March 8, 1984

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH


The House resumed from Wednesday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren that Bill C-21, an Act to provide borrowing authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


LIB

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray (President of the Treasury Board)

Liberal

Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-21, the Borrowing Authority Act, which follows the February 15 Budget introduced by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and which is supportive of the expenditure plan as well as the very important initiatives set out in that Budget.

The recent Budget presents a very clear and positive context for Bill C-21. It is a Budget which builds on the successes of several previous Budgets of the Government and it deals effectively with the problems created in large degree by international factors that have hindered the well-being of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Hon. Members to think back to June 1982, when Canada was in the midst of a recession. At the time, double-digit inflation was hitting both industry and consumers, and interest rates were at a record high. Unsatisfactory productivity levels in this country, high salaries and increases in other costs were making it very difficult to maintain our position on international markets because our costs were not competitive. It was a combination of all these factors that caused our economy to decline.

In these circumstances the Government recognized that it had a prime responsibility to bring down inflation and, through this and other measures, to stimulate economic recovery. It took the decisive action required, beginning with the introduction of the six and five program in June, 1982. All sectors of the Canadian economy were encouraged to follow the federal Government's lead to restrain their demands on the economy so that our future economic well-being would be protected.

[DOT] (mo)

Generally speaking, Canadians met the 6 and 5 challenge very well and made the wage and price decisions that were necessary to make the plan a success.

Six and five has been a balanced program. It is a way of showing leadership and is a demonstration to other sectors. Wage rate increases of federal public sector employees have been held to 6 per cent and then 5 per cent for a two-year period. The prices of all goods and services provided by federal Government Departments, agencies, Crown corporations and the wholly-owned susidiaries, as well as prices set by federal regulatory bodies, were limited to increases of 6 per cent and 5 per cent respectively for a two-year period following June 28,

1982. The Government also initiated an active consultation process with other sectors of the economy. All these steps helped broaden the impact of the six and five program on costs and prices generally in the economy.

When the Government launched the six and five program in June, 1982, the inflation rate was in excess of 11 per cent. By the end of last year it had dropped dramatically to 4.5 per cent. For the whole of 1983 the rate of inflation and what it means in terms of prices was 5.8 per cent, almost half what it had been in 1982 and lower than it had been in over 10 years. With this came a most welcome reduction in interest rates.

In the quarter ending June, 1982 the average compounded annual increase in the base wage rates in major new settlements without COLA clauses in both the Canadian private sector and the federal public sector were close to 12 per cent, but for the most recently recorded quarter the corresponding figure for both those sectors is about 5 per cent. I see by today's newspaper that figures recently released by the Department of Labour suggest a 4.9 per cent average for all of

1983.

The six and five program has made an important contribution to the improvement of Canada's inflation performance. Consequently, it was a major factor in the economic turnaround that resulted in the achievement of about 3 per cent real growth last year and about 400,000 jobs being created. Expanded labour productivity together with improved wage performance have resulted in a very significant improvement in Canada's cost performance. These are very encouraging signs but still we must be vigilant in our efforts not only to maintain our level of improved performance but also to strive by all reasonable means to enhance it further.

March 8, 1984

Borrowing Authority Act

All Canadians have a role to play in controlling and bringing down inflation, by keeping price increases for goods and services at levels that will help to reduce inflation even more. Moderate costs and improved productivity explain why we have been able to increase our share of world markets last year.

We must continue to limit our costs and be more productive. Every country in the industrialized world is endeavouring to become more competitive. Therefore, our continued prosperity depends enormously on our ability to keep pace with the rest of the world. The onus and obligation to keep Canadian costs competitive and improve productivity rests with each of us. This is true primarily in the private sector but also in the public sector. This means not only that we all have a responsibility for containing inflation and for not allowing the successes achieved in curbing inflation to be frittered away, but also that the public and private sectors must be unremitting in their efforts to improve productivity.

A more productive Canada, both in its public and private sectors, in the key to our economic vitality during the rest of the 20th century and on into the 21st century. For the public sector there are additional factors demanding continuing attention to the improvement of productivity in our own operations. The public sector is inevitably looked to for the demonstration it can provide and does provide in the effective and efficient management of human and Financial resources.

The Canadian public as well, quite rightly, insist on quality service and on achieving top value for their tax dollars. Canadians want their Government to offer at least as many services as they have become used to, but they want them performed at the least practical cost. The federal Government is providing more services today than ever before with a Public Service work force which is at about the same level as it was in the mid-1970s. The overall Public Service personnel strength has steadily decreased from 2.6 per cent of the labour force in 1976 to 2.1 per cent today.

[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I announced a four-point plan containing new measures aimed at improving productivity in the Public Service.

First, we are establishing pilot projects to improve operational effectiveness in departments and a number of Crown corporations with heavy operational responsibilities.

Second, we are reviewing central management policies and methods to determine how they can be made more effective without affecting standards of integrity and responsible management for the administration of public funds.

Third, we are reviewing our methods for applying federal legislation regulations, in order to cut administrative red tape, while continuing to protect public interest.

Fourth, we are considering various ways of changing the job environment in Government offices in order to improve productivity.

We expect that these initiatives will enhance the productivity, that is, the efficiency and effectiveness, of our government operations. These initiatives will be taken in conjunction with already existing measures like the IMPAC Program, a program which is aimed at improving management practices across the federal Government. It is already achieving savings estimated to be in the order of $122 million each year. This is the case even though it has been in place only in some Departments so far.

With the new Budget with which Bill C-21 is linked, the federal Government has renewed its commitment to provide economic leadership. In this context, the ongoing necessity to contain inflation is part of our over-all effort to foster sustained economic growth and job creation. We have, therefore, decided to continue the policy of limiting price increases for goods and services provided by federal Departments and agencies, Crown corporations and federally regulated industries for a further 12 months. For this purpose, we have set a new price guideline of 4 per cent. The administrative mechanisms of the six and five program for monitoring price increases will remain in place. As was the case with the six and five program, price increases above the new guideline will be permitted only with Cabinet approval and only when they are clearly warranted.

The new 4 per cent guideline and our new policy on collective bargaining demonstrate our belief that the federal Government and, indeed, all levels of government have a fundamental responsibility-to quote the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech-"to continue to exercise discipline in their own wage and price decisions". As was said in the Budget, Mr. Speaker, the Government will resume collective bargaining in the federal public sector as the six and five program expires.

I welcome a return to collective bargaining. Collective bargaining provides employees in both the public and private sectors with the capacity to play a meaningful role in determining the terms and conditions of their employment. Each group of federal public sector employees will leave the mandatory restraint program two years from their date of entry at best. This means individual groups will begin to phase out of the six and five program this June; by July, 1985 all federal employees will have exited and thus collective bargaining activities will have resumed commencing in May or June of this year.

In its own collective bargaining, the federal Government will bargain hard, but responsibly and fairly. Four major principles will guide the Government as it carries out its side of the collective bargaining process. We will bargain for settlements that will contribute to reducing inflation and are fiscally responsible. We will bargain for settlements based on total compensation comparisons with the private sector; that is, taking into account the whole range of benefits and conditions

March 8, 1984

of employment. We will bargain for settlements that do not exceed the private sector in compensation for comparable jobs; and we will bargain for settlements that encourage increased productivity and improved performance and recognize relative job responsibilities.

Therefore, while there are no hidden numerical pay guidelines, we will apply these four principles which are not only fair but are, I believe, consistent with what the public expects of the Government in its settlements with its own employees. In this regard the Government has no intention of making catch-up payments to its public servants. This is because other sectors have indeed followed the federal wage restraint initiative, as the wage adjustment figures so clearly show. The guaranteed wage increases of 6 per cent and then 5 per cent for federal public sector employees mean that these public servants have not lost out relative generally to other wage earners in Canada. Now the Government will bargain compensation with its employees in a fiscally responsible manner. We will not agree to increased wages to the point where upward pressure is put on inflation or where revenues, in addition to those provided for in the fiscal plan, must be sought through increased borrowing or taxation or through the diversion of funds from other programs in order to meet higher public sector payroll costs.

The Government has indicated its willingness, Mr. Speaker, to ask Parliament to legislate wage settlements in those specific cases where there are excessive arbitral awards, or excessive settlements by federal Crown corporations, or where federal public sector strikes may be damaging to the public interest because of their lengthy or disruptive nature. This recognizes the Government's ongoing responsibility to protect that public interest. The Canadian people generally, and I hope the public sector unions and their members will understand this responsibility and necessity.

The principles for collective bargaining with the federal Public Service set out in the Budget are fair and reasonable, and 1 believe that federal public sector employees, their unions and the Government itself will act in such a manner that the intervention of Parliament in the process of determining compensation will seldom, perhaps never, be necessary.

The public expects the federal Government, in fact all governments, as well as public sector unions, to strive responsibly to meet the challenges inherent in the resumption of collective bargaining. The public has expectations about the level, quality and continued delivery of government services. It expects value for tax dollars and it expects the public sector, both federal and provincial, to play its part in the restoration of the country's economic health.

I should add that I will be undertaking consultations with labour and other interested groups on possible proposals to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act. This Act governs collective bargaining in the federal Public Service and has not undergone substantive change, if any, since it was first proclaimed in 1967. We would obviously have some suggestions from a management and a government point of view and I am sure the bargaining agents would have theirs. My objec-

Borrowing Authority Act

tive is to have meaningful dialogue on the matter with unions and others who want to make their views known.

It would not be helpful to speculate at this time on what might or might not eventually be proposed to Parliament on this subject. I would like to have an approach which involves a collective bargaining system in the federal Public Service operating to the mutual benefit of public servants and Canadians generally.

Mr. Speaker, the substantial progress we have made as a nation, fighting together against inflation since 1982, is not entirely due to the 6 and 5 program. However, the program did make it possible to focus the efforts of all Canadians on working towards a more competitive and less inflationary economy. We must not lose what we have gained with considerable effort.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, we must strive to make further headway in reducing inflation and increasing productivity, economic growth and jobs. For this purpose the Government has decided to build on the positive results of the six and Five program. Therefore we have introduced a new program with a 4 per cent price guideline and with four principles for achieving reasonable public sector wage settlements. I call upon all Canadians to continue to follow the leadership of the federal Government and to work together to achieve our shared goals for the well-being of the Canadian economy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Donald Alex Blenkarn

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Blenkarn:

Mr. Speaker, the Minister's remarks would be much more credible if he stayed within that 4 per cent guideline in his estimates. It makes one wonder when we see his estimates rising year after year and when we see all his previous ceilings broken in his current supplementaries.

The Minister is responsible for the Treasury Board and in his period of responsibility Canadair has received approval for $750 million from him. Before any of that money was given he had a complete outside report with respect to that corporation indicating major changes which would have to take place. He gave the corporation $200 million in 1982. This year he has provided the corporation with a total of $550 million in his various supplementaries.

Why has the Minister not insisted on a concrete plan of reorganization of that corporation? According to the senator involved in the corporation, the Minister's colleague in the Cabinet, the concrete plan is not going to be available until after March 31. As President of the Treasury Board, how can he possibly authorize $750 million to Canadair and, I might add, $500 million to de Havilland, without a reorganization plan which was demanded in October or November of 1982? That plan has been promised by Senator Austin on three occasions. On the last occasion he promised to have that plan in place by September of 1983. That plan is still not in place and will not be available until after March 31. How can the

1878

March 8, 1984

Borrowing Authority Act

President of the Treasury Board say he controls spending and waste without coming to grips with that issue?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray (President of the Treasury Board)

Liberal

Mr. Gray:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that if we examine one portion of the total expenditure plan, the Main Estimates which I tabled a few weeks ago, it illustrates that the rate of increase in expenditure is down from 17.5 per cent, as was the case last year, to 10 per cent this year.

[DOT] (M30)

My hon. friend should tell the whole story. He should also be willing to tell the House that when we take the total outlays in the Government's expenditure plan and add the reserves in it for supplementary estimates to the main expenditures and the matters contained in these outlays, the total outlays are down from a rate of increase of over 9 per cent last year to 8 per cent this year.

This takes into account the new initiatives, such as the increased payments under guaranteed income supplements to older Canadians. I hope my hon. friend is not objecting to that. It takes into account additional expenditures of at least $150 million to fight youth unemployment. I hope my hon. friend is not objecting to that. It takes into account the increased amounts we must pay, by law, to provinces for such things as post-secondary education and medicare. I hope my hon. friend is not objecting to that because that would be quite inconsistent with the statements made by his Leader.

Speaking of inconsistencies, I wonder what my hon. friend is getting at with his question, because when it comes to funds requested from this Parliament by the Government to enable Canadair and de Havilland to carry on, these are amounts that were agreed to not only by myself but the Government as a whole. They were voted on by Parliament, and it did so after the responsible Minister came to the committee and gave details of steps that were initially presented to Cabinet for the purpose of effecting the necessary improvement in the over-all management of Canadair and de Havilland. This information was provided initially to Cabinet and subsequently to the House, prior to the amounts in question being voted on.

As I said in the House yesterday with respect to further amounts being sought for these companies in the supplementary estimates, the responsible Minister is coming to the relevant committee and I believe he is coming to more than one committee. At that time he will put forward the information which he has on plans for reorganization. It is up to the members of the committee initially and then up to the House to say whether it is satisfied and to vote for or against the request for these funds.

Let me say to my hon. friend, the country as a whole and to the workers at de Havilland and Canadair in particular, that when one listens to my hon. friend's question, one can wonder what really is the desire of the Conservative Party. Is it the desire, as his colleagues were saying yesterday, to make sure that these companies continue to operate, or is it their desire to carry out another Avro Arrow debacle like the Diefenbaker

Conservative government? If they were sincere about wanting to avoid that kind of debacle and preserving the jos and technology base of these two companies, he would not be speaking in that doubting, questioning and critical way about this proposal in the supplementary estimates. Where does he stand in comparison to the view of his colleagues who spoke yesterday?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Arthur Ronald Huntington

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Huntington:

Mr. Speaker, I think the question asked by my colleague concerning Canadair, the fact that a $1.4 billion write-off has been effected on Canadair and that another $700 million is being fed into de Havilland and Canadair is legitimate. If the House of Commons means anything, it is a legitimate question. I noticed that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) absolutely refused to accept the legitimacy of the question and led back with a fist punching, political barrel of rhetoric that really disgraces the House totally.

In his speech here today, dealing with a borrowing bill in which he and the Government are asking for $29.5 billion of spending authority, he talked about delivering top value for the taxpayers' dollar. That is the kind of rhetoric with which the people of Canada are absolutely fed up. If we are getting top value for the dollar, why is it that out in British Columbia there are gravel beds where fish have spawned that are now covered with silt and the Government does not have the money to go and wash that silt off those gravel beds? Yet the same Department of Fisheries can increase its advertising budget to $4 million, a 31 per cent increase over the $3 million it spent in advertising last year. If we are getting top value for our dollar, why does the Department of Fisheries have to pay for beautiful colour ads advertising recipes on how to cook fish when there are recipe books in every kitchen of Canada that are better than the recipes the Department is giving. Why does it have to spend money on advertisements explaining where one can get information on the federal Budget? Why does he stand up here and tell us that the Government is cutting out red tape and will make life in the private sector a lot easier when all it is doing is superimposing more regulation and arbitrary decisions on the system and causing it to collapse absolutely? Can he answer some of these questions?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray (President of the Treasury Board)

Liberal

Mr. Gray:

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the concerns of my hon. friend. We share them. He has played a role in some of the initiatives for better management and parliamentary information that I have often talked about. I have recognized that in the past.

In responding to his colleague, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I was not suggesting that his question was not legitimate. As he says, this is what Parliament is for. Frankly, however, the way the Member for Mississauga South phrased his question could well suggest to people who are reasonably fair minded that he did not want to have this money provided. If it is not provided, these companies would not continue to operate. This is the reason for the response I made.

March 8, 1984

Certainly the question is legitimate. We must explain why the money is needed and what we are doing to deal with the management problem of these companies. That is what we are doing.

My hon. friend for Mississauga South reminds me of the person who tried to suck and blow at the same time. It is impossible to do. I suppose that people do attempt it, even in a parliamentary setting. From the way the Hon. Member phrased his question, one might assume that in spite of what his colleagues said, including the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), deep down they did not want to vote this money and were ready to accept and agree to the implications of this happening. However, this is a matter for further debate.

I want to repeat that questioning the amount and the motives is part of the parliamentary process and it is quite fair.

With respect to the second question, I believe my hon. friend is trying to compare two different things. If the Department of Fisheries advertises for the purpose of encouraging Canadians to buy and eat more fish, this does not mean that it is not interested in cleaning the silt off gravel beds. In my view, the Department has a number of purposes. One purpose is to preserve the fishery itself, the renewable resource in question. Another is to increase the market for the product of that resource. If that were not the case, the well-being of the fishermen in his province and other parts of Canada will not be maintained.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. The question period is over. Debate.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Arthur Ronald Huntington

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):

Mr. Speaker, I have not put together a formal address, but in hearing the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) this morning, we listened to a very well massaged, professionally written speech. One just keeps going back to one of the commandments of the Liberal Party of Canada and its mental guru concerning politics of Canada. It is that in politics, perception is reality. We heard a speech from one of the very senior Ministers of the Liberal Government in which he spent ten minutes still talking about six and five, which most of us, I in particular, agreed with. I had a little more courage than the Government because I said that we should move from six and Five to four and three, which would have then kept pressure on a system that desperately needs to be corrected.

When questioning the President of the Treasury Board, we mentioned the fact that in his rhetoric he talked about getting top value for the taxpayers' dollar. I noticed that he stumbled and choked a few times when he was reading his address. He must have trouble with some of this rhetoric because I know that the President of the Treasury Board is a very, very hardworking man. He and I do not agree in ideological terms and in terms of the way the country should be run for the well-being of the greatest number of Canadians. We have watched 15 years of his ideology being imposed upon the Canadian people and we have seen the system lose opportunities in the expansion of natural resources. We have seen a work force decline with 1.5 million unemployed. I readjust the

Borrowing Authority Act

other day that the work force, if you take the true account of it, contains over two million unemployed because at least half a million people have given up trying to get jobs.

Today we are in very serious condition. We have a lot of young people coming out of educational systems who are not really properly trained and equipped for what lies ahead. We have a national attitude that is leaving us outside of the ball game in terms of the newly emerging industrial world.

What is interfering with and impeding a substantial, meaningful, purposeful recovery in Canada that would start to correct some of these very serious problems we have is government spending. Government spending is at the core and heart of the problem. Government spending has grown from 16.8 per cent of GNP since 1968 to 24.2 per cent of GNP in 1982. Government spending is up this year to 26 per cent of GNP. If we look at the total levels of government spending and we bring federal and provincial spending together, we notice that it has grown from 33.7 per cent of GNP to 47 per cent, and 47 per cent is getting awfully close to 50 per cent of GNP in the form of total government spending in Canada. That is a burden choking us in terms of bringing about a proper recovery.

Let us look back to The Globe and Mail for March 5. We find that an axe hangs over social welfare programs in all OECD countries. Although they just love to label me a red-neck and a right-wing idiot here in Ottawa, I throw out, and you have heard me, Sir, warning after warning after warning that if we continue down this growing path of government intervention over the wealth-creating sector of the country, we will not be able to sustain the very enviable across the board social welfare programs that we have.

The President of the Treasury Board knows as well as I do that the underpinning of the whole pension plan, the CPP and everything else that we have, has teredo-ridden piles. Yet we in this avalanche of government spending and government interference with all our lives are just suffocating any ability to create the wealth we need to sustain the system.

When the President of the Treasury Board today stood up and read that well-massaged speech, he ruined a very valuable speech which I have spent time trying to prepare. He threw me completely off base which, I guess, was his plan. The President of the Treasury Board talked about more pilot projects. He talked about federal statistics and regulation and removing red tape as part of his program. He talked about a new working environment within the Government that will correct the productivity problems within it. I am not allowed to talk about productivity in the federal Government out loud, but obviously the President of the Treasury Board recognizes-he has to recognize because the Auditor General has been putting it on the public record for years now-that there are productivity problems, morale and attitudinal problems existing within the Public Service. Strictly management problems and failure have caused this condition.

March 8, 1984

Borrowing Authority Act

The President of the Treasury Board says we are getting top value for our tax dollars. That is rhetoric this House cannot stand. I have great respect for the ability of the President of the Treasury Board but I do not agree with his ideologies. I think we have reaped the benefit of his opportunity and policies in government. I have a great deal of trouble accepting what is valid in any statement the President of the Treasury Board makes. When I sat on the other side of the House, I listened to him every single day saying that he would resign if interest rates went above 14 per cent. Every single day he said that.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Another Liberal broken promise.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Arthur Ronald Huntington

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Huntington:

Yes, another Liberal broken promise. Then he stands here today, Mr. Speaker, and tell us that he is delivering top value for the tax dollar. I remember $34 million being given to Maislin, given to a friend of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), after the company was in a bankrupt condition. The President of the Treasury Board was the Minister responsible for delivering that bail-out. How, then, can you accept the validity of what is right in what the President of the Treasury Board says, Mr. Speaker, when he overruled the Enterprise Development Board when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and delivered $9 million to a friend in his riding building a Hilton Hotel on an interest-free loan? Is this giving the people of Canada top value for their tax dollars? It is this kind of behavioural aberration that destroys the rhetoric that is delivered here. Are we getting top value for our tax dollars, Sir?

In the month of February alone I found a whole series of ads paid for by Canadians. They are for art, Summer Works Canada; and there are more, and more, and more of them. These ads cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are full page ads. One reads: "Good news from CMHC", a housing authority. We have a "fall rhapsody". This ad constitutes a full page in a magazine. This is top value for our Canadian dollar? We have ad after ad after ad. I have one for human resources. It is in colour. Isn't that marvelous? We are getting top value for our dollar? Our fish are dying in streams because the Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not have the few dollars needed to send out a crew of students or unemployed people to wash off the silt smothering the eggs. There is something wrong with the priorities here. This Government feeds our tax dollars out to a publishing industry full of advocacy nonsense. These ads include fish recipes. And we are getting top value for our dollar, Mr. Speaker?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. As Hon. Members know, displays are not allowed in the House.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Maurice James Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

Liberal

Mr. Harquail:

That is shameful.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Oh, oh!

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. I really do not know how to interpret the Hon. Member's gestures, but I would simply make that comment and invite him to co-operate.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When you are dealing with corruption, Sir, you use every conceivable device at your disposal.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Maurice James Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans)

Liberal

Mr. Harquail:

That is provincial jurisdiction. Admit it.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Eymard G. Corbin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. Hon. Members surely know the rules of debate. I invite them to respect them.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Blaine Allen Thacker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Thacker:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has always amazed me that this is the only place in the country where telling the truth can get you sanctioned.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1984-85 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

March 8, 1984