege
That is why this letter is a breach of my privileges as a Member of Parliament. The Leader of the NDP has violated the rules governing the use of stationery, the printing of materials and the use of the frank to seek an unfair advantage in the by-election in St. John's East.


James Douglas Manly: You don't know what you're talking about.


John Carnell Crosbie: I don't know what I'm talking about?


John Edward Broadbent: Let him go.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am delighted to see the Hon. Member here today. I am delighted that he has asked me a question.
Is the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party to be permitted to exceed his privileges in this case, as he has done before? I am now told by outraged people who live in St. John's East that this is not the first of this kind of unseemly material to come from the Hon. Member for Oshawa. If he is to be allowed to do this and violate the privileges of other Members, then what is there to prevent him from doing it again in the context of the federal election when the cost to the taxpayers will be far greater?
Our election law is based on the notion of balancing campaign expenditures. There are strict limits on what can be spent. Violations of such limits are treated as serious offences. The NDP Leader is one of the first to be barking, bellowing, and barracking in his seat whenever he gets the opportunity.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this case goes to the very heart of your earlier ruling. If this does not raise a question of privilege, as you then defined it, then the meaning of your ruling, which was notable for its clarity-and if 1 might be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, all your rulings are noted for their clarity-must simply collapse.
The Hon. Member opposite has set himself and his Party up as a self-declared conscience of us all. The Leader of the NDP is constantly raising questions of conflict or scandal, or the appearance of a conflict, or the shadow of a scandal. If it is shown to be not a conflict of interest, the Hon. Member will say it is apparently a conflict of interest because I said it was a conflict of interest in the first place. That is what we have had to put up with all the time. We have the Leader of the NDP, not in an apparent anything, but in an obvious case of having his hand in the cookie jar and being caught with the sugar on his fingertips.
I ask that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party agree to reimburse the public for the cost of this illegitimate use of printing and mailing privileges. Will he learn the lesson:
Of all the cants which are canted in this canting world, though the cant of criticism is the most tormenting, the cant of hypocrites is the worst.
Will the Hon. Member frankly admit that and stop his canting? Will he agree to reimburse the House for the expenses? Will he agree not to do this again? Will he observe the privileges of this House in a proper manner?

March 9, 1987
Questions of Privilege
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you find this to be a prima facie case of privilege here, and that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. Do not let the hon. gentleman stand and refer to a factual brochure about the fishery and the fisheries dispute, and suggest that this is in any way similar to this mishappened document sent out in a clandestine manner using the franking privileges.
I would like a report on how often this has been done by the hon. gentleman this year. How many millions of pieces of mail have been sent out improperly in this manner by the Hon. Leader of the NDP?
I wish to table this document. This is the evidence that should be sent to the committee. 1 am prepared to testify, and hundreds more from St. John's East, who are sickened and disgusted by this heartless display of ignoring the rules of parliamentary democracy, will appear before the Committee too, if necessary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot of nonsense in the House in my years, but I think that all the limits of credibility have been exceeded by the absurd pronouncement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).
1 do not think that the Minister has a question of privilege at all. 1 indicated to you, Sir, that I had a question of privilege given what this absurd Minister said earlier in Question Period. I wish to comment on his accusations.
The Minister has referred to the guiding principles of the House as they pertain to members' franking privileges. The Minister knows full well that the same guiding principles and regulations pertain not only to what I happened to send out on this particular occasion, but to all the householder mail that is sent out by every Member of Parliament, by all Members in all Parties, of any type, including householders to their constituencies. If the Hon. Minister is raising a question of partisanship, which he has, I could take about four days, three hours, and 19 minutes quoting from every one of his members' householders and find in each and every one of them-


An Hon. Member:: You could not.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Minister. I wish that he would listen.
The point that I am making is that if we are talking about partisanship in publications that come from members, it is a common practice for all Members to make partisan comments at times. I have supported that publicly when the question has been raised about other Members in other Parties. All Members of the House know that it is the right of the member
to make partisan comments. That has been practised throughout my experience in Parliament, in householders as well as other publications. That is principally what we were elected to do. I have no apology to make for that.
I wish to comment on the other parts of the Minister's interesting diatribe earlier today. The Hon. Minister talked about printing and mailing. First, who paid for the printing? I will tell you who paid, Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party of Canada. I will comment on the Conservatives and their obligations in a minute.
I have just received a copy of the mailing from the Post Office. Different parts have been checked off. Some members can mail freely. We can, in most publications, and in others we pay for it. Under this, who paid for the mailing? The New Democratic Party paid for the mailing, as well as publications.
The point that the Minister raised, the question of printing: we paid for it, the New Democratic Party. Unlike the Tories and what they put out, which I will come to in a minute, we paid for the mailing.
What about the date that this was sent out to the people of Newfoundland?


John Carnell Crosbie: The date doesn't matter.


John Edward Broadbent: He says that the date doesn't matter, because we have caught the Tories spending public funds after an election was called. That is why he says it does not matter. I say to the Minister that to the New Democratic Party it does matter.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Don't be so sanctimonious.


John Edward Broadbent: You can get up, madam, and make your points in a moment.
The date does not matter?


John Carnell Crosbie: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Apparently some Liberals do not care about this, and I am surprised. I note that it is not the leadership of the Liberal Party.
The date does matter, because once an election has been called, as ail Members know, we are under legal obligations about the expenses, which is totally appropriate, and which I thought had been accepted by all Members in the House. What is the date on the matter that the Minister received and to which he objected? I wish to advise the Minister of the date. It was February 19, which was before the writs were issued for the election in St. John's East.
It seems to me that the Minister is striking out on every account. Who paid for the publication? The New Democratic Party. Who paid for the mailing? The New Democratic Party. Was it sent during the election period? Not at all. It was sent before the writs were issued.
March 9, 1987

I wish to come to my reason for being concerned about the implication raised by the Hon. Minister of wrongdoing on our part during Question Period. If we compare this with what has gone on in Newfoundland, what do we find? First, a leaflet has been mailed by the Conservative Government to every citizen in Newfoundland. It is a coloured brochure. When was it mailed? After the writs were issued. Who paid for it? The people of Canada, not the Conservative Party.


John Carnell Crosbie: Absolutely.


John Edward Broadbent: Second, there was a half hour television program going into every home in the Province of Newfoundland. Who paid for that, after the writs were issued? I will tell you that it was not the Conservative Party of Canada, it was the people of Canada who were paying for that. That is a disgrace.


James Ross Fulton: Snake bellies.


John Carnell Crosbie: Do you want a loan of the tape?


John Edward Broadbent: We totally welcome the comparison of the two different types of mailing; one that came out of my office which was paid for by my Party in the publication and in the mailing before the writs were issued, and another produced by the Government which was paid for by the people of Canada after the writs were issued.
The Minister should have the decency to stand up and resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary on the same consolidated question of privilege.


Philip Derek Lewis: 
John Edward Broadbent: I will be happy to deal with all those.


Philip Derek Lewis: That is fine. I would have thought the Hon. Member, having raised a question of privilege, would be prepared to give the House the benefit of that. This question has been part of a deliberate pattern by the New Democratic Party to raise this kind of thing. The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) on October 16, 1986 raised a blatant political message by way of a mass mailing on the B.C. election campaign solely for political gain brought about by the brother of the current, or I guess soon to be departed, Leader of the New Democratic Party in B.C. In part the letter said-and it was probably written by the same wordsmith in the New Democratic Party offices-of course it was all paid for, and the fact that the frank was on the envelope did not mean anything-"we are asking you to join with us in getting to work to elect the next provincial New Democratic Party. Phone your local campaign headquarters and get involved now". That was not even federal. In the last instance it was not even federal. It was part of a designed campaign to take a free ride on the back of Canadian taxpayers for individual political purposes, whether provincial or federal.
I want to ask the Leader of the NDP a question because we all want to know the answer. Is he gearing up for the next municipal election campaign somewhere? Are we to use the frank for that too? It is about time that somebody stood their ground and acted honourably in the House.
I want to point out what has been done on the other side of the question. In an earlier Parliament the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) raised a question about a committee that was set up by the Minister of Transport to study rail line abandonment. Once the question of privilege was raised, our Party paid for it without question. It is

March 9, 1987
Questions of Privilege
interesting to note that at a later date the Liberal Government of the day found that study so valuable that it paid for our expenses and in fact used the study for the purposes of the federal Government.
I want to close by saying that an abuse of the privileges of a Member of Parliament is an abuse whether it is prior to an election or during an election. The only difference is that if it is during an election, then it must be included in election expenses. If it is an abuse of the privileges of the House and the privileges we enjoy as members before an election, it is still an abuse.
I call upon the Leader of the New Democratic Party to produce his evidence. I do not doubt that he has it; I do not doubt that the Party has it. I call upon them to produce all evidence proving that it was paid for, every last expense in connection with that letter, so that they can demonstrate that they have done this with some honour, and not come into the House to leave out there the great suspicion that possibly they are doing the same thing in Yukon and Hamilton Mountain.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, this is a classic example of a Government trying to make use of the best defence known, which is offence. It is quite clear, in terms of the $40,000 on the film and the 135,000 leaflets going around in Newfoundland, paid for by the people of Canada, that it is something they want to cover up and keep the press from thinking about.
However, let me deal with the issue made by the Parliamentary Secretary because I think it opened an enormous Pandora's box. It was something that I did not feel any necessity to raise during the provincial election in British Columbia. However, the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre, the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), happened to send out somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 householders with a picture of herself and Bill Vander Zalm standing arm in arm on the front of it. It just happened to be there in the middle of the election campaign.
If this issue is to be dealt with seriously, the House will never be able to deal with anything serious again. I can bring in thousands of documents mailed out by Conservatives which are obviously partisan and obviously paid for by the House of Commons. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) abused the Leader of my Party. He has not even apologized after my Leader produced a certified copy from the Postmaster of the House of Commons that we had paid for the mailing. He still sits there on his rump like a cod tongue, acting as though, "Ho, ho, I am the high and mighty Minister of Transport. We have no issues in Newfoundland. We are losing. We are going to try to fabricate some kind of mamby-pamby issue to shove into the mouths of the people of Newfoundland". Well, I do not buy it and Newfoundlanders will not buy it, because they know you have been caught with your hands in the till for the movie and for those little diddley-daws on what really is not true about the Canada-France agreement. It is a lot of blah, and you should be embarrassed about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), I understand that there is some strong feeling about the matter, but I ask all Hon. Members to refrain from using the personal word "you".
Perhaps, now that the matter has been explored with great vigour by several interventions, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody would try to confine his remarks to the issues.
There are two issues here. One was raised by the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) who says that a frank has been used to deliver a message, a political message, which is aimed at an upcoming by-election. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has said that a publication put out by the Government of Canada in respect of the fisheries situation and the relationship between Canada and France in terms of certain fish stocks is an abuse of the Government's position. That also is aimed at resulting in some political advantage for the Government. Those are the two issues.
The question is whether or not there is a question of privilege. There is clearly a complaint on both sides and clearly there is an issue of what is appropriate when parliamentary rights to communicate with constituents are used. I am not saying it is a question of privilege, but I do want Hon. Members to try to address that specific point because that is what I have to decide.


Gerry St. Germain: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. This is a breach of individuals' privileges. The Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) tried to put forth something that is not the true picture. He spoke in his opening remarks when countering the remarks of the Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), of householders being utilized, a totally different situation from that with which we are dealing. We are dealing with our own ridings. When householders are of a partisan nature, they are often rejected and not printed. A member is told to produce a householder which does not solicit votes, and that is the whole issue here.
What is revolting to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, is the sanctimonious attitude of the New Democrats. They speak of the abuse of public funds. This matter unquestionably is a deliberate abuse of public funds. All of us are tainted, whether we like it or not, when one member abuses his privileged position to either his or his Party's advantage. This is not right either morally or legally, vis-a-vis the rules of this place. When it comes to public spending-and make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, this is public spending in the true sense of the word-the NDP over there yell the longest and the loudest about it.
We are dealing here with the privileges of each and every Member of this House having been abused by the misuse of stationery in this case and possibly the misuse of the frank. I
March 9, 1987

take it that the Hon. Member for Oshawa has stated he has paid for the postage. I still question why he utilized his frank.
The most disgraceful part of the exercise is seeing the New Democrats sanctimoniously and hypocritically chastising everybody in this House and challenging one of the most honourable Canadians, the Minister of Transport. It is unheard of.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my contribution to this discussion as brief as you would like it to be.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member will do just that. The Chair I think has given all members a chance to express their views with language which has been brisk and vigorous, but it has been within the bounds. The Chair now really does need some procedural advice. The Hon. Member.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, knowing my reputation as an expert parliamentarian, I can understand why at this stage of the debate, after so much colourful and exciting language, you would call upon me to summarize this matter in a way that is logical and succinct and which will give the Chair the ability to make the decision rather quickly. I hope the Chair will be slightly tolerant, but I want to say that as a representative, as are all members ultimately, of Newfoundlanders who were the recipients of the propaganda being debated in the House, in case there is any misapprehension whatsoever in this Chamber that whether you wrap flimflam in a $40,000 slick video presentation, whether you put it in a blue, white, red and yellow householder or wrap it in a letter from the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), Newfoundlanders can recognize flimflam no matter how it is packaged. Whether it is $40,000 flimflam or the NDP Leader's letters of flimflam, the people of St. John's East will not swallow it because it is all flimflam in the end.
I believe that it is incumbent upon Members-that is what we in this Party shall be doing-to go out in the streets of Newfoundland to communicate with and listen to the people. That is the appropriate forum. Whether or not there has been an improper use of taxpayers' funds in this spitting contest that we see between the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, the only logical question to ask is that of the Chief Electoral Officer. We shall see when the election is over and when all of the forms have been filed whether or not the Election Expenses Act has been followed. That is all that matters, Mr. Speaker. I submit from where I sit that that perhaps this is all you have to rule upon today.
Let me say in defence of Newfoundlanders that when you manufacture nonsense, be it in a $40,000 package or a letter from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Newfoundlanders will recognize it is nonsense every time. We are not impressed by this spitting contest between the two Parties. We want some answers. We want some leadership. We want to
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
know what the policies are to put the Province of Newfoundland back to work and to help it realize its full potential. We do not want a shouting match between schoolchildren in a forum that has been changed into a schoolyard. This is a shameful, shameful day.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, on this same question of privilege, I would like to point out that, a few weeks ago, I also made a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 to denounce the same use of franking privileges for partisan purposes by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. What I was denouncing at the time was the fact that, the Hon. Member had used his franking privileges to send a partisan message to Jonquiere residents in which he took position on the tax reform and income taxes.
I have here another document from the Hon. Member of which I would like to read a few sentences:
"Mr. Broadbent, I want you to know what I think about fair taxes and employment." Then, there is only a small space where you cannot write either yes or no. It is simply written "yes". You have to put a check-mark if you agree with the statement. Then, the document says: "Yes, I believe that a tax reform guaranteeing that everyone pays his fair share is necessary. Low or middle income Canadian men and women should not have to bear an unfair tax burden." I wonder why such a question should be asked to Canadians, Mr. Speaker. It seems very obvious to me that everyone would agree that people must not bear an unfair tax burden.
Then, the Hon. Member said: "Yes, I believe that tax rebates should be used to create new jobs, not to provide tax holidays for groups or big businesses." The terms used are not even correct. It should be tax shelters and not tax holidays.
On another point, the Hon. Member says: "Yes, I agree with you when you support fair taxes." Is there anyone who could be against fair taxes, Mr. Speaker? Even though the words "A message from Ed Broadbent" were written on the letter, the Hon. Member is using for partisan purpose his privileges as a Member of Parliament, for which he pays less than ordinary citizens. The return postage was also prepaid. No stamp was required and it was addressed to: Ed Broadbent, Member of Parliament, House of Commons. The Hon. Member was using his privileges for partisan purposes, which is exactly what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) is now describing, but in relation with another type of letter.
Mr. Speaker, we can go back to the statement I made a few weeks ago pursuant to Standing Order 21, when I said that, to top it all, this was only a mock survey. If the Hon. Member were at least using his privileges logically, even though such behaviour would still not be acceptable, it would be somewhat better. But this was just a sham. People could not even reply by saying yes or no. There was just a space for yes and questions on which everyone agrees since we are all for fair and equitable taxes.

March 9, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it would be tempting to continue to listen to Conservative and NDP Members fight it out for third place, but 1 think we are dealing with something of importance to the proceedings of the House of Commons and that is whether or not we do have here a genuine question of privilege. As I understand it, Citation 84 on page 25 of Beauchesne's refers to the role of the Speaker in these matters. The citation reads:
Once the claim of a breach of privilege has been made, it is the duty of the Speaker to decide if a prima facie case can be established. The Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify him in giving such precedence (or as it is sometimes put, that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed); and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
What are we talking about when we deal with a matter of parliamentary privilege? In this connection, I would respectfully refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Citation 16 on page 11 of Beauchesne's. In both cases, I have been referring to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. Citation 16 appears to be a quotation from Erskine May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 19th Edition. I respectfully draw to your attention some of the words of this Citation which read as follows:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
You must decide, therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether the matter raised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie), or for that matter the question raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), falls within the rather restrictive definition of privilege set down in the authorities I have cited and if in those circumstances you are in a position to rule that there has been a prima facie breach of privilege as so defined.
It may be that what has been complained of by the Minister of Transport is something to be looked at in another forum or by others outside this Chamber. I will not attempt to deal with that at this time. However, the question is whether or not we are talking about a matter of privilege within the definition set down by the authorities in question.
As I have said with respect to the matters before us and as I think a member on the government side indicated by saying we are dealing with what he called rather ingeniously a consolidated question of privilege, you have a rather narrow and specific task to perform. With respect to the point raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I suppose it could
be argued that at some point it will be a matter of parliamentary debate on the proper expenditure of public funds by the Government when it comes to various mailings and films in the Province of Newfoundland.
I know you have invited us to make some comments on the procedural aspect of this, Mr. Speaker. While my doing so may detract from the other aspects of the discussion at this time, and while, as I have said, it would be tempting to allow members of the Conservative and New Democratic Parties to continue their ongoing fight for third place, I thought I would rise at this time to draw to the attention of the House considerations at which we must look when any of us raise a question of privilege, and to call upon you, Sir, to see if there has been a prima facie breach of such a question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this important discussion. I think you. Sir, will have to rule on this sleazy operation of the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I would like to remind my hon. friend that, as my Leader said-and I know my hon. friend will accept him at his word-we paid for the printing and the postage, and that is not the case with the postage on the stuff he sent out which was paid for not by a political Party but by a Department of the Government.
I would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. friend from St. John's West, that I have here an epistle sent out under the frank of John Thomson, MP, Calgary South, advertising the Stampede Barbecue at Spruce Meadows. Thank goodness it got sent to an NDP MLA in Regina. That is how I got it.
I have another letter, Mr. Speaker, that begins with: "Dear Fellow Conservative". The envelope reads J.B. M.P., Regina East. I hope the Hon. Member for St. John's West is paying attention to this. The letter is addressed to Mrs. Pat King and reads: "Dear Fellow Conservative". I must say that this is the last thing Mrs. Pat King would ever be. In any case, the letter reads as follows:
Accompanying this letter is a request addressed to you by Bill Wheatley, President of the Regina East Progressive Conservative Association, to formally join the Association.
The Regina East Constituency is one of the fifty federal ridings singled out by the new leader of the NDP for an intensive effort on its part to elect an NDP Member of Parliament.
By the way, we happened to do that. The letter goes on:
In order to respond to this challenge, it is important for our party to maintain a strong grass-roots organization.
The letter was sent out under the frank of James Balfour.


John Carnell Crosbie: They are not even Members any longer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, yes, but why, all of a sudden, is my hon. friend exercised about the matter when his Party has been the worst offender in the misuse of taxpayers' funds by Members of Parliament in the whole history of this Parliament and of every Parliament going back to 1867?
March 9, 1987_______________COMMONS
I think you, Sir, will have to come down hard and fast on what is contained in the newsletters of Members of Parliament, and we are prepared to live with that because we pay our bills. We might be slow but we pay them.
I have another letter which reads as follows:
Dear Supporter,
I want to bring to your attention our Party's financial statement for 1979.
I must say I am proud that individuals are responsible for more than 81 per cent of PC Party contributions-the highest per centage of all Canadian political parties.
I think he has the statistics wrong but that does not matter. The letter goes on:
We in the PC Party have always believed our roots sprang from a belief in individual initiative-
Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam. It goes on:
I am sure you will join me in expressing sincere gratitude to PC Canada Fund Chairman Terry Yates, and his board of directors,-
It is not a political Party, it is a corporation and it should be subject to the corporate laws of Canada. It goes on:
__for ensuring that our Party can meet its financial commitments-
I would be happy to provide the Chair with a copy of the envelope. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this letter was sent to me asking me for a donation. I have here more requests for donations from the PC Canada Fund than you can shake a stick at. It just shows how hard up the Tory Party is when it asks me for donations. I would give it something for a welfare cheque but nothing else. This letter came addressed to me at 21st Avenue in Regina and it was signed by, would you believe, the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark).
I defy the Hon. Member for St. John's West and anyone else in the House to find anywhere else that kind of blatant soliciting of funds or peddling of so-called news at the expense of a Department of the Government so obviously aimed at pursuing political purposes.
Now that this can of worms has been opened, I invite you to go over the record and rule that from now on, in fact even retroactively, every Member of this House will be sent a Bill for the printing, stationery, and postage, the whole damn works.


John V. Nunziata: Ed could not afford it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a newsletter coming out next month and I hope you will examine it carefully. If I am wrong in any part of it, send me a bill and I will pay it. My Leader has already paid the bills for this one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us see them.


Mr. Thacker:: When?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Does the hon. gentleman not accept my Leader's word?
DEBATES____________________________________________3965
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie Mr. Lewis: He did.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He accepted the word?


John Carnell Crosbie: Let us see them, that is all I am saying.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That means you do not accept his word.


Philip Derek Lewis: Oh, yes, we do.


John Carnell Crosbie: You do what you like and I will do what I like.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Make up your mind. The problem is that when it comes to Newfoundland we have too many members that are liars.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are not going to have another one from there.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I think you should rule that if Hon. Members from all Parties-


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can anticipate the point of order. The Hon. Member just said that when it comes to Newfoundland we have too many members who are liars. The Hon. Member was very careful not to say which ones were among the too many. I am sure the Hon. Member is only expressing a point of view which, perhaps, goes to occasional lapses of accuracy by Hon. Members no matter what part of Canada they come from. I am sure he is not trying to call any particular Member from Newfoundland or all members together liars, and 1 am sure he would like to indicate that through the Chair.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. 1 am perfectly prepared to withdraw it. I was trying to use a Newfoundland accent where they talk about "lawyers". If my colleagues from Newfoundland take offence, I withdraw unequivocally.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a few words in conclusion?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the House will permit the Minister to say a few final words, and then the Chair will consider the matter and report back to the House in due course.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with reference to my question of privilege, I properly gave you notice in writing before two o'clock this afternoon of a question of privilege with respect to this letter sent by the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) to the electorate of Saint John's East. The NDP Leader alleges that he laid some kind of a notice of breach of privilege against me. It was not done in writing or in accordance with the rules and nothing has been produced which the Hon. Leader of the NDP is alleged to be complaining about, namely that a pamphlet or document has been sent to every household in Newfoundland dealing with the Canada-France fisheries dispute. No document was presented by the Leader of the NDP of which he complains. He says there is some kind of half-hour documentary film, about which he complains, paid

March 9, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
for by the Government. I am quite willing to confirm that there is such a film, it was on television in Newfoundland last Thursday night, and 1 highly recommend that members recall it on their systems and have a look at it. They will find that there is absolutely no partisan political material in either that TV program or in the pamphlet which has not been produced in this House by the Leader of the NDP. How can the man complain of a document he has not seen? He is not a Newfoundlander and until someone down there mails him a copy of this pamphlet how can he complain? He has not read it, he has not seen it, and when he does read it and see it he will no longer have an excuse for his abysmal ignorance of the fishery problems in the Canada-France treaty.
There is no question for you to decide upon concerning my allegedly breaching the privileges of the Members of this House. None whatsoever. There is nothing before you.
If I might just address my own question of privilege, the Hon. Member for Oshawa says he paid for the mailing. If he says he paid for it, I am not going to say he did not. I will simply say that it would be interesting to see when it was paid and how much was paid for mailing 36,000 pieces of mail apparently.


Brian Vincent Tobin: About $201.


John Carnell Crosbie: About $201. That is quite a bargain, because if they all went out at 34 cents apiece for 36,000 pieces of mail it would be $12,240.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Do you accept his word or don't you?


John Carnell Crosbie: I would like to see how much was paid for this mailing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You do not accept his word? Make up your mind.


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to see how much was paid for the mailing and by whom. If the Hon. Leader of the NDP says the Party paid for it, let us see the evidence. The way for that to be done is in the committee to be set up on this question, if Your Honour rules that there is a prima facie case of a breach of privilege. I would then like to see who paid for the stationery, because the stationery used is that of the Leader of the NDP in his capacity as an MP. Did the NDP pay for that?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes.


John Carnell Crosbie: We would like to see that, and the envelope as well. Those are some of the questions which remain unanswered.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You do not take his word?


John Carnell Crosbie: They are not answered by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) tottering in here, living in the past and producing letters sent out years ago by Members who are long departed-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Joe Clark?


John Carnell Crosbie: -some of them to the Senate and some to the grave.
Oh, how it hurts these souls of sanctimony to be caught and hung on their own petard violating the rules of this House for partisan political advantage. Hypocrites anonymous no longer, just hypocrites, that is what they are.
I refer once again to the rules on allowances and services. Under unacceptable requests, as I read to you before, Part B concerns material of a partisan political nature, which this is. Then further on down we have reference to the reproduction on letterheads such as Party stationery and so on. If you go on to Part F, you will find reproduction of material prepared by Party research offices. We got the distinct impression today, and perhaps someone over there would like to deny it, that this material was prepared by the NDP research office. If so, they have no right under the rules to reproduce and send that material out under the franking privileges or otherwise of this House.
Was all this referred to the printing unit so that it could review the material to see whether it met with the rules? It was not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is automatically.


John Carnell Crosbie: I would ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a prima facie breach of the privileges of the Members of this House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It never went to the printing unit, you bonehead.


John Carnell Crosbie: This kind of activity by the NDP has to be stopped. Just as they did in the B.C. provincial election, they are now attempting to break every rule in the book when it comes to the St. John's East by-election. But I will tell them this: They will never see an NDP Member elected from St. John's East, never, even if they send out 500,000 pieces of mail from now until the end of July. There will be no NDP Member elected, not even with this sanctimonious breach of the rules of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 
INTERVIEW GIVEN TO PRESS BY MR. DE COTRET
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I gave you written notice of my question of privilege at eleven o'clock this morning. It is with regard to an interview given by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to a Globe and Mail reporter, Mr. David Stewart-Patterson.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can assist the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member sent to the Chair a model notice which set out the points exactly. I invite the Hon. Member to go over those points. However, I point out that the Minister, who is alleged to have made certain statements which are the subject of the complaint, is not in the Chamber today. I propose, if this would meet with the approval of the Hon. Member raising the question, to hear the Hon. Member and then adjourn the matter to allow the Minister to reply, if he wishes, and to allow other Members to make comments. Given the hour and the fact that the Minister is not here, if that is agreeable to the Hon. Member, we will proceed in that way.


John R. Rodriguez: That is most agreeable to me, Mr. Speaker.
It is important that some background be given with respect to this particular issue. Some weeks ago the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration was questioning UI commissioners who were witnesses before the committee. These commissioners included the Chairman, Mr. Gaetan Lussier, the Deputy Minister of Employment and Immigration. At that particular meeting a member of the committee moved a motion to have the witnesses sworn. The motion was carried and the witnesses were sworn.
In an interview with Mr. David Stewart-Patterson of the Globe and Mail last Friday the President of the Treasury Board is quoted as having said:
It's a terrible precedent. I would never ask a public servant to testify under oath. The committee is really saying he's a liar. I don't believe that.
Later in the same interview the Minister is quoted as having said:
1 would have liked to see Gaetan Lussier walk right out of the room.
The President of the Treasury Board is not the ordinary, run-of-the-mill Minister. In fact, he is the Minister of public servants. In more specific terms, he is the Minister of the mandarinate. He is their Minister.
First, in my opinion, the Minister is imputing motive to the members of the committee which can only be considered as a reflection, not only on the members of the committee, but on all Members of the House.
Citation 50 of Beauchesne's, found on page 19, reads:
A suggestion in a newspaper in 1941 that a member nominated to a committee could not act impartially was noted by the Prime Minister to be a breach of privilege but the House took no action.
In this particular instance the President of the Treasury Board is imputing motives or comments to members of the committee. He is suggesting that the members of the committee thought that Mr. Lussier was a liar and that is why the committee was putting him under oath to give testimony.
Borrowing Authority
Standing committees of this House have the power to put witnesses under oath. The Deputy Minister was appearing as a witness. The Minister is telling the Deputy Minister that he does not have to submit to Parliament. Who pays the Deputy Minister's wages? Who foots the bill for the Deputy Minister? Why, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of Canada do. Who are the voices of the taxpayers of Canada? The Parliament of Canada, every single Member in this House, is a voice for the taxpayer. We are even more so the voice of taxpayers in committee. In fact, committees today are recognized as doing extremely important work.
The Minister shows disrespect for the Parliament of Canada by counselling the Deputy Minister to ignore a standing committee and the House. We may not have a fifth amendment in the Constitution of our country, but who needs it when we have the President of the Treasury Board? Who needs a fifth amendment when the Deputy Minister is being counselled by the big cheese of all the mandarinate to ignore the committee and Parliament?
If you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who has put the matter very succinctly. Again, I commend him for the great care with which he framed his notice which was served in plenty of time. In view of the suggestion by the Chair that this matter be adjourned to another appropriate time when the Minister might want to be here, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has a comment.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague and your suggestion. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister in order that he may take the matter under advisement and consider his course of action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), that Bill C-40, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House rose there were three minutes left in the period for questions and comments following the speech of the Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier). Are there any questions? There being no questions, we will resume debate.

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority


Aideen Nicholson: Madam Speaker, we are again debating a borrowing authority Bill, and the circumstances are again not very happy. The public debt is continuing to increase more rapidly than economic growth. This must be of concern at any time, but it is of particular concern when the Government is raising taxes, cutting services, and taking measures which run counter to increasing economic growth.
We in the Official Opposition have criticized every Budget brought down by the Conservative Government since it took office, and each for the same basic shortcomings. We are disturbed by the Government's apparent fixation in the short term and by the lack of concern and vision for what the country s future will be. Second, while we are sympathetic to the need to reduce the deficit, we have serious reservations, both about the choices the Government has made to meet this objective and about the poor results to date.
Canadians have not been well or fairly treated by the Government which made so many promises that have not been fulfilled. Since the Government came to power Canadians have been subjected to a regime of continually escalating taxes and dwindling services. Only corporations and the wealthy have been spared the steady erosion of their disposable income that started with the first Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in May, 1985. By April, personal income taxes will be 48 per cent higher, an increase of S43.3 billion, than in 198485, the year the Government was elected. For corporations, however, the increase is a mere 4.3 per cent.
This 48 per cent increase in personal taxes does not include the 62 per cent increase in federal sales and excise taxes, which account for a further $22.83 billion out of the pockets of Canadian consumers.
Although sales and excise taxes are levied at the manufacturers' level, they are invariably passed on to the consumers in the form of higher prices.
Sales taxes have not only been increased at every opportunity, they have been extended to cover a wide range of products not previously taxed.
In last year s Budget, the Minister of Finance announced a 3 per cent surtax on all individuals. It has been described as temporary, but no mention has been made of how long it is to be in effect. It is clear that in its search for revenue the Government has squeezed the average Canadian, the person of modest means, as well as the poor. Not only are the poor paying more, the measures brought in by the Government, including the deindexation of tax brackets and the elimination of the $100 federal tax reduction, are creating a situation where more and more low-income people are being added to the tax rolls even though their incomes remain static. The Government has quite deliberately put the burden of deficit reduction squarely on the backs of low-income and middle-income Canadians.
What has it offered in return for all these extended raids on the taxpayers pocketbook? We were told that increases were necessary because everyone had to participate in reducing the deficit. Fow and middle-income Canadians have done more than their share, but has the Government done its part? Has it succeeded in reducing the deficit? Let us remember that attacking the deficit was a key goal the Government set for itself. Yet two and a half years into its mandate its record on the deficit is less than impressive.
Despite all the belt tightening inflicted on taxpayers, the cuts in services, the new user fees and service charges, the deficit in fiscal year 1986-87, after four years of economic recovery, will be $32 billion compared to $32.4 billion in the last full year of the previous Liberal Government when we were just beginning to climb out from recession.
What happened? The Government has raised taxes by $6 billion but all of its self-congratulatory rhetoric cannot hide the fact that despite the tax burden added on Canadians in the name of deficit reduction the Government has scarcely managed to make a dent in it.
The high level of public dissatisfaction with the Government comes as no surprise. There is very little to show that the Conservatives remember the promises they made to Canadians.
Last week in the House 1 asked the Minister of Finance how he expected his policies to result in a better future for Canadians. The Minister's answer was less than satisfactory because it was merely a litany of some of the measures he has introduced, ostensibly to assist Canadians. He mentioned the refundable sales tax credit, but surely that is a very meagre provision. It is available only to those with annual incomes below $15,000. That still leaves out many families living below the poverty line.
The Minister also mentioned the prepayment of the Child tax credit as a measure introduced to improve the quality of life for Canadians. Again, this is a very restricted measure, available only to those whose incomes fall below $15,000 a year. It simply means that those families receive in November what they would have received anyway the following April. However, the approximately 300,000 Canadian families living below the poverty line but with incomes over $15,000 are not eligible for it. In any case, the money going back to Canadians through the sales tax rebate and child tax credit prepayment combined is still less than half of what the Government gets when it raises sales taxes by 1 per cent. 1 remind members that the Government has raised sales taxes by three per centage points since coming to power.
In his response, the Minister also mentioned increases in veterans' pensions and spouses' allowance. While that is all well and good, I point out that these are also classed as income for tax purposes and are therefore vulnerable to the Minister's hungry hidden taxes which are taking bigger bites each year from the incomes of Canadian seniors.
March 9, 1987

Finally, the Minister threw out the figure of 677,000 jobs having been created. How does he explain that there are still 1.25 million Canadians having trouble finding just one job? Unemployment is not likely to abate under the Government. In January this year unemployment was 9.7 per cent. After four years of economic recovery, this is not a result of which to be proud. Unemployment levels have barely edged down from their mid-recession high of 11 per cent. According to the forecasts of the Minister of Finance, unemployment will still be at an unacceptable 9 per cent by the end of this year.
The Government would appear to be satisfied with that because in its spending Estimates tabled on March 2 we see that it plans to cut its funding for job-creation by 12 per cent, from $1.8 billion to $1.6 billion. To be fair, not all job-creation funds are being cut. The Estimates indicate that employment programs for welfare recipients and refugees will receive some additional support.
However, I remind the Government of one very important thing which it seems to overlook. It is the relationship between education and employability. Education and training are the keys to success in the job market. This was recognized by the Forget Commission which was appointed by the Government to review the unemployment insurance system. In its report, the commission said that: "Canada must take immediate steps to put in place the ingredients essential for bringing about full employment". Among those ingredients the commission listed education, skills development and training. The commission report went on to say: "Failure to respond to this challenge will result in lost opportunities for all Canadians and will doom the least successful to a marginal existence on unemployment insurance and social assistance". The Government cannot fail to be aware of this. My colleagues and I have raised the matter time and again in our speeches and in questions in the House.
I find it utterly amazing, therefore, that the Government could have tabled on the one hand a Budget that abdicated job-creation to so-called market forces and, on the other hand, tabled spending Estimates that show millions of dollars cut from federal support to the provinces for post-secondary education and from federal job-creation programs.
The Estimates show a cut of $14 million in cash transfer payments for post-secondary education. When I raised the matter in the House, the Minister of Finance very indignantly responded that there will be no cut since the Estimates provided for an increase in tax transfers to the provinces. The provinces are not obligated to apply tax transfers to specific programs. There is no guarantee that there will be a replacement of the $14 million cut that the federal Government has made in the cash transfers that are specifically targeted to post-secondary education.
The Government says that it is concerned about unemployment. But how are Canadians to find this credible when the actions of the Government indicate the opposite? Things are especially difficult for those living outside central Canada, in
Borrowing Authority
regions where unemployment is worse now than it was in the depths of the recession. But what is the Government doing?
Since coming to power it has year over year reduced its support for the economically disadvantaged regions. Even with the grain subsidy program, regional development support has dropped by about $2 billion since the Conservatives took power. In his Budget Speech the Minister of Finance acknowledged that the regions are "hurting"; but he had no new programs to announce. The Estimates tabled last week showed, apart from the grain subsidy, very little to change the perception that the Government has abandoned the regions.
Recently, the Association of Mayors and Reeves made a special request of the Government for additional funds for municipal infrastructures: sewers, roads, bridges and so on. The mayors and reeves made very persuasive arguments in favour of protecting the quality of life and, in particular, in favour of creating employment. The Government refused their requests. However, it was not content just to refuse a request for assistance from municipalities, it has acted to make life more difficult for municipalities. The increase in the excise tax on gasoline has, of course, pushed up the cost of providing public transportation. The additional requirement for deducting the essential deductions from wages, that is, the Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance and income tax, which are now required to be deducted fortnightly instead of monthly, is adding to the workload of municipalities. Of course, the sales tax has hit municipalities very hard.
So we are really seeing the Government making a desperate attempt to look as though it were reducing the deficit while it is transferring more of its deficit to municipalities and provinces. But we do not see serious attempts to stimulate the economy and to take the type of measures that would in fact reduce the deficit in a long-term and constructive way.
We have had a great deal of rhetoric from the Government on the subject of tax reform. It was supposed to be the centrepiece of the February Budget. It has now been put off to some nebulous time in the spring. But there was a hint in the Estimates of what Canadians might expect from tax reform. It is why most Departments will have to adjust to further cuts in staff. We see that Revenue Canada is scheduled to hire over 400 new tax collectors. That does not seem to line up with the Finance Minister's promise that tax reform would make the tax system fairer, simpler and more efficient.
I now come to the Public Service. The Government has made much of how it would bring in greater efficiencies in the Public Service. Last year, the Government announced that it would consider instituting a system of what it called productivity bonuses for managers in the Public Service who have been successful in "meeting expenditure targets". What that seems to amount to is bonuses for those who were able to cut jobs. We learn from the Estimates that the Government will be spending about $4.5 million on bonuses for last year's work. The bonuses are for senior management, people who already earn anywhere from $50,000 to $120,000 per year. I have learned that their job performances will be evaluated in the

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
normal way. Those who are judged satisfactory will receive a bonus of 1 per cent of their salary, while those judged superior or outstanding will receive a 1.5 per cent bonus. There are between 5,000 and 6,000 public servants in the senior management categories who will be eligible for bonuses. I estimate that a maximum of 10 per cent of these are women.
There are a great many more women in the lower ranks of the Public Service, in the categories that are more vulnerable to lay-offs and job elimination. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has said that although 5,500 Public Service jobs, or person-years, were cut last year, in the end, because of transfers, natural attrition and so on, only 500 were actually laid off. It would be interesting to find out how many of those 500 were women and, in particular, how many were women supporting families. It would be interesting to know what standards and criteria the Government established to determine which jobs were to be cut and what their impact was on jobs held by women. This is information we have tried without success to obtain in the Public Accounts Committee.
We have also had a great deal of rhetoric from the Government on the subject of child care. The accredited day care centres can only accommodate 20 per cent of the children whose parents work outside the home. Of all the Canadian families with children under the age of 16, over one-half, or 51 per cent, are two-parent, two-earner families. There was nothing whatsoever in the Estimates with respect to day care. Yet last week in the House the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) promised the establishment of a "national comprehensive child care program". From where is the money to come? It is not in the Estimates. It is not in the Budget. We do not see any mention of it in the borrowing authority Bill. It is a program which is very much needed, but given the Government s success rate on keeping its promises Canadians may be excused if they wait to see action rather than putting their faith into words.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If there are no questions or comments, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) on debate.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, we have seen hypocrisy piled on hypocrisy by a Liberal Party which, first, says it will not support the borrowing authority Bill, and then proceeds to castigate the Government with respect to all sorts of cuts in expenditures ranging from training programs to education to transfers to the provinces. Somehow these Members seem to say that we are supposed to operate the country and increase training, transfers and benefits, while not increasing taxes or borrowing. They seem to say that we are supposed to go behind Parliament Hill and pick from the trees out there the money which is on them. That is the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party. It is also the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party. That is why members of those Parties could never form a Government.
The people of the country may consider us to be down a bit right now, but they will certainly be looking at Members
opposite, too. As the people look at them, they will note what they did to the country. Over a period of time they took the nation from basically being in balance, where, aside from wartime, the taxes received were sufficient to pay the ordinary running expenses of the country, to the time when along came John Turner, the then Minister of Finance, now the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, who changed the system so that taxes went down on an indexed basis, and expenses went up on an indexed basis.
The year ending 1984-85 was the fiscal year when the present Government took over. The year had elapsed seven months by that time. The spending was in place, the orders were in place, and the staff were in place. If it had not been for Michael Wilson, our Minister of Finance, putting on the brakes in November of 1984, the deficit for that year would have bounced to well over $40 billion. As it was, it was $38.5 billion. Here they are, hypocrisy.
I have spoken on borrowing authority Bills since I was returned to the House in the 1979 election. I spoke when the Government was under the leadership of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. I also spoke when we were in opposition. In detail I have gone over the cost of the borrowings and the fiscal imbalance problems that are built into our system. As a Government, we have endeavoured to get a handle on it, get our arms around this problem. Bit by bit we are doing so, but it is not easy. It is very much like a frog trying to get out of a well. We go up a little, but then the expenses drive us down.
This year, $28.5 billion of what we have to spend will go in interest to pay for money that was spent years ago. It goes in interest to pay the bills run up by the Government, supported by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). No wonder we have our problems. Yet the Hon. Member suggests that we spend more and tax less. What an interesting idea. She suggests that we find a money tree. That is the essence of their position, go find a money tree. I suppose we should go and print it as does Brazil or Argentina. That is what they were in the process of doing. The Government is turning it around, but it is not easy with the problems of regional disparity that the Official Opposition has alluded to. The Government knows about them, and that there is an unemployment problem of enormous proportions in western Canada that did not exist. Western Canada was dragging the country along, and it can no longer do that at the present time with the horribly low prices for oil. At one point oil went down to less than $10 a barrel. Therefore, we are not able to receive the tax revenue from that source, nor are we able to cut back expenditures, because we have to pour more and more money into unemployment insurance and other benefits in order to help the west get back on its feet. It is not easy. But what does the Official Opposition suggest? It suggests that we should not tax as much, spend more, and run a larger deficit. "We will not let you have any borrowing authority", they say. That is a brilliant, progressive concept put forward by the Liberal Party.
March 9, 1987_______________COMMONS
Let us look at what we presently have in terms of deficits. In the seven months beginning this year, and I am going by the real figures, $72.5 billion was spent. That was approximately $3 billion more than the previous year. In the same period, revenue was up by about $6 billion. In going over the figures of Department after Department, and I wish to name some of them, I have found that expenses are down for the Departments of Employment and Immigration; Energy, Mines and Resources; Fisheries and Oceans; Labour; Public Works; Regional Industrial Expansion; Secretary of State; and Transport. We have been carrying and controlling the expenditures of Government by making sure that we receive value for every dollar that is spent, not because we wish to be niggardly or because we wish to cut back on the people who are employed, but because we have to. If we do not cut back on expenditures, more money will have to be borrowed. We have cut back rather dramatically on expenditures.
The Hon. Member for Trinity referred to bonuses to public servants who make their Departments run more efficiently. Somehow that is supposed to be the wrong idea. I suppose good public servants should not be rewarded for running their Departments more efficiently. Somehow it is a heresy that competent, progressive, capable people who bring about efficiency for their Department should not be rewarded. The Liberal Party would reward incompetence. The Government rewards competence, capability, honesty, and progressiveness.
Last year the House granted the Government $22.6 billion in borrowing authority. The Government had problems in western Canada, and the Finance Committee has heard about the problems in connection with the collection of taxes from the major oil companies. The tax collection from the major oil companies was down $1.5 billion. Also there were problems in the west with respect to the prices of grain, and the fact that the PGRT was completely abolished, but still continued with the obligations in connection with PIP grants. In spite of all that, the deficit rose, and for this year's operations $24 billion has to be borrowed.
In addition to that, in order to stabilize the currency, it was decided to put some money into reserves. One of the problems Canada has had for some considerable period of time is that the former Government ran down the foreign exchange reserves. This Government could run them down, I suppose, but not by much. It was decided that the reserves should be built up. This year the Government doubled our foreign exchange reserves and built them up to over $6 billion.
The $3.6 billion of borrowing authority required in this Bill for this year alone is to make up for the shortfall, and to make it possible for the reserves to be replenished. Replenishing the reserves is not increasing the debt of the country, because it is more money on one side of the balance sheet and more debt on the other side, but there is an asset to cover the liability.
If there are no reserves, there must be a line of credit with an American bank. For a long period of time Canada had lines of credit with American banks. That was the idea of the former Minister of Finance, the Hon. Marc Lalonde. He went
DEBATES	________________3971
Borrowing Authority
to the American bankers and gave them a quarter of a per centage point for a line of credit. If there was trouble with currency, we whipped down south and borrowed money. That line of credit cost money.
Taiwan has $40 billion in reserves, and Germany has $55 billion in reserves. Canada managed to put $6 billion into reserves. That is not enough. We should have a stronger currency position. Our currency is traded world-wide. The other day our committee was in New York talking to the international bankers. The bankers in New York said that we in Canada should not sell ourselves short. They said that our currency was the fourth most traded in the world after the U.S. dollar, the British pound, and the German mark. It was not the French franc or the lira or the yen, but the Canadian dollar. It is important that the Canadian dollar be strong, that the Canadian dollar be preserved or protected. It is also important that we have those reserves. That is one of the reasons for the borrowing authority Bill.
I have not heard anyone on the other side talk that way. They are just yammering and stonewalling a Bill because they do not really understand it. It is an obligation on the part of their finance critics to understand it, not just talk about matters of no importance.
I should like to turn to the other portion of the Bill. The financial requirements this year, according to the Budget, are $21.3 billion. They are down from last year. For the year just ending, the financial requirements were $24 billion. Next year they will be $21.3 billion. This is a substantial reduction in financial requirements. We have asked for that $21.3 billion in Part II of the Bill, plus an additional $3 billion as non-lapsing borrowing authority. They sit back and ask why we want this non-lapsing borrowing authority. It is simply because we must ensure that our financial affairs are strong and that when needed we can step into the market-place to borrow money to stabilize our currency and keep our reserves in line, that is, to do those things which a Government that understands its obligations to its people must do. We need that non-lapsing borrowing authority.
In the course of this year in managing matters we have used up the non-lapsing borrowing authority. We had $2 billion available. It has been used up. It cannot be reinvigorated. The $2.6 billion in the Bill to help the situation lapses at the end of this year, so the only non-lapsing borrowing authority we will have will be the $3 billion in Part II of the Bill. It is necessary to have it.
Do we hear opposition spokesmen-the Liberal finance critic, the NDP finance critic, and the Ministry of State for Finance critic of the Liberal Party-say anything about the Bill or talk about the Bill? No, they ask why we cannot spend more. How are we to spend more and not borrow more? They say that we cannot borrow, so go out and print it. They say that we cannot tax any more. What are we supposed to do- not spend it or print it, or plant a tree and pick the fruit?

March 9, 1987
Borrowing Authority
They complained when we cut the money to the CBC. They said that it was terrible. When we cut back on transfers to the provinces, they said that that was terrible. When we cut back some indexation in the Income Tax Act, they said that that was terrible. When they knew that we were spending nearly $12 billion on unemployment insurance and that we were not getting value for it, what did they say? When we established the Forget Commission to do something about it and to make some suggestions, they said that under no circumstances should we follow its recommendations because we might wind up getting value for the money spent on unemployment insurance in terms of training people, putting people back to work, and making the country more prosperous. They said: "Don't do that". When we increased taxes on gasoline, they said that we should not do that. How are we supposed not to have borrowing authority?
I would have thought that the Opposition would have taken a leaf out of some of the statements made by the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in opposition on these kinds of Bills. We pointed out to the Government of the day that there was waste and inefficiency in the unemployment scheme. We pointed out to the Government of the day that there were problems which might be cut back in terms of money to the CBC. We said that certain efficiencies could be had in transportation. We said that there were certain efficiencies which could be had in disposing of Crown corporations, that the Government did not have to pour out more and more money for those corporations to stay alive. We pointed out that there might be some productivity and growth in employment if they were sold off.
They do not make those suggestions. They do not give us a concrete method by which we can come to grips with the financial problems of the country. They just say: "No, don't spend here , no, don't tax there", and "no, give me more". More, more and more is not effective opposition. Those Parties could not govern the country. They are not prepared to come to grips with the problems of the country or to look at our true fiscal imbalance.
Even this year, having increased taxes as we have, and having decreased expenses as we have, we will be short in terms of the money requirement to carry the country next year by $21.6 billion. In other words, we will not take in enough to cover our expenses. We have a real problem. We would expect suggestions from the Opposition on how to solve the problem, but we have not had a suggestion.
How are we doing? If we look at the budget problems since we took over, as the Minister mentioned, we were borrowing 28.8 per cent or 5 per cent less than we had been borrowing. The fact is that our deficit as a per centage of Gross National Product is down by 39 per cent, and our borrowing requirements as a per centage of Gross National Product are down by 42 per cent. It is a pretty simple situation. It is like that of a home owner earning $50,000 per year and having a $50,000 mortgage. In that event one has real problems. However, if perchance one s salary goes up and one has a gross family
income of $75,000, it is substantially easier to carry that $50,000 mortgage.
Because of good management of the country and the fact that we have been able to have growth in the country which is higher than in any other OECD country, we have been able to come to grips with the debt problem. That debt problem, while enormous and totally wrong in itself, and while we should not be borrowing money we cannot pay with current taxes coming in, is less of a problem today than it was last year or the year before. We are getting our hands and arms around it, and I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) ought to be congratulated.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I have just one brief question for the Hon. Member. He indicated that he did not think there was a very effective Opposition. I have looked at where the Conservative Party is in the polls. Where does he think his Party would be in the polls if there were in his mind a truly effective Opposition? Would it be down at 18 per cent, 15 per cent, or 12 per cent? How effective does he want the Opposition to be?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I am glad the member has raised the issue. One of the major problems we face is that over many, many years a great number of Canadians became used to the free lunch. They are encouraged in that expectation of a free lunch by the New Democratic Party and by the Liberal Party which promise all things to all people because all you have to do is have the Government get it for you. As we cut back on the free lunch, we get a number of people upset with us. We are prepared to take that penalty, but I do not think the Opposition is. It is about time the Opposition started being responsible. After all, if the New Democratic Party is so high in the polls, perhaps it can show Canadians where it is going to get the money for all the free lunch items which it keeps on demanding, crying for and mewing about in this House.
[ Translation]


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).

He referred to the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was Minister of Finance in 1975-76, the year he left office. In that year the Auditor General, Mr. MacDonnell said:
I am deeply concerned that Parliament-and indeed the Government-has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse_
As you know, Madam Speaker, the current Auditor General, Mr. Ken Dye, in his report to the House of Commons for the last fiscal year made a comment under a very interesting headline entitled "Spending Public Money Wisely" which reads:
March 9, 1987

-if a deliberate effort were made to establish an environment that encourages managers to achieve satisfactory results at reasonable cost, significant improvements could be made in achieving value for money. I am therefore very pleased to see policy in line with that view of things.
Does my colleague feel that this very positive endorsement by the federal financial watchdog, the Auditor General, is a good endorsement of the Government's fiscal management?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I think we have made some real progress in managing more carefully the public purse. We have a long way to go yet. I run into, as I am sure my colleague does, all sorts of instances where I think we might have done something more reasonably, perhaps at less cost. Perhaps there are things we are doing now that we might not need to do at one point. But I am really pleased, as 1 mentioned in my remarks, about the system whereby we are motivating our senior people in the Public Service to watch very closely how they spend money. We are now rewarding them on the basis of their competence of staying within the budget lines. I think members ought to be pleased. In times past we used to see Supplementary Estimates (A), (B), (C) and (D) and I remember a Supplementary Estimates (E). But last year we only got to Supplementary Estimates (B), and last year they stayed pretty close to the requirements. Let me say to Members of this House that the management of money has been far more effective than ever before.


Mr. de Jong:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), a member that we in the Finance Committee hold in high esteem. Very often more wisdom comes forth from him in the Finance Committee than when he gives speeches in the House. We understand that when he gives speeches in the House he is on television and has to do his political posturing. If citizens would care to wade through the reports of the Finance Committee, they would find some worthwhile suggestions from the member on how we can cut some tax loopholes that corporations and the well-to-do, particularly, enjoy which would help reduce the deficit.
It is unfortunate in the member's remarks today that he did not go on at some length about some of the areas that should be cut off. One major reason that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was unable to fulfil his deficit predictions was that his estimates of corporate taxes were down by some $2 billion last year. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs also knows that there is well over $30 billion in unused business credits, losses, deductions still out there in the books. Some estimates go as high as $35 billion to $38 billion in business exemptions that still have not been used. This is a major concern to all of us. I am certain it is a concern to the Hon. Member, as it surely must be a concern to the Minister of Finance himself.
What suggestion does my colleague feel the Government should take to make certain that those profitable corporations pay their fair share and help carry the burden of reducing the
deficit?
Public Employees Political Rights Act


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. The finance committee, of which he is a part, has been involved in the question of tax reform and has heard witnesses on tax reform matters since before Christmas. We are bit by bit going after various industry groups that are paying little tax, if any at all. We have come up with a number of suggestions that we have given to the Department that I suspect will form part of the tax reform package. Having said that, I do not think that the tax reform package will really solve our deficit problem directly in raising new revenue to pay it down. It will not. But it will make it possible for us to reduce tax rates to the point where our businesses will be more competitive with those in the rest of the world and where it will be possible for individual tax rates for individual Canadians to be less than they are, as promised by the Minister of Finance.
I think in the long run, of course, that tax reform is essential to the growth of the country because it will enable the tax wedge to be more evenly dispersed in a fashion that will encourage rather than discourage economic activity, and the new economic activity that tax reform will bring hopefully will improve the fiscal imbalance about which I spoke earlier.


Douglas Jung: Madam Speaker, is it possible to start my remarks now on the debate?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is only one minute left before five o'clock. If the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) wants to be recognized, I can do so at this point for some 30 seconds. He does know, I am sure, that he would lose his right to speak should he not be in the House when we resume debate.
It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   PUBLIC EMPLOYEES POLITICAL RIGHTS ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Michael Morris Cassidy: that Bill C-231, an Act to provide for the political rights of public employees, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, this is the third time we have had an opportunity to discuss a resolution or, in this case, a Bill with respect to the issue of political rights which I have had the honour of introducing into the House. I have brought the matter before the House repeatedly because I do believe that all political Parties have a responsibility to carry through on

Public Employees Political Rights Act
the promises made by all three Parties at the time of the 1984 election campaign. That promise was to change the federal law to remove restrictions to political activity by rank and file public employees working for the Government of Canada and to do so before the next federal election. In fact, I think that action should be taken in time, for example, for people in Ontario who work for the Government of Canada to be able to participate in a reasonable way in the forthcoming Ontario election.
What is different about this debate is that Bill C-231, which we are debating at second reading stage, is the first comprehensive Bill on political rights which proposes what could be put in place of the restrictions that now prevail in Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. It seeks to address this problem upon which all three Parties have made promises and to ensure that the freedoms in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would apply to federal public employees. Thus the intention of Bill C-231 is to repeal Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act and replace it with legislation to give the fullest possible protection of the Charter freedoms of expression, of association and of assembly to public employees consistent with the principles of a non-partisan Public Service based on merit.
I have talked about the issue of political rights for a long time, dating back to my service in the Ontario Legislature. For the last couple of years, I have talked with public employees, with people in government and with public-sector unions about what fair and balanced political rights legislation should contain. Bill C-231 represents what I believe is an appropriate balance and is a Bill upon which legislation can be based. There may be a need or desire to deal with some considerations the Government may have in mind in the legislative committee, but I believe this debate has gone far enough and the Government should express its support for the principle of the Bill in the House today. I would ask all Hon. Members to agree to allow this matter to go to the legislative committee and not to talk it out until six o'clock tonight.
I think my Bill respects the rights of public employees as citizens living in a democracy while recognizing the need for restrictions on those employees who offer public policy advice to the Crown or who occupy sensitive positions. The mechanics of the Bill are very simple. Political rights are restricted to a small group at the top of the Public Service, namely, deputy heads and people in confidential or managerial positions as defined by regulation. Those regulations would in fact have to be reviewed by Parliament before they could come into force, but that would mean that 92 per cent to 95 per cent of the people working for the Government of Canada and a similar proportion of those working for Crown corporations and Crown agencies would have the political rights that are spelled out in this Bill.
The Bill essentially embodies the recommendations made in the D'Avignon report of a few years ago, which also called effectively for a two-tier approach with restrictions on people providing policy advice or managing the over-all Public Service
March 9, 1987
while the people who hold nursing jobs, drive trucks, work at word processors, do statistical analyses and do a vast range of other jobs for the Government of Canada would in fact have their political rights restored and would be able to act like anyone else with a private sector job.
The rights that would be granted are the following: the right to support a Party or candidate actively including being involved in a political campaign; the right to make financial contributions to a Party or candidate or to collect funds on their behalf, the right to be actively involved in a Party and to hold office in a Party without getting a warning note if one tries to attend a convention or hold office in a local riding association; and the right to express views and to participate in the democratic process.
The Bill also outlines a new procedure for public employees to become candidates themselves. Under this procedure, they would inform the Public Service Commission and unless they were in a restricted category would become entitled to leave of absence in order to stand as candidates. Also, a person who became an elected Member would have the right to return to the Public Service after being defeated or leaving politics after a certain period of time.
This Bill, I believe, embodies the freedoms in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is essentially the series of rights put forward by other proposals such as the D'Avignon report, and is very similar to provisions on political rights that prevail in a number of provincial jurisdictions particularly in western Canada and in a number of western countries which are like our jurisdiction, such as Great Britain and Australia. It is also very similar to the recent proposals put forward in the report on political activity and public comment and disclosure by Crown employees which was recently produced by the Ontario Law Reform Commission.
I would like to recall to all Hon. Members the promises made by all three political Parties, but in particular the promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party at the time of the last election. I am anxious to help the Government, and I do mean that seriously. Let me step back for a moment.
I am anxious to see that the promises all of us made last time are kept. I hesitated a moment ago because I do not think this issue should be treated as a partisan one but as one on which all Parties can join constructively together. The Conservative promise, and it is similar to one we made, is the following:
The PC Party believes that the present restrictions on political activity are unnecessary and likely not justifiable under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the rights of some senior public servants must be restricted in order to prevent conflict of interest, we feel that this issue could be addressed without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
We believe that this matter should be addressed by an all-party Parliamentary Committee in consultation with public service organizations, and we believe the situation can be quickly resolved. Much of the work, after all, has already been done as part of the D'Avignon Report, but the current government has not demonstrated the political will necessary to implement the long-overdue changes.
You will have noticed, Madam Speaker, that the proposals I have outlined in Bill C-231 are certainly in principle very
March 9, 1987

similar to the proposals enunciated by the Progressive Conservative Party in its response to questions from the Public Service Alliance and to the promises it made at the time of the last election.
Last week when I thought my Bill was coming up, I spoke to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) who is responsible for this particular area and I asked him what would happen, because he has made substantial progress on a number of other issues in what is called the six-pack of outstanding issues dealing with relationships with public-sector unions. Unfortunately, we have not seen that progress in this area. The Minister said, and I give him credit for it, that the Government will act on this particular issue. He said: "I would like to ask you to trust me and I believe that what we come forward with will be something that you will feel quite positive about. You may not agree with every last clause, I accept that, but the general thrust is something that I believe you can accept". The Minister said that to me, and I would hope that a spokesperson for the Government would reiterate in public that pledge.
My problem is that the Public Service unions have heard next to nothing about this issue from the President of the Treasury Board since the matter was briefly broached with him about a year and a half ago. Other issues have been resolved or are being resolved, but this issue has not been touched. That I regret because I think the time for action is now and in fact has passed. I would remind Hon. Members opposite that there are elections taking place and people are being deprived of their rights right now.
I deplore the way in which both the Public Service Commission and a number of senior bureaucrats and former bureaucrats have entered into this particular debate by arguing for no change when there is, I believe, a mandate for change, which did not just occur in my constituency of Ottawa Centre but occurred because all three Parties promised to act. In conjunction with a number of public servants, I have taken this matter to court and I intend to continue with the case which is now before the Federal Court of Appeal with the support of the Public Service Alliance which is financing the legal action. However, I believe that the appropriate place for this matter to be resolved is in Parliament, and that is why I believe that with all-Party support, we could send this matter to the legislative committee today and we could take action to bring rights to Public Service employees who are now deprived of them because of archaic legislation which can, must and should be changed.


John Barry Turner: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-231.
We are called today to examine an issue which is not new by any means but which deserves a special attention. As a matter of fact, the issue of partisanship and political activities of federal civil servants is one that the Government has been thinking about for a fair period of time.
Public Employees Political Rights Act
At the turn of the century, a certain number of laws were passed in order to guarantee a neutral and impartial federal civil service. Thus, our civil service has gained an excellent reputation and respect because it was able to strike a proper balance between the rights of the individual civil servant and those of Canadian citizens who are entitled to a competent and impartial public administration.
At the present time, civil servants are not allowed to take an active part in certain aspects of our political process. As an example, they cannot publicly endorse any candidate. However, they can be candidates themselves with the authorization of the Public Service Comission. The PSC can refuse this authorization pursuant to section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act if it is of the opinion that his usefulness in his position would be impaired.
Public servants can also participate indirectly in the federal, provincial, or municipal process through contributions to political parties and their voting right.
The principle of non-active participation by public servants has been challenged in recent years, as you know. More so since special interest groups are demanding specific individual rights. During the 1984 federal election campaign this was made an issue by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The issue was brought before the Federal Court seeking an injunction and to declare Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act unconstitutional. The injunction was denied. Together with a number of public servants the Hon. Member lodged a complaint before the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada. The case was heard in Ottawa in April of 1986, and in August of that year Mr. Justice Walsh delivered a 48-page decision. He clarified what public servants were allowed to do and what they were prohibited from doing within the scope of Section 32 of the Act. The Hon. Member was not happy with the decision, and this Bill comes as no surprise to any Member of the House, as he said a few minutes ago.
Through this Bill the Hon. Member proposes to lift the restrictions and grant some public servants the total freedom of political partisanship. However, it also imposes tougher restrictions on a number of other public servants. Clause 4, subclause 2, specifies the exception:
A person employed in a managerial or confidential capacity as defined by the regulation or a deputy head may exercise the right set out in Clause 4, subclause 1(a), and Clause 4, subclause 1(c).
Those two subclauses deal with the right to vote and the right to make financial or other contributions to a political Party. Considering that the regulation mentioned in Clause 4 is not determined, let us suppose that the criteria for determining managerial or confidential exclusions are the same as those in the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Under that Act, approximately 7.5 per cent of all public servants are excluded for managerial or confidential reasons. If we take that figure

March 9, 1987
Public Employees Political Rights Act
and add to it those public servants such as senior executives and managers, personnel administrators, and others employed in non-represented groups, we come up with a figure of approximately 10.5 per cent of the total Public Service for which the Treasury Board is the employer and who would not benefit from this Act. That means that one out of 10, or approximately 20,000 public servants, would be subjected to more restrictive legislation than we have now. Would we be able to claim this Bill would provide public servants with the fullest protection of freedom of expression as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I do not believe so.
The Bill also provides for disciplinary action. It gives the Public Service Commission the authority to make necessary regulations setting out disciplinary procedures. Until now disciplinary action has been dealt with as part of the normal disciplinary procedure. Under the present rules, disciplinary action is taken under the provisions of the Public Service terms and conditions of employment regulations made pursuant to Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act. Incidentally, these procedures provide management with the appropriate flexibility in disciplinary action to weigh both the offence and the measure proposed. Furthermore, the procedures encompass redress procedures which have passed the test of time.
In his decision following the complaint by the Hon. Member or Ottawa Centre, Mr. Justice Walsh stated: "Since it is not seriously disputed that some limit must be placed on political activities of civil servants to maintain public confidence in their perceived impartiality in carrying out government policies, it would appear that this is a sufficiently important objective to justify the statute imposing some such limit, even if of necessity this would override to some extent some rights and freedoms protected by the Charter".
In an article in The Ottawa Citizen dated March 6, 1987, there was reference to the fact that the Ontario Divisional Court dealt with this very question of public servants entering politics. The judges agreed that the provision they were dealing with did infringe on rights guaranteed by the Charter. However, they said that the restrictions do not breach the Charter because they are reasonable limits imposed in a free and democratic society. The court's decision of last August referred to other questions.
The Hon. Member referred to the D'Avignon report. That report referred to the British system. It suggested it would serve as a good example for the Public Service of Canada. My friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, made specific reference to that. I suspect he will do so again today. The system is based on a categorization of positions according to the nature of the responsibilities and the degree of implication of the incumbents in the political process and their role as advisers to the Government. Those who occupy positions not described as sensitive are given full freedom of political action, while those in positions of a sensitive nature are forbidden to participate actively in any political pursuits. This solution seems at first glance to be attractive, but it may not be the appropriate solution for the Canadian environment. However,
we believe it is possible to strike a happy balance between the basic rights of Canadian citizens and the principle of neutrality and impartiality in the Public Service of Canada. We recognize that there are risks associated with increasing the political rights of public servants, but we are not opposed to reviewing the current restrictions with a view to ensuring that there are no more than is necessary to ensure the maintenance of an impartial Public Service. However, we do not believe the legislation proposed by the Hon. Member will serve the best interests of the Government, public servants or the public. Rather, we believe a better long-term solution will be found and we are firmly committed to addressing this important issue.
I agree that public servants want a freer rein in their political efforts. However, from what I have heard from those assembled here in the nation's capital, it does not seem to be a burning issue. Certainly in my riding there are many, many thousands of public servants, but I have had little or no representations on this. I have had a few from the odd personal constituent, but what they are more concerned about is job security, promotions, fair competitions, secure pensions, dental plans and many more other pressing issues. I should add that, in spite of the rules, many of them do work actively in campaigns. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is negotiating, as the Member said. There have been discussions with the unions to reach an honest solution to this problem. I am convinced, Madam Speaker, that the Conservative Government will reach that solution fairly and soon.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this Bill. I should like to commend my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for being very consistent in the presentation of this issue. I had the pleasure of taking the floor when he introduced it the first time, and again at another stage of that reading. I have not changed my mind with respect to certain problems I have concerning the way some of the provisions of his Bill are drafted. As a matter of fact, this is why I had prepared a legislative measure on the same topic of political rights, but I was advised to withdraw it when I was appointed Parliamentary Secretary last fall.
I have it here and I would like to explain why I have problems with the Bill of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, although I must admit I am very glad to see he does not resort to a partisan approach on this issue of political rights, as he often did on other matters. Then it becomes quite difficult for us Government Members to help him because we often deal with issues which are of interest to all Members of the national capital region and we would like to work closely together to improve the lot of those of our constituents who are public employees.
In my own Bill, for instance, I mentioned not only- I had the same approach to the effect that our public employees, who are Canadian citizens, must have the same rights as those of other citizens. After all, Madam Speaker, we have reached
March 9, 1987

the point where prison inmates have the right to vote in an election. So why should a public employee lose his political rights? Except that I had given a more specific definition of categories of people who should enjoy full rights when it comes to running in municipal, provincial or federal elections, including men and women who, in my opinion, would not be able to run or actively support a Party without causing prejudice to the service they give taxpayers, or even to the work which Parliament and the Government must do.
For instance, I specifically mentioned all deputy heads, which the Elon. Member for Ottawa Centre has also done. I do not see how a deputy head could be a candidate and continue to carry out his duties after or during an electoral campaign while publicly supporting the political views of a given party.
I also said that the immediate assistant of the deputy head, that is either the Assistant Deputy Minister or the Associate Deputy Minister, was in the same position of having access to privileged information and of being able to influence Government policies and the administration of his Department. 1 therefore cannot see how such a person could be given these rights. However, if we exclude the deputy head and his immediate subordinate, there are a great number of public servants who, in my opinion, should have all the rights including that of being a candidate in provincial or municipal elections without having to ask for leave to do so, except if they occupy positions where they are dealing with Government policies, for instance as program or planning director. I believe that my colleague for Ottawa Centre speaks in this regard of confidential positions, and 1 have some difficulty with that as I do not understand exactly what he means. 1 know that he says that there will be regulations to define such positions, but in my own bill, I specified that this applied to policy development and planning, as I could not see how such rights could be granted to employees with such responsibilities.
But in the case of all other positions, whether secretarial, maintenance, or whatever, which have nothing to do with Government policies, I do not see why an employee would not have every right to become a candidate, to campaign or to support a party as long as he does not do so during working hours. I also added, Madam Speaker, that employees should have the right to refuse to work for a given party, as some of my constituents have told me that they were faced with the obligation of supporting actively or indirectly one party or another because they were public servants. I therefore believe that the rights of public servants should include the right to refuse to support a party and to campaign indirectly or directly for such a party.


Michael Morris Cassidy: This is covered by Clause 8.


Claudy Mailly: The difference is in the way that this is defined, Madam Speaker. The Hon. Member says that this is covered by Clause 8 of his Bill. Let us go there immediately:
-no employer shall refuse to continue to employ an employee or otherwise discriminate against an employee in regard to employment or any term or condition of employment on the ground that the employee refuses to engage in partisan work-
Public Employees Political Rights Act
The Hon. Member is right, but I achieved the same thing differently when defining this right. It was a different approach.
All this goes to say, Madam Speaker, that we generally agree on this issue, but have a different approach. This is why I find it difficult to support this Bill.
There is also another aspect. The Hon. Member said earlier that we are getting near the time for provincial elections. For my part, I believe that there should be an exception. 1 was saying to myself, yes, a public servant should be able to seek election on the provincial level, but I cannot admit that he could campaign for and support a provincial party with as much freedom as he would do on the federal level. 1 have a problem there, because I will realize he is a federal servant. We should therefore draw a line in his political commitment to another level of Government. This is an idea that I have, a suggestion I am making-we should look at that aspect.
This is why, Madam Speaker, I cannot support the legislation as it now stands, but I agree with my colleague for Ottawa Centre that it is about time the issue were seriously discussed by a committee of the House. Now, we cannot refer the Bill to a legislative committee and have the same kind of discussion as if it were referred to a standing committee of the House that could look into all aspects of the matter. This means that all Members who are interested in political rights could express their views and then we would have a legislation that should be introduced, rather than going for the Bill put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, referring it to a legislative committee where we would be restricted by-
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I have come to a point where I believe the matter of political rights should be referred to a standing committee of the House. I suppose this should be the Committee on government affairs, or something like that, so that we may really look directly into that. I know the President of the Treasury Board has discussed the matter with the unions during the negotiations. The ground is well prepared. But I believe we should stop referring to bills all the time and that kind of thing, we should really be looking at the matter seriously in order to bring forth a legislation that will please everybody, that will preserve and indeed allow for the full use of the political rights of our public servants as Canadian citizens.


Lynn McDonald: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today and support my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), on Bill C-231. This is an extremely important measure which would give political rights to federal public servants. One would hope that similar legislation would be adopted in all parts of Canada at the provincial level. It is certainly very much needed.

March 9, 1987
Public Employees Political Rights Act
We accept the principle that all Canadians have political rights. We have a Charter of Rights entrenching these rights to political participation, yet we have the anomaly that more than 200,000 public servants at the federal level alone are deprived of certain of their rights. They have the right to vote, of course, but they do not have full rights to political participation. There are no good reasons for this.
In the past, when there were measures to prevent the participation of public servants, when the civil service did not have the merit principle, that did not stop corrupt practices. These are completely different measures. We need good, clear conflict of interest guidelines, not only for public servants but for politicians. That is certainly a different matter. We do not want to deprive public servants or any other Canadian of their right to participate fully in Canadian society.
I am sorry that the Conservative Party spokespersons are backing away this afternoon from a principle upon which they agreed in the last federal election. It is quite clear that this matter became an issue in the last election, not only in ridings containing many public servants, but throughout the country. All three Parties said they were in favour of removing the restrictions which are currently legislated.
A representative of the New Democratic Party is introducing a Private Member's Bill to do precisely that, yet the Conservatives are nitpicking about particulars. The member who just spoke stated that the whole subject matter should be vaguely studied by a parliamentary committee, as though no one had given any previous thought to this subject. This is a second reading debate in which the principles of the Bill are debated. It is possible to make amendments at the committee stage and 1 urge members opposite to let the Bill go to committee where they can introduce amendments for those areas in which they feel there should be additional restrictions. Restrictions on the activities of public servants are reasonable.
The Charter of Rights does not mean that every right is absolute. In fact, a clause in the Charter states that there can be restrictions where they can be justified in a free and democratic society. Restrictions on senior public servants with respect to policy areas would be reasonable. There are more than 200,000 federal public servants. Many of them have jobs in which there would be no reason for them not to fully participate politically.
Indeed, certain forms of political activity are presently allowed, such as making contributions to a political Party. Therefore, public servants are not completely removed from political activity, but there are these anomalies in which they can do one thing but not another.
This Bill would make it possible for members of the federal Public Service, except for carefully defined exceptions to vote; to support actively support a political Party or a candidate; to make financial or other contributions to a political Party; to solicit or collect funds; to be a member of a political Party, to
hold office in such a Party; to express views or engage in activities in relation to matters that form part of the platform of a political Party. In other words, they can take part in political debate. That is normal and healthy in a democratic society.
The Bill states that an employee who is elected to office at the federal, provincial or territorial level shall resign from the position that he or she held prior to taking the oath of office. If the employee referred to is subsequently defeated or not reelected, that person would have the right to resume the position. I believe that should be supported so that we may encourage more people to run for political office.
Finally, the Bill states with respect to discrimination that:
The Commission, in prescribing or applying selection standards under subsection (1), shall not discriminate against any person by reason of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status, disability, conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or political belief or affiliation.
The key point is the addition of "political belief or affiliation".
Other jurisdictions have added this phrase without any ill effect. I can cite the experience in the Province of Saskatchewan when the CCF Government took over in the 1940s under Premier Tommy Douglas. It improved the function of the civil service and introduced the merit principle. It began a system of fair tendering for contracts and allowed political rights for civil servants. While political rights were not legislated for the Province of Saskatchewan, many people exercised those rights without that protection. Certainly they were not free to exercise those rights on behalf of the Party not in power before the CCF was elected. The combination of the best of both worlds was to allow political activity as well as change the system to make it one that is responsible, fair and operating in accordance with the best principles by which Canadians want government to run. I believe Canadians want to see such a goal achieved.
I want to refer to remarks made by Professor Reg Whitaker in an analysis of the effects of creating the possibility of political activity for public servants. He notes that jurisdictions that have taken such action have not had to retract these rights once they have been given. They have found that public servants have acted responsibly and the public has continued to have confidence in the Public Service.
Professor Whitaker also notes that prior to 1918 when there were not these political rights, there was rampant patronage. Preventing public servants from taking part in legal political activities did not stop them from other political activity.
He notes that financial donations are allowed about which the public has not shown any concern. It has not been an issue because people have not seen it as a cause of problems. Why should the ability to make a financial donation be accepted, yet the ability to work in a local riding association and go door-to-door to talk politics be forbidden? Professor Whitaker does not see that restrictions on those kinds of activities make any sense.
March 9, 1987

There have been no consequences to workplace harmony which can be shown to have flowed from the abolition of controls on public servants' free time electoral participation. There is evidence from where this has been tried that it has been quite acceptable.
The section that forbids this kind of political activity interferes with the fundamental freedoms of public servants far more than is necessary to ensure the impartiality of the Public Service and the public perception of impartiality. It cannot be justifiable to restrict the fundamental freedoms of persons whose freedoms need not be restricted. The Government has not shown that these freedoms need to be restricted.
If the Government wishes to introduce very careful restrictions, it can do so.
Let me quote further from Professor Whitaker. He states:
Democracy must mean more than the simple right to vote, or it has little substantive meaning. Democracy includes the right to participation by all citizens in the democratic process, and full debate on the issues. In a representative democracy, this means that citizenship includes, as an essential attribute the right to participate in "partisan" political activities, namely the election of candidates for office and the right to attempt to influence the electoral choices of fellow citizens through electoral activity.
I regret that Conservative Members are unwilling to support this measure. Let me remind them of the following promise made by the Conservative Party in the last election campaign about political rights for public servants:
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that the present restrictions on political activity are unnecessary and likely not justifiable under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the rights of some senior public servants must be restricted in order to prevent conflict of interest, we feel that this issue could be addressed without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
We believe that this matter should be addressed by an all-Party Parliamentary Committee-
Of course, one will be formed if the House lets this Bill go to committee:
-in consultation with public service organizations, and we believe the situation can be quickly resolved.
We do not need a longer study. This question has been at issue for many years. We know what the answers are. It is a question of perhaps making some very minor amendments. But we would like to see the House proceed to getting this Bill discussed in committee so that we can have measures with respect to which all Canadians can be proud which allow full political participation for the great mass of our public servants.


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: March 9, 1987
Public Employees Political Rights Act
tasks without risk to their jobs. It means that, once again, all of the political Parties in the House will be deprived of the services of talented, intelligent people who may be prevented by the Public Service Commission from taking a leave of absence and running for office.
I was myself a public servant. I received permission to take a leave of absence prior to the last election, and for five months I lived without income to run for our Party in the last election. But other individuals, talented, articulate and competent, who could have served our political Parties, this House of Commons and our country were denied the right even to seek the nomination of a political Party in the past. This basic right was denied not by Parliament, carefully considering the implications for our system of Government, but by unelected officials who determine who shall be entitled to political expression, and who shall not.
I would like to be clear about this. I am not happy with the way existing legislation has been interpreted by the Public Service Commission, interpreted in such a way as to regulate and limit severely the political rights of public servants. But, having said that, I believe that the basic responsibility for this problem lies with Parliament, with this House of Commons, which in the past delegated to these unelected officials the powers which they now wield.
The statement by the Treasury Board spokesperson to which I referred that legislation will probably not be forthcoming in time to be effective before the next election is just not good enough. The Progressive Conservative commitment remains. It cannot be hidden in a cloud of obfuscation or buried beneath yet another litany of excuses. Political responsibility, and our honour as people who are prepared to live up to our commitments, demand that this issue be faced now-not avoided for another two years.


Michael Morris Cassidy: There is a member who stands up for his principles.


David Bruce Daubney: If the Government will not face this issue, then the House must turn to the vehicle of Private Members' Bills to get action.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has been active, and I am pleased that he is now active in the House and not just in the courts of Canada, as I have been active in seeking the extension of political rights to public servants. This Bill, if it were to come to a vote, would go a long way toward resolving the problem. Unlike another Bill on this issue on the Order Paper and Notices put forward by one of the Hon. Member's colleagues, the Bill we are debating today does not provide for blanket extension of all political rights without exception to all public servants. It recognizes that some limitations must be placed on the expression of political views by public servants holding sensitive policy development or managerial positions. Such limitations are, indeed, appropriate where it can be demonstrated that work is of such a sensitive nature that open political affiliation would jeopardize
the public servant's ability to deliver services to the public, or advice to a Minister.
Any Bill which seeks to extend political rights must, as this Bill does, accept the reality that some limitations are necessary and appropriate. However, I believe that this Bill, as much an improvement as it is over the status quo, still leaves too much discretionary authority to the Public Service Commission, particularly when it comes to the determination of which public servants should be entitled to rights and which should not. I believe that Parliament itself must specify which categories, which position classifications, are entitled to political rights without review by unelected officials, which categories function in an area of policy development and managerial sensitivity important enough to limit their rights, and which categories must be defined by review of individual job descriptions by the Public Service Commission.
We have a model for such specification in the report of the D'Avignon Commission which reported almost eight years ago on this subject. The object of such specification is to remove from the Public Service Commission the right to determine, for 70 per cent or more of the public servants, who should enjoy the rights of political expression, and who should be deprived of them. We must limit the power of this unelected body to intervene in the exercise of democratic rights. This House itself must take the responsibility for extending or withholding political rights to specific categories of public servants. Some people whose work is not obviously sensitive or, conversely, whose jobs are not clearly outside the realm of policy development, would still need to have their political participation determined by the Commission. But the arbitrary exercise of power by the Public Service Commission would be substantially reduced, and all public servants would know where they stood.
In summary, we need legislation which implements the recommendations of the D'Avignon Commission. In the absence of such legislation from the Government I intend to introduce a Bill in the near future which would make these changes. In the meantime, I commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre for the Bill he has introduced and which we are debating today. I would prefer to be voting on this issue and not simply debating it yet again, but I say to the Hon. Member and to all of Canada's public servants that that day will surely come.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question? On debate, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address once again a subject in which I am keenly interested, namely, a Bill that would provide public employees with the right to full participation in political life.
March 9, 1987

Indeed I want to congratulate the author of this Bill, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). The purpose of Bill C-231, like many similar Bills, is to provide public employees, and I am reading the explanatory notes: "with the fullest possible protection of the freedoms of expression, of peaceful assembly and of association guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and consistent with the principles of a non-partisan and merit-based public service.
The political rights recognized in this Bill would be granted to all full and part-time employees except those appointed by Order-in-Council and those in confidential and managerial positions as defined by regulation. Before coming into force, these regulations would be subject to the approval of the House of Commons.
Madam Speaker, if we look at the Index to the Debates of the House of Commons, I think there has not been one session since I first came to the House, since 1972, when this proposal was not raised, namely to extend to federal public servants the right to participate actively in political life.
I am of course one of those who has always supported the argument that this right-and it is a basic right in a democratic society like ours-is based on the concept of freedom of speech for all public servants. However, I have always qualified my support with the restriction that public servants in a position to advise the Government on policy are excluded. It seems to me it would not make sense for a senior official, a senior executive like an assistant deputy minister, to be in a position to advise the Government on policy and at the same time go into politics and criticize that Government.
Having said that, I recognize the contribution made by the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) with his recommendation, having supported as did many of his colleagues in this House the D'Avignon report which, Hon. Members will remember, had been sponsored by the Liberal Government of the time as one of two initiatives for the purpose of possibly amending and updating the Public Service Employment Act and the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As far as the Public Service Employment Act is concerned, Section 32 dealing with political activity has always been strictly interpreted by the Commission. Come election time, the Public Service Commission has always placed civil servants in a somewhat delicate position reminding them, through memos that they were not to participate in any way in the political process.
God knows, Madam Speaker, that in my riding as well as in many others, civil servants do participate in it in many ways, from newsletter preparation to telephone roll calls.
I feel therefore it is somewhat hypocritical, if I may use that term, to forbid people to do something while allowing it at election time. And the only time a civil servant may be called upon to answer for his action is when another candidate during an election will complain to the Public Service Commission. As long as his grievance has not been recorded, a grievance which
Public Employees Political Rights Act
would trigger an investigation from the Commission, nothing happens.
On the basis of my own experience and according to Canadian history a grievance has never been filed with the Public Service Commission to the effect that this or that person had worked for or against a candidate.
Once again it is a legislation which is not universally applied but which is nevertheless sometimes strictly interpreted by the Commission.
Hon. Members will remember that the D'Avignon Report did not deal extensively with political activity. In fact, hardly four or five pages-four pages in fact-deal with participation in political activity. I remember quite well that when the report was made public, I had personally moved a motion, which comes up quite often for discussion in this House and the arguments put forward are based on a system which exist already in England. The idea was to divide the Public Service in three parts or groups. Part I would include all occupational groups in which the duties of all positions are sufficiently sensitive in nature to require the denial of the right to participate actively in the political process to all incumbents, namely all senior executives and all senior managers.
Part II would include the occupational groups in which the duties of the positions vary, so that neither a blanket denial nor complete political freedom can be supported.
I suggest that as a physician, a chiropractor or even as an engineer employed the Public Service, Madam Speaker, I cannot see what impact I could possibly have on the Government's policy in the areas of foreign affairs, defence or general politics.
I feel therefore that professionals involved in a specific activity would not embarrass a Government by taking part in the political process.
And the third group would include the occupational groups in which the duties of all positions are such that incumbents could be permitted full political freedom. I think that there are some 80,000 civil servants-that is quite a number-who could easily be free to fully exercise their right to political activity.
This is a brief summary of the report tabled by the Special Committee on the Review of Personal Management and the Merit Principle. There is a matter of serious concern to my constituents and with which I should like to deal during my remaining few minutes, namely the independence of civil servants while carrying out their duties. For instance, they say that if a public servant is employed in a sensitive position at Customs or Unemployment Insurance where he or she or she has to judge the relevance of arguments brought forward by an individual, I am told that if that person were perceived as having a bias in favour of or against the Government, the decision he or she would make would not be judged to be, how should I say, magnanimous or independent.
3982

March 9, 1987
Supply
That being said, Madam Speaker, I think this could be regulated by committee. Activity could be restricted. I think it is pretty clear that it would be in the interests of the public servants themselves to appear before the committee after second reading to explain how they would discipline themselves and how they intend to convince the general public that they would still be objective in the performance of their duties. I don't think we should be too concerned about the caveat I made, namely that in some cases, public servants might show political bias in the performance of their duties. As far as I am concerned, objectivity and the merit principle will prevail.


Michael Morris Cassidy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. 1 would point out that the speech of the Hon. Member will eliminate any possibility for the House to refer this matter to a legislative committee. Indeed I would urge the Hon. Member to refrain from speaking at all.
"in a manner consistent with Canada's NATO and bilateral obligation."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed with the deferred recorded divisions on the amendment and the main motion concerning the business of supply.
Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: You know very well that this is not a point of order. The Hon. Member rose on debate and I gave him the floor. The Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin).


Mr. Marin:: Madam Speaker, there is hardly any need to remind the House of Commons that Parliament, the Government now in office and the Public Service whose responsibility is to serve the Government do not exist for themselves. They serve the people of Canada.
No matter what measure they are debating in the House, parliamentarians can be sure they will not go astray if they are guided by the following criterion, to wit: Does the measure serve the interests of the Canadian people, yes or no?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item will be dropped from the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 6, consideration of the motion of Ms. Jewett:
That this House, alarmed by the role of air-launched Cruise Missile deployment in violation of SALT limits and alarmed by threats to the integrity of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, aware also of the possibility of a negotiated elimination of all medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, calls for strong initiatives by the government to strengthen arms controle and disarmament measures including the termination of Cruise Missile testing in Canada,
And the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra):
That the motion be amendment by deleting the period at the end thereof and adding the following words:
Axworthy	Guilbault	NunziataBaker	(Saint-Jacques)	OuelletBoudria	Henderson	PennerCopps	Hopkins	Pepinde Corneille	Isabelle	Prud'hommeFinestone	Johnston	RobichaudFoster	(Saint-Henri-	TardifFrith	Westmount)	(Richmond-Wolfe)Garneau	Lapierre	Tobin-29Gauthier	MacLellan	Gray	Marchi	(Windsor West)	Nicholson	Grondin	(Trinity)
NAYS Members	Althouse	de Jong	JohnsonAndre	Desjardins	(Bonavista-T rinity-Belsher	Dick	Conception)Benjamin	Domm	JourdenaisBernier	Dor in	KeeperBlackburn	Edwards	Ladouceur(Brant)	Ellis	LanthierBlackburn	Epp	Lewis(Jonquiere)	(Thunder Bay-	MacDonaldBlaikie	Nipigon)	(Kingston andBlais	Epp	the Islands)Blenkarn	(Provencher)	MacDougallBouchard	Fennell	(Timiskaming)Bourgault	Ferland	MacKayBradley	Fraleigh	MaillyBrightwell	Fretz	MaloneBrisco	Fulton	ManlyBroadbent	Gass	ManthaCaldwell	Gerin	MartinCarney	Gottselig	MazankowskiCassidy	Graham	McCainChartrand	Grise	McCrossanClark	Gustafson	McDonald(Yellowhead)	Halliday	(Broadview-Clark	Hamelin	Greenwood)(Brandon-Souris)	Hardey	McKenzieCoates	Hawkes	McKinnonCooper	Heap	MinakerCorbett	Hees	MitchellCote	Hnatyshyn	Mulroney(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Holtmann	MurphyCrosbie	Hovdebo	Nickerson(St. John's West)	Howie	NowlanDantzer	Hudon	O'NeilDarling	Jewett	OostromDaubney	Orlikowde Cotret	Parry
March 9, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Pietz
Price
Redway
Reid
Reimer
Ricard
Riis
Rodriguez St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen
Siddon
Skelly
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Lotbiniere)
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vankoughnet
Wilson
(Swift Current- Maple Creek) Wilson
(Etobicoke Centre) Wise
Young -118
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion negatived. The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion defeated.
It being 6.33 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, March 10, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers