1983-12-09

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, pornography is a serious problem today. The people of Canada recognize it as crime against them, and so should this House. I am proud to say that in a referendum in my riding, in the municipality of Coquitlam, 85 per cent of the voters expressed their opposition to pornography and voted against it. This is a clear mandate.
Something must be done about pornography immediately. Pornography cannot be masked under the anti-censorship campaign. You will not find a more ardent supporter for freedom of expression, a more vigorous opponent of government deciding what is right for me to see and hear, through bodies like the CRTC, than l. Nor will you find a fiercer opponent of criminal activity and vile behaviour.
The rights of the innocent individual are paramount. They must be protected from the violence and crime that pornography breeds. The laws of our society are designed to lay out standards of behaviour. There must never be censorship of ideas, philosophy, or beliefs. But there must be censorship of smut, obscenity, and pornography, just as surely as there is censorship of murder, theft, and rape. Mr. Speaker, the laws pertaining to pornography are too vague. Let us respect the democratic wishes of Canadians and address the problem immediately.


TERRORISM
Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to denounce the senseless terrorist attack last Tuesday in Jerusalem which killed five people, including two girls of eleven and fourteen. Forty-eight people were wounded. Eight are still in
critical condition. The PLO was quick to claim responsibility for this act of violence. This massacre of innocent civilians reminds us once again of the barbaric nature of the PLO which claims to represent the Palestinians and wants to determine the future of these people. Such claims are absurd, coming from a group that is known to have planned and organized dozens of attacks on civilians and which has never shown any concern for human life. This terrorist organization which shows no respect for the civilian population cannot claim to be moderate, nor can it claim to represent the Palestinian people, since the attack was denounced by four Palestinian leaders, which constitutes a precedent, and clearly illustrates the gulf which now exists between the Palestinian people and the PLO. It is a historic moment for these people who seem to want to opt for moderation and reject the bloody and brutal ways of terrorism.
[English1
1 am shocked as well by the silence which greeted this outrage. Is it that the world no longer cares or is indifferent to terrorism? It is this lack of morality which has led to the current crisis in international affairs and threatens to engulf us in a thermonuclear war.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, December 10 is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Throughout the world untold thousands are denied freedom to exercise the most basic political and civil rights. Millions of others will never know freedom from fear or hunger. They are denied the right to own their own lands, grow their own crops, feed their own families. In their poverty and oppression they rebel. That rebellion leads to their persecution and imprisonment, and loss of their human rights. We see it, Sir, in totalitarian states of the right and the left; the genocide of Indian communities in Guatemala, the murder of members of the Baha'i faith in Iran, the persecution of Jewish dissidents in the Soviet Union, the torture of political prisoners in Uruguay.
However, as we protest tjie violation of human rights elsewhere in the world, Mr. Speaker, let us be exceedingly mindful that our country is not without blemish. A Donald Marshall who is denied restitution after 1 f years of wrongful imprisonment is a victim of injustice. Thousands of proud Canadians of Ukrainian descent, who were recently branded as Nazis by a

December 9, 1983
Soviet official, are victims of injustice. Indian women who have lost their birthright under the Indian Act, and who no longer trust promises, are victims of injustice. On this anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us jointly resolve that these and other violations of human rights in Canada should end once and for all.


OHO)   CROWN CORPORATIONS CANADAIR-POSITION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, today's edition of the newspaper La Presse gives us the latest position of the Progressive Conservative Party on the Canadair question. In fact, the industrial critic, the Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) said that if it ever had the choice, the Conservative Government would not close down Canadair and that perhaps the company could be made to produce a different product altogether. This is rather surprising, Mr. Speaker, especially considering that on November 1 of this year, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) was saying on the radio at CKVL that he would sell Canadair to the private sector. As if the private sector would bother to buy Canadair! This latest solution is even more surprising, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that at the beginning of this year, the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) were prepared to cut off funding to Canadair and let the company die. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, during the leadership campaign, the Leader of the Official Opposition had envisaged sending the Member for York-Peel with a pair of scissors to settle the Canadair question.
Mr. Speaker, this proves once and for all that the Progressive Conservatives have no position, that when one of their Members dares to express his views, when he is contradicting all the others, the Progressive Conservatives abide by the rule that silence is golden.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party is committed to seeing that mul-ticulturalism is a way of life in Canada and not a mere policy of tokenism. We welcome the Government's announcement in the Speech from the Throne indicating its intention to introduce a Multiculturalism Act.
On October 5, 1983, 1 asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to create a full department of multiculturalism. The Prime Minister responded that the present arrangement is ideal. We, therefore, urge the Government to give second sober thought and enlarge the scope of the new Act it proposes. We ask that a full Department of Multiculturalism be part of the Act. We ask that the Department have its own Deputy Minister, something that all ethnocultural groups have been requesting. We call on the Government to establish a permanent Standing Committee of the House on Multiculturalism. We do not want a mere paper document on multiculturalism without any structural changes to the present multicultural directorate.
We ask that the Special Parliamentary Task Force on visible Minorities be reconstituted immediately. We ask the Government to increase its activity in the area of establishing ethnic chairs, completing more ethnocultural group studies, and creating material of a more popular nature that would enable Canadians of all ethnocultural groups to understand and share more deeply their own cultural heritage as well as that of their fellow Canadian citizens.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, over the break which we had just a little bit earlier I had occasion to speak with students from Niagara College. At that time it was brought to my attention that the concerns of these people were for the nuclear issue that we are facing. This discussion came up with them in terms of a class which they were taking on stress. They decided to do something about it, and they did raise a petition. I do not intend to present a petition now, but 1 want to point out that, in my area at least, young people in school have been in contact with me in regard to the problems they see in their own young lives.
1 especially would like to commend today the students of Niagara College who did indeed take the bull by the horns, as it were, and come to me to see to it that their concerns were made known here in the House of Commons. 1 commend all Members here, but most especially the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen), to see to it that everything is done that can possibly be done to see that nuclear war is averted and that there is a freeze on nuclear weapons.


MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I first rise to congratulate the Hon. Member for Tim-mins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier) on his courage, wisdom, and foresight in resigning his seat in the House of Commons
December 9, 1983

effective August, 1984. It is not very often that Members on this side of the House witness a government Member who has the intelligence to practise long-term planning and leave of his own will before the voters throw him out of office.
I hate to use the analogy that the rats are abandoning ship, but it seems only-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has reservations about the use of a Section 21 statement of this nature.


THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Governor-General read the Throne Speech, and then 1 read it in an attempt to digest it. I kept asking myself how one is to capsulize this very extensive Throne Speech. Then the "Parable of the Sower", or perhaps even more appropriately, the "Parable of the Sowing", came to mind.
[DOT] (U15)
Yes, the Throne Speech is a time for sowing new ideas, new directions, new determinations, new intentions, new anticipations, and even new obsessions. Those who wrote the Throne Speech did a great deal of sowing. But then, as the parable said, some of the seeds will fall by the wayside, some will wither away, some will fall amongst thorns and will be choked by the fast growing thorns, but some will fall on good ground and multiply a hundredfold. Yes, there are some good ideas and sound directions in the Throne Speech. It has potential. Canadians are patient and will wait and see how much of it falls on good ground and multiplies a hundredfold.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) on Thursday, December 8, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's East.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, I understand, is to be in the House for Question Period. In his absence, and in the absence of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Finance, I will defer for the present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Provencher.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand as well that she was to be in the House. The Prime Minister is not here. While 1 could ask the Deputy Prime Minister, it is a specific question so I will ask it when the Minister comes into the House.
Oral Questions


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland.


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, my understanding was that the Minister of Justice was going to be in the House this morning for Question Period, and 1 have a question for him. I think he understands the nature and the tenor of that question. I am rather appalled to see that he is not here this morning.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East.


Ms. Mitchell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hold my question until the Prime Minister is here, if I may.


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is everyone?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What a shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope Hon. Members rising will be serious. If they intend to ask questions-


Mr. Halliday:: Where is the Government?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If Hon. Members intend to ask a question, the Chair will recognize Hon. Members who are prepared to ask questions, and they will rise at the appropriate time when they wish to ask them.


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the Government?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize Hon. Members who arc prepared to ask questions. Is the Hon. Member for Yukon prepared to ask a question?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there are 12 Ministers here out of 36. Where is the Government that is to be held accountable in Question Period?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver South.



Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question I wish to put to the Government. 1 notice the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here, so I will direct my question to him. There are rumours on the West Coast that major announcements will be made with respect to the West Coast fishery. There are meetings of fishermen to take place tomorrow in different parts of the Province of British Columia. They are called crisis survival meetings.
Could the Minister tell the House today whether he is prepared to make major announcements about the Pacific fishery, whether he has accepted the recommendations espe-
30

December 9, 1983
Oral Questions
cially with regard to fleet rationalization and the buy-back program of the Minister's advisory committee, or has that been ignored by his departmental officials? Can the Minister tell us anything about the Government's plans with respect to that proportion of the fishery that will be allocated to the native people in British Columbia as opposed to the non-native fishermen in British Columbia? These are important questions and should be answered,


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has pinpointed the most important issues concerning the Pacific fishery which, as he says, faces some very, very crucial problems. The Speech from the Throne does state unequivocally that the Cabinet will be addressing those issues related to all the aspects of the Pacific fishery, whether commercial, the native participation, or the recreational fishery, on an urgent basis, to use the words in the Speech from the Throne. As the Hon. Member said, meetings are going on concerning these different issues. My Department is very much involved. The Cabinet will be seized of all those different suggestions, and I hope that within the next few months Cabinet will make some very important decisions.


BUY-BACK PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the Minister to say that some important decisions arc going to be made and some important announcements are going to be made. I want to tell the Minister that 1 will be at one of these meetings tomorrow. They are called crisis survival meetings. I have to ask the Minister to be more exact. Has the Minister, in fact, decided, for instance, what the buy-back program is going to be? Is it going to be announced, and when is it going to be announced?


Pierre De Bané: To answer that precise question, Mr. Speaker, if a buy-back program has been decided by the Government, what kind of program-


John Allen Fraser: If?


Pierre De Bané: On those questions 1 must emphatically say no. There is no purpose in me going to Cabinet to bring the different options, et cetera, if a decision has already been made. Doctor Pearse, who presided over the inquiry into the Pacific fishery, came forward with a suggestion on how to do a rationalization-a reduction-of the fishing effort on the Pacific coast. This suggestion was unanimously rejected by all the participants in that fishery.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the thorniest part of the whole problem is how to reduce the fishing effort. I think the Hon. Member will concur that, despite all those who have studied the problem up to now, that particular question has eluded a solution acceptable to all participants. As the Speech from the Throne stated, the Government will make decisions in the next
few months, but at this point those decisions have not been made.


ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank you for your indulgence. The Minister's advisory council in British Columbia has made recommendations about a buyback program which affect very specifically the restructuring of the fleet. Can the Minister advise this House, the fishing industry, and the people who make their living from it in British Columbia whether or not he is prepared to accept the recommendations on buy-back that were given to him by his advisory committee, or have those recommendations been rejected by his senior officials?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say to the Hon. Member that, first, it is not the officials who make such a vital decision, only Cabinet will make such a decision.
Second, we are talking about an issue that is very, very costly. We are talking of an amount between $50 million and $400 million. This is a hell of a lot of money. 1 would like the Hon. Member to tell me if the Conservative Party is arguing that the taxpayers' money should be used to buy surplus assets, over capacity assets, unused assets, in all sectors of the industry? This is a fundamental question and I think it will have to be studied very carefully.
Third, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that if there is something to which I have committed myself since I became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans it is to give the highest consideration to the recommendations of the Minister's advisory council.


THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Hon. Member for Sherbrooke has advised his local paper that half of the Mapping and Surveys Branch at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, involving some 400 or 500 people, will be moved from Ottawa to Quebec. Since this move will involve the expenditure of about $75 million for a new building alone, plus related moving costs, will the Minister confirm this move and, if so, would he explain why he is indulging in this kind of unnecessary expenditure at a time of restraint?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the decisions on decentralization were made in 1976. This move was one of the few which were not cancelled in 1979 by the then President of the Treasury
December 9, 1983

Board. Many other decentralization programs which were cancelled were reinstated by this Government, but 1 repeat this one was not cancelled. The problem was that it had been suspended with the introduction of Bill 101, because the people moving to Sherbrooke might have no right to English education. We have said that until these rights are confirmed we will not make the move. However, there were two decisions of the court in Quebec unanimously saying that the new Constitution would prevail. There is now a last decision to come from the Supreme Court.
According to the decision made in 1976, as soon as these rights are confirmed the move will be made because decentralization has been part of the policies of the Government. Of all the decentralization programs which were cancelled in 1979, there was one which was not cancelled by the Tory administration, and it was the Sherbrooke one.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It was put on hold.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, correctly or incorrectly, you yourself have been quoted in the press as describing this as "blowing $100 million on straight patronage'".


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


REQUEST FOR GUARANTEE OF EDUCATION IN LANGUAGE OF EMPLOYEES' CHOICE
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister guarantee at this time that any person involved in the Energy, Mines and Resources move will be guaranteed the right to education in the language of his or her choice?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the House of Commons voted in the new Constitution that Canadians of both official languages shall have the right to education in their mother tongue anywhere in Canada. It is this wish of Parliament which has been challenged in the courts. The challenge was unanimously rejected by the bench of the Appeal Court of Quebec some months ago. I think Quebec is involved at this time in a futile appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada because, of course, the Constitution of Canada guarantees to all Canadians the right to minority education, and I am very proud of it.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. The Throne Speech of two days ago made reference to a number of measures in the Minister's area which in fact have been in progress for some months, that is to say, they are not new measures. In particular I would like to ask the Minister about the impact of the proposed R and D tax
Oral Questions
credits which will be introduced in the form of legislation in the House next week.
Will the Minister confirm that these R and D tax credits will lead to a revenue expenditure of only some $100 million, by estimates of officials of the Department of Finance, which in fact will increase support to R and D in the private sector by only 4 per cent, when what is needed is a 100 per cent increased commitment to R and D expenditures by private sector interests? Does the Minister agree that these increases are a pittance in relation to the doubling of R and D expenditures required in the private sector?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would hardly call the magnitude of dollars which will be attracted into the industry by virtue of these provisions a pittance. Perhaps it is a pittance in the mind of the Hon. Member, but these funds will be very well focused in the R and D sector.
I would like to underline the fact that the provisions which have been adopted by Finance and tabled in the House are in response to representations from interested parties in the private sector. They were invited, following the April budget, to bring forward representations with respect to the proposals for a flow-through of tax credits and for a modification of the incremental provision, which Hon. Members will recall used to be 50 per cent but now has been converted to a tax credit.
Clearly the answer lies in the fact that this is a response to the very sector which is seeking help, and I gather the response has been very positive. In fact I have been the recipient of many letters-undoubtedly the Hon. Member has as well- congratulating the Government on this initiative. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will have to wait and see if it is as effective as we hope it will be. However, there is no doubt that the measure has been very well received at this point.


PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH DUTY-FREE MANUFACTURING ZONES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the industry will seek whatever small crumbs are passed its way. In fact, the other major OECD countries are spending twice as much as a percentage of GNP as Canada in support for private sector research and development.
Will the Minister comment on the proposed duty-free manufacturing zones that are referred to in the Speech from the Throne? Will he concede that these are nothing more than a cover for foreign countries to import into Canada high technology sub-components so that we will merely assemble them in Canada? How does that fit with his regional economic development priorities and the desire to increase the genuine research and genuine products that would evolve from that research in Canada? Which Liberal ridings are going to be the beneficiaries of the duty-free manufacturing zones? Do we start with Mirabel?

December 9, 1983
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in the attitude of the Hon. Member. I had hoped that during his attendance at the Canada Tomorrow Conference, to which he was an invited guest, he would have educated himself a little better on what the industry and the manufacturing sector want and why they want duty-free zones. In the course of the ensuing debate in this House, I presume we will have the opportunity of exchanging views on the subject.
1 would have expected the Hon. Member to say that this is a marvellous, creative idea which can benefit every sector of the country. When he talks about Liberal ridings, do I have to keep reminding him that, under the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program, one of the major beneficiaries is his riding of Richmond-South Delta, with the changes that are taking place at the Vancouver terminal?


THE ECONOMY
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Economic Development. One year ago the Catholic bishops said that unemployment was the most urgent problem. Canadians agreed. The last budget established a target of 11 per cent unemployment. We now have a Throne Speech with a five-part program, not one of which was designed to solve the problem of unemployment. Why does the Government not establish a goal of full employment for Canadians, as has been done successfully in many European countries?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it has been clear from statements made in this House and speeches made outside the House by the Minister of Finance, myself, and other Ministers responsible in the area of the economy, that the goal has always been to attack unemployment and to reduce it as quickly and effectively as possible. Every program and every project which the Government has undertaken on the economic development side, certainly in the envelope that i have some responsibility for, has been directed to that very end. In the past year over 350,000 new jobs have been created.
The issue is not to look only at the unemployment statistics. It is important to look at how responsive the economy is and how many jobs are being created. We would all like to eliminate unemployment, but at what cost, and how can it be done? When the Hon. Member speaks of European countries I can look at the Soviet Union and say yes, there is full employment. Under certain systems full employment can be achieved, but at tremendous social and economic costs to society. The Hon. Member knows that.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Minister look at Austria and Sweden as two examples that might be more relevant. They have much fewer resources than Canada.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Speech from the Throne also emphasizes incentives for business to get into high technology, but gives no consideration to the impact this will have on some 1.5 million workers who will be displaced over the next few years. Will the Government and the Minister undertake actions that will introduce legislation, hopefully in this session, that will guarantee workers that they have the right to negotiate the timing and conditions for introducing new technology?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member was recognized for a supplementary. The Hon. Member is asking a question along another line which goes beyond the traditional supplementary. The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member, but cautions her about introducing another question under the device of a supplementary.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my introductory question on unemployment leads directly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice confirm, in contrast to what he told the House yesterday, that Mr. Jim McDonald, an ex-Liberal candidate and former director of communications for the Prime Minister, has had a $1 per year retainer from the Department of Justice which also has the cosy arrangement of providing office space, secretarial services, telephone facilities, and even an expense account, all paid for from the allocation of funds for ministerial office expenses? Is the Minister today willing to repeat yesterday's assertion that this is the usual arrangement for governmental public relations contracts?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker. 1 owe the Hon. Member an apology for not being in my seat earlier in the Question Period. He may owe an apology for the innuendoes that he is casting.
December 9, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 suggest that the Minister answer the question.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. McDonald has had a number of contracts with the Department of Justice. It is in pursuance of those contracts that he has been in the Department of Justice from time to time, when he is working on projects connected with the work of the Department. That is the explanation for his presence in the building.


PAYMENTS MADE UNDER CONTRACT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also confirm that, in addition to the cosy arrangement 1 just indicated, among the contracts from his Ministry alone, Mr. McDonald or his company have received public relations contracts totalling, for instance, $123,250 for the Peoples' Law Conference held by the Minister, and $50,000, a nice round figure, for the Canadian Unity Information Office, which also happens to come under the Minister?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants information about contracts, this is all available in the usual way. There is nothing secret about any of these contracts. There have been contracts with the Canadian Unity Information Office with Mr. McDonald's firm, and contracts with the Department of Justice. They are all open and above board.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. It follows on the questioning of my colleague from Durham-Northumberland with respect to Mr. Jim McDonald. The Acting Prime Minister will understand that Mr. McDonald is involved in a clear abuse of the conflict of interest guidelines set down by the Prime Minister on April 30, 1980, inasmuch as that, while he was acting as executive assistant for the current Minister of Justice while he was Minister of External Affairs, he was also working on a contract to organize the communications branch of the Department. That is in clear contravention of the conflict of interest guidelines of the Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister have this matter pursued and determine whether there is a conflict as 1 allege, and what is he going to do about that conflict?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of State (External Relations)):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought that the answers given previously were complete. If there are aspects brought up by the question just asked by the Hon. Member, I will gladly look into it.
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I gather 1 have to go right to the horse's mouth. Will the Minister of Justice confirm that while his friend, Mr. McDonald, former communications officer to the Prime Minister, was acting as his executive assistant, he at the same time was in receipt of a substantial contract to reorganize the Department of External Affairs, Communications Branch? Will the Minister acknowledge that not only is that a breach of conflict of interest as far as he is concerned, but also with respect to Mr. McDonald, who is an exempt staff member?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, as I answered previously, the Opposition can get all the information it wants about contracts that Mr. McDonald, his firm, or anybody else has with the Government. They can follow those sources to get that information. To the best of my knowledge, all contracts have been entered into in the ordinary way and do not involve conflict of interest.


FINANCE
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that an announcement was made this morning concerning northern benefits. I would like to have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance elaborate on exactly what was said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


An Hon. Member:: That's not a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is hardly the kind of question that is normally put during Question Period.
* *
*


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Petroleum Incentives Program is being billed as one of the biggest and most expensive failures in Canadian history. In the last 18 months we have seen something in the order of $7.4 billion committed to frontier and offshore drilling. This money will be spent to drill something in the order of 145 holes, which will create roughly 5,700 jobs.
Would the Minister be prepared to admit that if the $8 billion worth of public funds that is to be committed to this program were in fact to be diverted into conventional activities in the sedimentary basin, alternate energy conservation, heavy oil and the tar sands, Canadians would in fact be much closer

December 9, 1983
Oral Questions
to the goals of self-sufficiency and Canadianization, and that economic activity and job creation would be magnified more than a hundredfold? Would the Minister be prepared to admit or entertain that concept?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the position of the Hon. Member's Party on this matter. If the Hon. Member is telling us that we should stop drilling in the North and off the coasts of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, that is a position that he can take. However, if he looks at the facts he will realize that at this time there are probably billions of barrels of oil in the Hibernia field, and there have been some major discoveries off the coast of Sable Island and in northern Canada. If we do not drill in those Canadian Lands, we will not know what we have. In the business of oil and gas, one must drill to find out what is there.
The program of grants was established in lieu of tax incentives because we wanted to Canadianize the industry. If we had taken the road of tax incentives only, the big multinational corporations would be able to take advantage of the tax incentives, and not the small Canadian companies.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the question that is before the Minister really deals with the effectiveness of that entire program. It would appear that we are facing 180 degrees in the wrong direction and that there is no effective cost control. Rather than attempting to cover up this mess, would the Minister be prepared to allow a motion in the House to refer the entire question to the Standing Committee on National Resources, for examination and evaluation? Would the Minister be prepared to let the light shine on this mess and free us all from this stigma?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is in a very bad position to raise this problem because, not long ago, a supplementary estimate for $600 million was before the House and the Hon. Member had the opportunity to question me on those estimates at that time. He did not even invite me to appear before the committee to debate that matter. This was voted on by the House of Commons less than two weeks ago. If the Hon. Member had been on the job two weeks ago, he would have had me before the committee. When the estimates are before the committee, I will be willing to appear at any time.


ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. She has had 24 hours to study the amounts of money that were
mentioned in the Throne Speech regarding the EPF transfers for post-secondary education, and specifically for medicare. Will the Minister now acknowledge that the calculations of the Minister of Finance and of her own Department indicate that the moneys we are speaking of are moneys that the federal Government was legally obligated to pay under agreements it had signed with the Provinces?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, once again, I can inform the Hon. Member that as was said yesterday by the Minister of Finance, EPF payments for health services and university education will exceed the level forecast in last April's budget by $700 million, which will increase the base for subsequent years. To answer the Hon. Member's question, this amount was not part of any funding planned either by the Minister of Finance or by the Provinces, and has been paid under the terms of the legislation for financing these programs.


TIMING OF PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Again, the Minister has not answered the question clearly.
The Minister knows that the money was tied directly to the formula, and she also knows that that money was the direct responsibility of the federal Government under terms to which it legally bound itself. As well, she should know that the point 1 am trying to make to her is this-if she knew that this money was going to go to the Provinces, and the Provinces knew months ago that that money was legally theirs, why did she withhold the money from the Provinces and go around the country saying that she was holding up her end of the deal?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, no one has ever denied what the Hon. Member said in the first part of his question. What he said in the second part of his question is totally erroneous. 1 would like to repeat to the Hon. Member, who does not seem to understand the mechanics of EPF, that that sum of money was readjusted. That was clearly explained yesterday by the Minister of Finance. That readjustment was based on an average of the last three years once the final statistics had been received by the Department of Finance.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You are legally obligated to pay.


Monique Bégin: It was paid. It is already being paid. I could give the Hon. Member the exact timetable of payment. Nobody denied that that $700 million was an additional sum of money that, by the way, increases the deficit. If it is not additional money, what is it? Why did the Provinces not even put that money on their books? That is what the Hon. Member does not seem to understand.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You called it new money.
December 9, 1983


Monique Bégin: That money is additional new money that is not-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: If the Hon. Member would listen, he would find out about the exact basis of that money. It is allocated according to the terms of the EPF. There is no doubt about that. Neither the provincial Ministers nor the federal Minister of Finance had that money on their books. In that sense, it is money that is not-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They knew about it, and you knew about it.


Monique Bégin: 1 repeat that the statement made by the Hon. Member is erroneous. This is new additional money according to EPF.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. This year marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1 wonder if the Secretary of State could inform the House what Canada's plans are to recognize this very important anniversary.


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, taking into account that this year marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations Human Rights Declaration-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Serge Joyal: If Hon. Members would listen, they would learn something. We called a federal-provincial-territorial conference last September which was attended by all Provinces and was a tremendous success. It outlined the notion of emerging rights in our country. Moreover, there opened this morning a coalition of more than 53 national organizations working in the field of human rights which is trying to promote in Canada the teaching and better understanding of the notions of human rights, and to involve Canadians with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We have agreed to celebrate that anniversary because no meaningful rights exist unless national organizations exercise continual vigilance in order to have those rights respected by each Canadian.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. As the Minister will know, this morning The Globe and Mail
OraI Questions
reported that last July when the Minister had to go to Labrador on business, he chartered an aircraft at a government expense of more than $8,000, and took with him a friend who went along in order to participate in some sports fishing, his wife, and the wife and son of a senior official in the Minister's Department. I have a very high regard for the Minister's sense of propriety so I would like to ask him this question: Does the Minister feel that it was appropriate to use a government funded aircraft in that way, and does he intend to use taxpayer funded aircraft that way in the future?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member has put a very relevant question to me. It is crystal clear in my mind that taxpayers' money cannot be used for any purpose of that sort. On the other hand, at the insistence of the Deparment 1 had to make that trip and there were seats available on the aircraft. I took the initiative of inviting some members of the family of an official, and a personal friend, to join me. I have looked into the guidelines of the Department of Transport with respect to matters of that sort. I can assure the Hon. Member that the guidelines are silent on that question, and I will certainly ask for advice in the future.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, it seems that since the Minister became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, he feels he has to travel in a school.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SIZE OF AIRCRAFT
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising out of the Minister's answer. Did the Minister's officials, when they thought to charter an aircraft, look for the smallest possible aircraft available? Or did they take an aircraft with four empty seats, in addition to the Minister and the pilot-which was unnecessarily large-as a result of a desire to take these people along? And I want to ask the Minister explicitly, can the taxpayers of Canada in future expect that the Minister will be taking friends with him to go sports fishing on his trips?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I believe there were at least three people who had to make that trip. I believe the smallest jet is a six-seater. Therefore, I believe it was the smallest jet which exists on the market. Second, I want to assure the Hon. Member-and this is the important aspect-that no incremental cost to the taxpayers of this country has been incurred. There were three empty seats. Third, it was not a trip of pleasure. I travelled thousands of miles in four days and came back exhausted. I would like very much to have the opinion of the Hon. Member, if he has any, on that question.

December 9, 1983
Oral Questions CULTURAL AFFAIRS


TAX TREATMENT OF AUTHORS AND ARTISTS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, if I can get his attention. The Speech from the Throne has promised " . . . enhanced recognition of our cultural heritage and increased support for our creative artists". At the same time officials of Revenue Canada have been demanding a re-assessment of the tax returns of artists, musicians, and writers, going back years, and telling them that they are not permitted to make deductions which they had previously been allowed to make. This matter has been raised in the House a number of times and it was agreed that a special committee would be set up. Would the Minister get together with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, and arrange for a moratorium on the actions of the officials in Revenue Canada until the parliamentary committee has had an opportunity to discuss this question and to make some recommendations?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the same question was addressed to the Minister of National Revenue not too long ago. As the Hon. Member knows, my role with the federal Government in matters of culture is to present advice, obviously. As far as the administration of revenue laws is concerned, it is the exclusive prerogative of the Minister of National Revenue. That Minister has indicated to the House that he does not have the discretion to suspend the application of laws. It is his role to see that those laws are, indeed, applied with equity and in a non-discriminatory fashion.
I would like to add that there is a parliamentary committee which has been set up with the concurrence of the Government to examine the whole issue. I very much look forward to seeing the report which will come out of that parliamentary committee. In the meantime, 1 have renewed the mandate of an interdepartmental committee, which will include officials of my Department, and officials from the Department of National Revenue and from the Department of Finance, to work immediately on examining the various issues which are brought up in front of that parliamentary committee. 1 do, indeed, recognize that it is an important issue, and I hope it is one which we will be able to deal with in a satisfactory fashion.


David Orlikow: I find it strange, Mr. Speaker, that though there have been no changes to the Income Tax Act, Revenue Canada suddenly decides that policies and rules which were made five and six years ago were not proper and it is now establishing a whole set of new rules.


REQUEST FOR EARLY COMMITTEE MEETING
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he could, in his capacity as Minister of Communications, discuss this matter with the chairman of the standing committee, and could we get a reference to the committee so it could meet as quickly as
possible, and not some time in late January as seems likely now?


Francis Fox: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take the suggestion of the Hon. Member up with the chairman of that committee.


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recognizing the need to do exploration on the so-called Canada Lands and offshore, has the Minister launched an investigation into the use of PIP grants to see if there is abuse or if there is not? Further, has the Minister received requests from any of his Cabinet colleagues to see if there is a rupture on public funds? And is the Minister prepared to launch an investigation into the PIP grants to see if there is, indeed, a rupture?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a long lime ago I looked into the problem and 1 asked for information. There were some rumours of abuses, and I checked that. I am satisfied so far that there are no such abuses, and if anyone is aware of any case of abuse they should let me know. There are rumours, but there are no facts to sustain those rumours. I did make sure that no drilling program above $50 million would go ahead without my specific approval. Before that there was no limit. 1 have now imposed a limit and I review every case to make sure that the costs for the drilling equipment, support ships and so on, are within reasonable levels. 1 do that for every drilling program on the coasts of Nova Scotia, of Newfoundland, and in the North.
If the Hon. Member knows of any instances of abuse, I would like to know, and I will make sure it is corrected. However, so far I have no facts to sustain the demand for an inquiry. If there were such facts, I would be happy to make sure the taxpayers receive full value for their money.


THE ADMINISTRATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the latter part of the last session the Prime Minister, in reply to a question in the House, indicated that he would not be taking action in appointing a successor to the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's until that Hon. Member had had his day in court. Well, woefully for the Hon. Member, he has had his day in court. 1 would like now to ask the Prime Minister if he intends to discharge his obligation and appoint one of the eight
December 9, 1983

Newfoundland Members of Parliament and Senators who support his Government to the Cabinet, so that this Province will have a representative in the Cabinet.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have advice on the formation of my Cabinet from the Hon. Member. I will consider his opinions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister could certainly use some sound advice. That is obvious.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S INTENTIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, because Newfoundland is the only Province not represented in the Cabinet, notwithstanding the fact that it has four other Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House and four members in the Senate, I want to ask the Prime Minister specifically if he intends to appoint a Newfoundland Member of Parliament or a Newfoundland Senator to his Cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a little indecent the way the Hon. Member is preaching for a call.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the Minister confirm that on October 28 the chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission was driven to see the Personnel Department of Agriculture Canada for the purpose of exploring the possibility of being considered for overtime pay as a result of the work he was doing for the Commission? Upon being refused on the grounds that the Dairy Commission was not an intergral part of the Department of Agriculture, the chairman then indicated his intention to take the matter up with the Minister. Given the fact that the chairman has stated in the press that he is accountable only to Members of Parliament, would the Minister tell the House if the chairman made such a request and, if so, will he receive overtime pay over and above his reported salary range of $63,000 to $74,000?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Dairy Commission has made no such representation to me.
OraI Questions FISHERIES


POSSIBLE WEST COAST BUY-BACK PROGRAM-AMOUNT OF FUNDING
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Earlier in the Question Period the Minister said that the buy-back will be somewhere between $50 million and $400 million on the West Coast. He is also on public record as saying it is his view that about 50 per cent of the West Coast fleet needs to be bought out. Would the Minister direct his attention to this matter in the House and inform us just exactly how large the buy-back is going to be? Is the Minister now telling West Coast fishermen that he is bringing forward a $400 million buy-back plan to buy 50 per cent of the West Coast fleet?


Pierre De Bané: No, Mr. Speaker. I would like to reiterate what 1 have said to the Hon. Member who was previously asking the question why I do not announce a buy-back program today. I said that a buy-back program will cost a minimum $50 million and could go as high as $400 million. Second, 1 said that no decision has been made. Third, it is of such magnitude that only Cabinet can make such a decision. Fourth, 1 said that Cabinet will not make a decision on it before several months have passed.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, bearing on the promise in the Throne Speech to continue development in Yukon. His colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs, immediately prior to the closing of the last session indicated that CYI had made an application for a multimillion dollar loan for the purpose of obtaining an equity position in Kiewit and Sons on the King Point project. In keeping with the promise to develop Yukon, will that repayable loan be approved, and will that project now be approved, which will mean several hundreds of jobs and several hundreds of millions of dollars of investment from the private sector into the economy of an area of Canada very sorely in need of it?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that the jurisdiction over that particular area rests with my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. 1 suggest he raise the question with him when he returns to the House.


REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF LOAN
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said it was within

December 9, 1983
Petitions
the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to approve or not approve the application for the loan by CYI. Is the Government going to approve that loan and allow that project to go ahead which involves a total investment of over $600 million by the private sector in this country?


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development made the statement alleged by the Hon. Member.


Erik Nielsen: He did.


Edward C. Lumley: But I will have discussion with him as a result of the representation made by the Hon. Member.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate requesting that this House unite with the Senate in the appointment of a special joint committee to consider ways by which the Senate of Canada could be reformed, and also to select members of this House to act on the proposed special joint committee.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) on Thursday, December 8, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the constituency of Welland, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned citizens strongly support the freezing of nuclear arms production and want Members of Parliament to take a firm stand to ensure that other countries do not
endanger our country with threatening weapons and abuse our rights as world citizens. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

[ Translation]



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an Address to his Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the Session.
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think I ought to congratulate the Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde), if I am not mistaken, and the Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt) on their participation in the debate on the Throne Speech yesterday. I listened carefully to all their comments, although I must say I do not share all their views. However, I was impressed by the content of their remarks and 1 shall be anxious to hear them again in the House.

You will forgive me, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if 1 take advantage of this opportunity, which I suppose is the first I have had apart from a gentle reference to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on September 12, to thank the good people of Central Nova for having sent me to this House with such an overwhelming majority.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I thank them again for their kindness and support, and I can assure you and them that the simple promise 1 made will be honoured, namely that we in this Party will get rid of this Government just as soon as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is not much. Mr. Speaker, but it is the least we can do.
As a new boy here I have not had much experience with Throne Speeches, and so to understand and appreciate the validity and value of the promises made in this regard this time, 1 thought I would go back and take a look at the last one.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because then I could make an objective and reasonable judgment as to what Canadians can count on with regard to this one. It makes some interesting reading. One of the promises, one of the essential objectives of this Government in the 1980 Speech from the Throne, was to put more people to work. When that promise was made there were
884,000	Canadians unemployed. Now there are 1,346.000 without jobs, an increase of almost 50 per cent. Youth unem-
December 9, 1983

ployment in this country stands at 545,000, a group roughly as large as the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador combined. Unemployment is now our biggest industry, our biggest business. Some of the Members opposite may not realize it, but the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada now has the biggest payroll in this nation, bigger than the four largest employers on a weekly basis combined, CP, Bell, Alcan and CN.


Some Hon. Members:: Iron Ore.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Salaries and overhead cost another- [Translation]


An Hon. Member:: Iron Ore!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Just wait, be patient. 1 am getting there, I promise.

Then there was another promise. Inflation strikes hardest at the old and those least able to take care of themselves. That was a true and honest statement in the Speech from the Throne. There were promises to look after people. Today
617,000	Canadians over 65 are still living in poverty. The sad fact is that this is roughly the combined population of Halifax, Trois-Rivieres, Sudbury, Brandon, Moose Jaw, Lethbridge and New Westminster. There is a dramatization of a sadness and tragedy which has afflicted so many Canadians, notwithstanding the elegant promises of the Speech from the Throne. The poverty line for a single person in Canada is $7,342. Four hundred and thirty-five thousand women over the age of 65, many of whom are widows, are living below this poverty line, notwithstanding the promises.
Then there was a promise made, and no matter what happens to this country, when they are telling the story 100 years from now of all of the misleading statements that have ever been made, this one is going to take the cake. Eighteen cents a gallon is too much for Canadians to pay for gas. 1 tell you, there was a honey if ever there was one! Here is a little piece of advertising from The Scotia Sun, January 23, 1980: "Dec. 11, '79 Tory gas Prices go up-Would you let the Tories raise the gas price again?" And then the answer: "Dec. 13, '79 the price comes down because Allan J. MacEachen and the Liberal Party spoke up for you. Vote Liberal, and the price will stay down! Inserted by the Cape Breton Highlands-Canso Liberal Association", and paid for by the NDP.
1 understand, Mr. Speaker, that there is a big anniversary coming up on the 13th of this month of the occasion when the Liberals and their socialist allies conspired to defeat a government which was telling the truth and trying to work their way through these serious problems. I only hope that when Senator Davey, with all his elegance, is having the dinner next week, "The Last Supper", he will at least have the decency to invite the Leader of the NDP. And do not put him below the salt; let him sit right up there with the family!
The Address-Mr. Mulroney Then the speech continued:
It is the intention of my ministers to continue the policies of expenditure restraint and improved government administration-
Federal spending has risen from $62.9 billion in 1980-81 to $100.2 billion. Government spending is now more than eight times greater than when the Prime Minister first took office.

Canadian taxpayers' money is being used to finance the Government's uncontrolled spending. In a regular five-day work week, the average Canadian has to work from Monday to Wednesday noon to finance the senseless spending of this Government, notwithstanding the promise that was made. [English]
And then:
My Government will reduce the federal deficit in a planned and orderly manner-
If a bolt of lightning did not come out of the blue on that one, Mr. Prime Minister, it should have. The net debt has risen from $81.2 billion to $150.5 billion, an increase of 85.3 per cent since those memorable words were uttered.
It is against this kind of a backdrop that one has to evaluate the Speech from the Throne. It begs a question. Who writes this stuff anyway? Who have they got hidden away in the bowels of the bureaucracy for this? It cannot be the Liberal Party because reform committee member Alfred Apps told Maclean's last week that the Liberal Party is "tired, arrogant, self-serving, self-satisfied and irrelevant". Try as I might, Mr. Speaker, 1 could not do any better myself! Then he went on to say that "the intellectual energy that has fuelled this Party for the last 20 years has come to an end,". No disagreement on that one. I did not say that. 1 would not summon words like that.

Mr. Speaker, 1 prefer to let others make such devastating value judgments. I remember a distinguished Canadian writing about this, because there is a philosophical issue here ... What does the Government want to do? According to what criteria? On the basis of what philosophy? How do we define the corner stone of Government actions? It is important for Canadians to know these things. A man I have always considered to be very civilized and very intelligent wrote once: The philosophy of the Liberal Party is quite simple: it doesn't matter what you say or what you think and it is even better not to think at all. Just put us in power, because we know best how to govern Canada. The Prime Minister himself wrote these words in April 1963!

To be fair to the Prime Minister I have to keep the record straight. When he wrote that damning indictment of the Liberal Party, he was a Member of the NDP. But the question arises, who writes this? Who summons this stuff?
Here is a quote from The Toronto Star, the bible: "Fleming saved his sharpest criticism for officials in the Prime Minis-

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
ter's office. Cabinet ministers sometimes spend more time with the PMO than with opposition Parties. They often are treated like kids, like scout masters reporting in to their leaders. There is a fear among individual ministers not to find themselves under criticism from people in the PMO". The people who strut their stuff before the House of Commons, who belligerently tour this country saying "Look at us, we are the boss", whimper like a bunch of school kids when they have to talk to Tom Axworthy. I can imagine a telephone conversation like this: "Tom? This is Lloyd". "Who?" "Your brother. 1 am an only child. Tom, listen, Tommy, listen to me good. We've got a problem. Ever since you kicked Fleming out of the Cabinet to make room for your pal Smith, he has been grumbling. This morning he told The Toronto Star that this Government is being run by deceit and by ballyhoo". "That, Lloyd, is absolutely false. If you do not believe me, ask Keith Davey. I have got to run now, Lloyd. I've got a big problem". "What is that?" "It is the Prime Minister. I got to deal with him this afternoon". "What is the problem?" "It is all this travel; it has gone to his head". "What do you mean?" "He wants to stay". "Oh my God, have we got a problem! Holy smokes! What is big John going to think about this?" "I don't know, Lloyd. We will have to wait until Monday to get his newsletter to find out. This is real tough. All right Lloyd, I'll see you at Winstons on Friday".
Well, now we know who writes the stuff! We have a few things to comment on.
[ Translation]
Now that the Prime Minister is back, I cannot miss the opportunity of mentioning that the federal Government tried to introduce a Bill which indeed would have tied the hands of Quebec's Caisse de depot et placement, thus hindering its legitimate operations in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. As a result of this odious and ad hoc piece of legislation, the Caisse would have been hamstrung in its vital role, which is to ensure that the assets of three million Quebecers are productive and to provide an unequalled opportunity for an entire segment of Quebec society to benefit from the operations of such a powerful instrument. When the Caisse decides to take action and to have its say in important and complex matters, it does not beat around the bush, it goes straight to the point, and an entire class of our society-mostly French-speaking- stands to gain from such action taken by the Caisse, and that is an important aspect of the growth of a people. I was sorry to see that the Federal Government, with the tacit complicity of Quebec Members, was prepared to take steps likely to frustrate and thwart a whole generation of young Quebecers who are also looking forward to better economic conditions, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada. That is why we were opposed to the Bill.
I want to touch briefly on the important matter of international affairs, inasmuch as it has quite properly received
prominence in the Throne Speech. I begin by quoting some remarks made on April 15, 1980 in the House by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), as reported at page 27 of Hansard. I ask you to listen carefully to the remarks, Mr. Speaker:
The 1980s, Madam Speaker, will not be an easy decade in international affairs. It seems certain to be a period of virtually continuous regional instability. The world economy is fragile, and the intentions and the options of the Third World have hardly begun to be defined. Unhappily as well, there is every indication that relations between the super powers are deteriorating.
That was a particularly perceptive remark given three and one-half years ago by the right hon. gentleman. I want to tell you, as I have done before, Mr. Speaker, that this Party has encouraged and will always continue to encourage as best we can all initiatives-including those undertaken by the Prime Minister-to secure a more durable peace for the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: On October 27, when the Prime Minister was speaking in Guelph, I too made a speech which understandably did not receive the attention of the Prime Minister, but I thought I could share with the House just a brief excerpt from what I said on that very same night:
Each of us can advance that cause of peace by recognizing its overwhelming importance and by contributing in some way, however modest, to its achievement. This presupposes respect for those who search for disarmament and peace in ways different-and perhaps less conventional-from us.
1 am like many of you here tonight: 1 have three young children and I want to leave for them a world free of the menace of nuclear war. That would be our greatest gift to the children of the world-
We in the Western Alliance must show both common resolve and common sense if we are to convince the Soviet Union that there can and must be an absolute reduction in the number of nuclear warheads and that world peace urgently demands this be done.
Flexibility and ingenuity have always been the hallmarks of productive negotiations. No such negotiations have ever succeeded without a sense of reasonableness and a becoming degree of objectivity in the analysis of requirements, both for ourselves and the other side-
The alternative to such a genuine commitment is unimaginable and unacceptable-
Our commitment to peace should never be diminished.
Our determination should never slacken.
Our confidence that a true and lasting peace can be obtained should never wane.
In these ways and with God's help, we shall succeed.
Last week we put forward a seven-point program which I hope will interest the Prime Minister. We ask as well that given the vital importance of this matter, the Prime Minister submit for consideration by the House an all-party resolution that would enhance his initiative. We would take cognizance of it immediately. In most of the areas we are talking about common ground and common purpose. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the country would be enriched by a debate in the House of Commons and it would strengthen his hand as he went around the world in quest of peace.
I can only say, not to be difficult, that the only problem I had was when the Prime Minister reported to a Liberal fund-raising dinner. I only mention that in the interest of freedom of information because only a declining number of
December 9, 1983

Canadians actually know what goes on at Liberal fund-raising dinners. This is the place where the Prime Minister should speak to Canada. This is the place, here.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Tradition after tradition has been violated by the Government. One of the most fundamental British traditions is that reports of this matter are always made to the House of Commons. This principle must be maintained intact and I invite the Prime Minister to do so and to do so promptly.
1 leave the area of international affairs with but one comment. 1 have been deeply troubled by statements made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) while both of them have been in the Middle East. There is an ambivalence developing in respect of our attitude there. This country must be fair and it must be equitable in its assessment of the requirements of all people in the region, but we seem to be moving to a position that is very dangerous. The position of this Party, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and of the Government of Canada must be an unshakable commitment to the integrity of Israel at all times. There is a firm commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I took forward to hearing from the Prime Minister in that regard.
Having looked at the last Throne Speech and not knowing what to expect in this one, I then read what the Prime Minister told the Liberal Party in November of 1982. "1 tell you tonight", he said, "that the next Speech from the Throne will represent all that is innovative, all that is bold and all that is dynamic with the Liberal Party". Cecil B. De Mille could not have said it any better. We have seen the Throne Speech. I think, perhaps, had my appetite not been so whetted by the extravagant prose and promises, all of us Canadians would probably take a somewhat less demanding view of the document. But since the promise was made that this was going to be the greatest thing since bottled beer, we took a look at it.
The speech contains proposals for no less than nine separate studies, task forces and commissions. There are some jobs for the boys! Basically, the speech consists of three things: recycled promises, inadequate responses and some stolen ideas. The promises include the Competition Act which is as old as the hills, as well as revisions to the discriminatory sections of the Indian Act. We have been asking for that for years and years and here it is again. Another proposal is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
There was no reference made at all to one of the greatest problems facing this society. I refer to the fact that this society, along with others, has inadvertently contrived to deny women economic equality in this country. There is absolutely no reference to the fact that the microchip has the potential to change all of that. Its greatest benefit is that it is completely neutral. The microchip has no bias in regard to sex, creed or race. Therefore, it opens up a brand-new opportunity for
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
millions of women, almost a million of whom will be put out of jobs unless the Government comes up with something serious in the area of manpower retraining to prepare for this revolution.
For the first time, thanks to the chip, women as a group will have the opportunity to break out of the low paying work ghettos, and there must be a commitment not only by the Government of Canada but by the Parliament of Canada to ensure that millions of Canadian women can attain the kind of economic equality that we wish for them. That is what it is all about.
While there was nothing in the speech in regard to that, it was not all bad. 1 commend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) and perhaps some of his colleagues. Here are some statements that I think are very helpful; "Encourage private trading houses"; "duty free export zones will be established for the manufacturing and processing of bond goods for export"; "winning of additional markets by Canadian companies"; "expand business and improve relations with our largest trading partner".
That is good stuff. That is so good, let me quote from a speech I made in Ottawa six months ago today: "Encourage the setting up of trading corporations; setting up export trade zones which would be tariff and tax free; implement various export marketing incentives; actively promote export of Canadian services: engineering, management consultancy and software; and rebuild Canada's competitive position in international trade markets in order to recapture our lost share of Canada's historical share of world trade".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: At least I do not ask for much and I do not expect much from this Government, but maybe a little footnote in a speech!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Not in big type, just a little asterisk down at the bottom saying "Most of the good ideas here came from the other side of the House".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are not very demanding of yourself.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Then there are some ideas that are left over. It does not diminish their value that it has taken so long for them to be passed. These include increases in the guaranteed income supplement; an additional $312 million to create employment for youth; tough new laws increasing penalties for drunk drivers, violent criminals and drug dealers; increased transfer payments from Ottawa; a streamlined justice system; more funds for women's groups and research on women's issues and health and safety provisions. What is the delay? 1 put the same provisions into every collective agreement with which we operated in 15 jurisdictions in 1977. The federal

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
jurisdiction is the only one that does not have those required health and safety provisions for workers. Bring them in. More funds for women's groups.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: What about immediate action to tighten anti-pornography laws? Productivity models are mentioned. That is one very fine idea, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned that in a speech on April 22, 1982. I commend the Government for it, and also for these other things. I tell you right now: bring those matters in; bring them in right through Christmas. We will pass them if you will give us a commitment that once we pass that legislation, you are going to do what you should do and call an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) but his remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just got carried away, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to you, Sir.
The fact is there are a few good ideas in the speech. Any idea that can create a job is worthy of the attention of this House. I can tell you, Sir, that if this Government cares to introduce legislation to support that principle, do it quickly and do not wait. Forget December 13 and the dinner with Keith Davey and Ed Broadbent-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry, I mean the dinner with the Leader of the NDP. Bring in the legislation. We are ready to sit through Christmas and into the New Year. As soon as that legislative program is passed, then honour that fundamental British tradition in this country which calls for an election, not in five years but within four years, so that the people can judge the action of this Government. Bring it in and let us have an election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: Oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: A big game hunter does not allow himself to be diverted by rabbit tracks.

Ah, the sheep of Quebec, that hurts, and we will be going in your ridings, one after the other. Quebecers have had enough of you. We are coming, you just wait and see! Bingo!


Erik Nielsen: The monkey from Laurier.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Then there is the question many of the Liberals have asked from time to time about the role of the Opposition in the question of policy development. That is a legitimate question. That is a legitimate concern of people. I
would like to read a brief excerpt from what a very distinguished and thoughtful Canadian said who addressed this problem, because it is important. These are his words:
In this connection I think it is a wrong interpretation of the role of opposition to suggest that it has any obligation, except in very rare and emergency circumstances, to put forward its own legislative proposals. . . government must accept full responsibility for initiating and formulating legislation; apart, of course, from private Members' Bills. It would not only be politically inept but I think would be contrary to the spirit of our constitution for an opposition to advance its own detailed proposals for legislative solutions to the problems before Parliament certainly, until the Government has made known its own proposals.
The Hon. Lester B. Pearson said that on January 27, 1959.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That was good advice and a reasonable assessment of the constitutional implications. Notwithstanding that, he did say in rare and exceptional circumstances-and this Government needs all the help it can get.
I would like now to discuss briefly some of the problems and some of the reasons for the problems. First, in my judgment, to be as objective as one can in these circumstances, the problem with the Government of Canada as presently constituted is that it has lost the confidence of the people, not only of Canadians, but of the investment and private sector as well. Confidence is very fragile and difficult to define. Once you have lost it you can never recapture it. Once you have betrayed your word or you have let people down in that regard, you have an enormous problem ahead of you.
We are in bad odour with our NATO partners. This country is in bad shape because the small and medium-size businessmen have been almost decimated by erratic changes in taxation policies. We have sent a signal out around the world with the retroactive provisions in the NEP. This is a British parliamentary democracy and we do not deal in odious retroactive legislation. It is a negative and unacceptable signal to send to investment capital around the world. We do not have the capital in this country to create two million new jobs plus
700,000	thereafter. The signals went out. We have had the hectoring for a decade from FIRA. Sure there is a role for FIRA. We do not disagree with some of the objectives of the National Energy Program, but you do not have to break your word and confiscate someone else's property to make that case.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I tell you we have lost the confidence of the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker. You have lost the confidence of the people.
Another major element to which this Government should address its attention in the most urgent manner in our anaemic productivity. I acknowledge readily that it is not a glamorous matter. It happens to be the most important question facing this country today. The principal challenge of Canada is the sale of quality products at internationally competitive prices. That is what it is about. You cannot do that without enhancing
December 9, 1983

productivity. Productivity is what the economy of a country runs on and, Mr. Speaker, it is all that it runs on.
This country used to enhance its productivity by 2.5 per cent every year following World War II. Let me tell you where we are today, not by my assessment but by the assessment of the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston). Last week in a speech in Montreal he said:
Let's start with productivity ... while our absolute level of productivity in Canada is high, our rate of productivity increase has been, to say the least, dismal. It was near zero from 1974 to 1982.
He was dead on. This country has not grown. Jobs have been lost because our productivity since 1970 has been in a straight fall. There is more to partisanship than this comment.
What is productivity? Let me take a second to explain the dimension of the problem. We take 10,000 tonnes of low grade crude ore from Labrador West, beneficiate it and run it 226 miles down the railway to Sept-Iles. If we segregate the cargo by sending 5,000 tonnes 750 miles down the Seaway to southwestern Ontario where a Chevrolet Citation is made, we bring it 750 miles back up the St. Lawrence, 266 miles to Labrador City and sell the automobile. The other half of the segregated cargo is sent 14,800 miles to Japan where it is turned into a Toyota Corolla. It comes 14,800 miles back to Canada, transported 266 miles on the railway, and is sold in Labrador City for $1,300 less than the Canadian competitor. It takes 30.8 hours to make that product in Japan almost defect free and it takes 59.9 hours in southwestern Ontario. This is not an indictment of the automobile industry in Canada. It is an indictment of all of us. It is a situation that the Government has allowed to develop. Productivity must be pointed out as the single most important weakness in our economy. Management and labour must be brought together. Labour must be part of the process. There is a reference to it in the Throne Speech, for which 1 commend the Government, even though it is 15 years late, because that is when our productivity started to decline.
I know a bit about that, as do other Hon. Members. 1 come from a family where a lunch pail was a badge of honour. The workers of this country must always be treated with dignity. No one will co-operate to enhance productivity if it means being put out of a job; no one will co-operate in that regard. Productivity has to be recognized and rewarded. Again I commend the Minister of State for Economic Development. He put his finger on it in his speech when he said that the weakness was in the tax system. This tax system has crippled small business. It has extinguished the entrepreneurial spirit and it has debilitated any productivity enhancement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Those cars mean jobs; productivity means jobs. This is what it is all about. It is hard to get that through their noggins. However, in fairness, we are now told that the Ministers do not run anything. They run for office and the
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
smart guys in the PMO run the shop. Productivity is the key to our economic growth.
Our research and development during the same period fell from 1.35 per cent of GNP to 1.16 per cent. This is the only OECD country where research and development has actively declined as a commitment to the creation of a climate in the private sector for contributions to research and development. We spend less on research and development than any civilized country in the western world, with the exception of Iceland and Ireland-may St. Patrick forgive me! If we had done during the same time frame what the Japanese, Austrians, Dutch and French did, if we had increased our percentage of GNP by one percentage point, we would have created 800.000 new jobs and thrown off almost $20 billion in manufacturing sales. That is what it would have meant.
There are some people in the association of the Government of Canada who have made some comments to which 1 think the Prime Minister should pay attention. One of them is Dr. Larker Kerwin, President of the National Research Council, a distinguished Canadian. 1 wish the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology would take the time to read his comments. There are many public servants who know what they are talking about. A number of years ago Dr. Kerwin, in a speech in regard to the program to double the commitment of the private sector and the Government to research and development by 1985, said that if Canada would do something like this, we would still have problems but that they would be the problems of excellence, the worries of the rich. He said that our export sales would be so high, our supply of energy, most of it in renewables, and our dollar would be so strong that we would be pressured, as are the Japanese, to reduce our exports. However, Dr. Kerwin went on to say: "1 would rather face those problems of excellence than the stagnation facing this nation today".
The golden wave of opportunity for our youth has been lost. We have lost a complete generation because of the absence of commitment to science and technology and to research and development. One company in West Germany has more people on its industrial research and development payroll than the entire nation of Canada; 94 per cent of the brevets d'invention or patents granted in Canada in the last decade were granted to foreigners. This is brain power. Canadian youth is just as intelligent. They do not want to be cutting trails in the forests; they want real, solid, tangible jobs in their own neighbourhoods or regions.
The way to do it is by a massive manpower retraining program, not devised by people who do not understand the disciplines of industrial life. There must be a massive commitment, in co-operation with labour, management and government, to the development of the most thoughtful and generous manpower retraining program a civilized society has ever put together. What will we do with a man who is 43 or 44 years of age and becomes redundant? Will it be forever? He must be retrained. He is a priceless asset. He must be brought back into the mainstream, and this can only be done with the kind

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Mulroney
of massive manpower retraining program we have urged and which I urge upon the Government again today.
The other day the Prime Minister again said that co-operative federalism was dead. Co-operative federalism is only dead in his mind. A new government will resurrect a genuine kind of federalism on which the nation was built, and I guarantee that there will be an historic degree of co-operation among the provinces, the municipalities and the federal Government to create jobs in the nation.
1 notice that the Throne Speech also referred to the words "tolerance" and "civility". I commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues on that choice of language, but I give you, Mr. Speaker, an image. 1 have said many times how this Party and other Parties view medicare.
[ Translation]
I have said and repeated dozens of times that I do not think anyone can make a case against me based on assumptions rather than facts, because I do not treat others that way, and the statement which was straightforward and very clear is as follows:
"As far as the Conservative Party is concerned, medicare is a sacred trust which we will always preserve".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Let me illustrate what has happened. There has not been an erosion of medicare. What we have had in the last six months has been the erosion of federalism. Let me explain that.
For six months, in one of the ugly contrivances that it has been my displeasure to witness, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) traipsed across this country in a Challenger Jet saying that medicare was going to die if those pernicious Premiers tried to impose user fees. The Premier of New Brunswick, who is one of the most thoughtful, mainstream and able of Canadians, was contemplating it for the simple reason that the Province of New Brunswick was in an extremely grave financial situation. I asked the Minister why she continually abuses, harasses and hectors. Why does she not say that we have a problem? When the federal Government tied its contributions to the GNP and then flattened that GNP growth with a recession, contributions went down in relative terms. Why does the Minister not say: "We have a problem. It is not vour fault. It may not be ours. Let's get together in the Canadian tradition. The matter is underfunding. Let's resolve it".
Six months went by. There was blast after blast against every conceivable government and moving object that could be found in this country. Then on Friday, at a Liberal fund-raising dinner in Vancouver, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) said there will be more money for medicare. There was always more money for medicare. That was the problem.
It was the Canadian federal Government that was not living up to its contributions to the provinces in this regard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I do not mention that to denigrate or attack anyone. It struck me as being a most unseemly exercise which I witnessed all summer. I heard it in my constituency. I watched it on television. I saw over television the Minister of National Health and Welfare get off a Challenger Jet in western Canada for the purpose of speaking at a meeting that had been organized and funded by her department. It was rent-a-crowd time to protest against this when the problem all along was money. Genuine co-operative federalism requires a spirit of generosity. There must be certain things that arc above politics-

-there are certain things in Canada which must be safeguarded against any partisan attack-

-Medicare has to be one of them at all times.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Another component of industrial progress has to be a major commitment to civilize labour relations in this nation. You do not learn about this program in the PMO. You learn about it from those who have grown up in the area and understand the problems of living, breathing people; those who have worked out problems and have a track record to go with it, not governments that unilaterally bring in legislation to abuse collective agreements ex post facto that were signed. That is another way you lose trust and confidence. Organized labour and labour that is unorganized are the key to the development of any industrial strategy in this country. They are told: "After 15 years, we want you along". 1 am glad the invitation was extended. The hour is late and the challenge is even greater. Civilized industrial relations is another component of our program. These are some ideas that I hope the Government will consider. They are absolutely vital. [Translation]
Half-baked and band-aid policies, one version here one day, but the day after it is Santa Claus, and the day after, Senator Hebert proposed the creation of a Department of Youth-Is that going to be accepted? The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) had made that suggestion in August! It is just one more idea stolen from this side of the House. But that is not the way to proceed, for we must admit that there arc problems and, as the economists say-

There are profound structural deficiencies in this economy. One is productivity. One is research and development. One is a tax system that is erratically changed and cripples the entrepreneurial spirit. One is a lack of recognition of the entrepreneurial spirit which governs small businesses, farmers and fishermen. They are the ultimate entrepreneurs, the people
December 9, 1983

who risk their lives, who get up early, work that extra hour and walk that extra mile. They have to be rewarded, not penalized.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: That says it all. The entrepreneurial spirit has just about been extinguished in this nation, that little bit of genius in all of us which causes us to go out, build our communities and regions, build a better country, look after our families and give better opportunities to our children. It is all part of the vision of a country.
I remember when I was a kid growing in Baie Comeau. After working in a papermill all day my father would go out and work another four hours every night. He had a second job. The reason was because my mother needed the money for the six kids. My mother would keep three hours of that and one would go to the government. If my dad were alive today, he wouldn't do that because three hours would go to the government and one would be left over for my mother. That is what is wrong with the system. That is what is wrong with Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have opportunities lost, we have sadness and we have sorrow. The soul of this nation has been scarred. People are constantly referred to as statistics. They are not statistics; they are hopes and dreams of better tomorrows that have been dashed. Entire segments of our country are totally neglected. We almost take a vicarious pride in dreaming up new names for them-visible minorities, working mothers and working women. There are human tragedies unfolding every day and the Government seems to care to the extent humanly possible. I know it might be difficult. 1 say this in genuine extraction of any partisanship. I tell you, as do some of the most expert observers of the Liberal Party, it does happen that a government sits too long. It does become exhausted, as they say, and bankrupt of ideas.
There is new hope, new vision, new promise and new opportunity coming. We are going to get back to some of the fundamentals without which you cannot run a civilized society. We will form a government that believes in having a climate where people can grow, share and be rewarded for their work and not be penalized.
[ Translation]
There is also-and I am about to conclude, Mr. Speaker- the obligation to show tenderness towards underprivileged Canadians. It is an altogether sacrosanct obligation towards the poor, the underprivileged and the elderly. It is also an absolutely essential aspect of our national character.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, with some sadness, I wish I could summon more generous words of praise for the Government after three and one-half years of effort, but I find I cannot. Therefore 1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Address be amended by adding the following words:
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
"This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that your Government is incapable of providing leadership and direction in the social and economic affairs of the nation and has lost the confidence of this House and of the Canadian people and therefore requires that an election be called in accordance with the Canadian custom, practice and tradition of holding a general election at least every four years".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) is returning to the Chamber. I understand that it is possible within the rules to have a 10-minute question and answer period following the speeches.
I have a question I would like to ask of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition about the remarks he made earlier this morning. I noticed that he made-


Mr. Thacker:: That's out of order.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, it is not out of order. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the question of funding of medicare. 1 would like to ask him-


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose you will seek the advice of the table officers and tell the House whether following the Leader of the Official Opposition's and the Right Hon. Prime Minister's interventions, a ten-minute question period would be in order. Our Standing Order is not clear on this issue. When it refers to a ten-minute question period, it is after speeches of 20 minutes duration. As the Leader of the Opposition and the Right Hon. Prime Minister may speak for an unlimited time I should like you to make your position clear on this issue, that we may know where we stand in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member rises on a point of order-

I shall quote from Standing Order 42(7) which reads as follows:
Following the speech of each Member a period not exceeding ten minutes shall be made available-
That is strictly according to the rules. There has, however, been a practice of extending a courtesy which has normally been extended and this question period has been waived. However, according to the rules, the Hon. Member has the right to pose a question.

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy then, and out of deference to the fact that the Government has seen fit to come to the defence of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in order to make sure that he does not have to answer specific questions about medicare, I will defer my question and allow the show to proceed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, across this land for the past several months, some Liberals have been asking themselves how we could possibly withstand the awesome threat of a rejuvenated Conservative Party led by a dynamic new leader. Well, I have good news for them, Mr. Speaker. We have heard the threat in person this morning and there is really not too much to be worried about. The voice and the smile have changed but it is still the same old Tories with the same old stories.
We have seen the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) revel-1 would say wallow-in the pleasure of what he himself has described, as reported by an article in The Toronto Star, as the great advantage of being purely destructive. The Canadian people thought that in his first major address to the House of Commons, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition would spend a great deal of his time talking about the problems, the insecurity of the world, the economic and military insecurity, but especially about the solutions that his Party would bring to those problems.
What did we learn this morning which is new? Well, we learned that the Leader of the Opposition is not likely to vote Liberal. We learned that he would very much like to be Prime Minister. We did not learn what he would do if he ever became Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I heard the distinguished Whip of this Party, the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Turner), say that as a boy he had heard the same speech from R. B. Bennett in 1930.
We do know that the Leader of the Opposition has a great deal of compassion for the poor, the underprivileged and the unemployed. We learned that on October 29 last, to be precise, he had discovered the importance of peace. He even told us, and he quoted himself at some length, that some six months ago he had discovered the importance of trading corporations. So it would be unfair to say that there are not some new discoveries in the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. It would be fair to say, however, that there are no solutions to any of the problems that he brought forward. 1 fear that the Leader of the Opposition is justifying that excellent statement made in a Winnipeg newspaper to the effect that the man from Baie Comeau leaves very few footprints on the issues on which he takes a stand.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is falling into the same trap that I think most of the front-benchers on that side have fallen into of thinking that they can sail silently to victory in the dead of night without any navigation lights and without charting any course. 1 just hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is a strong swimmer. 1 must tell him that
even the toothpaste commercials try to sell a product as well as a smile.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Where is the product, Mr. Speaker ?
We have heard about that transition team which, since the leadership convention, has been putting together a scries of policies to be unleashed in the country. We have heard that the opposition experts and backroom boys have been looking over the appointments list and deciding who would be nominated where and at what salaries. We know they have been consulting the officials of the Government so that, in the event of a takeover, they would be ready to redecorate their offices. However, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is like a poker player who is cashing in his chips before the hand is played. I want to tell him that on this side of the House there are some pretty good poker players and we are not about to leave the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 heard the story of the parson who was so confident that he mortgaged his house to make a bet in favour of Vancouver in the last Grey Cup game. Before the game he could not talk about his secret for fear of public reprobation. After the game, all he could do was preach for more generous alms for the poor. The Leader of the Opposition is a bit in that position. 1 was away at the time, but 1 was told that when he was asked about the Grey Cup game, he even came down on both sides of the fence on that. The expression was that he was pulling for Vancouver but praying for Toronto. 1 think he has decided that that is the right strategy for his Party. He is unable to pull the policies together; therefore he is resorting to prayer and just hoping that God loves the Irish. All 1 can say, Mr. Speaker, is that he will probably have to wait as long as the Argos waited to soar to victory.

Granted, the Leader of the Opposition quoted at length my distinguished predecessor, Mr. Pearson, to explain that in the Opposition one is not obliged to present a full political and legislative program. I may remind him, however, that he was quoting what Mr. Pearson said in 1959, when he became Leader of the Opposition after the leadership Convention but in 1962, as Leader of the Opposition, he had a tremendous program. This morning, the Leader of the Opposition told us he wanted elections right away. That is the precise meaning of the motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition this morning: elections as soon as possible, not three years later like Mr. Pearson. He wants elections right away, and not a word about his program, not a single word! And that is where the difference lies. Mr. Speaker, 1 think this attitude in a way insults the intelligence of the Canadian people. It assumes that Canadians who have been through difficult times, who have experienced unemployment and financial difficulties, want
December 9, 1983

change at any price, and that it is unnecessary to let Canadians know what kind of change they can expect, that it is unnecessary to define policies and to say how one intends to govern this country, what direction one intends to take and by what means.
Basically, the Leader of the Opposition is using a tactic so well described by the Member for St. John's-West (Mr. Crosbie) who said that the purpose was to present a blurred vision, and that if the Leader of the Opposition were to announce his program before he became Prime Minister, he would never be elected. Those are the words of the Member for Saint-John's-West, who is known for his candour. And that is indeed the strategy used by the Leader of the Opposition. He is forming a coalition of all those who are against, of all those who are opposed to some aspect of Government policies, and since we have been in power for quite some time, I am sure that every action we have taken in this House has provoked some reaction. It is a law of physics and a law of politics: every action is followed by reaction. When the more negative elements of reaction look for a place to go, they inevitably flock to the Progressive Conservative Party. It is the Party of those who are against. All those who say no when everybody else says yes, all those who are in favour of negativism, you can find them there, in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. For instance, we don't need an exhaustive list, just a good memory, to remember where the people in this country who are against bilingualism happen to be. They are with my hon. friend's Party, as he well knows. Where are the people who are against the metric system? Right over there on the opposite side. Where are the people who are against patriation of the Constitution? Where should we look for them? Over there! Where are the people who are against the Charter of Rights? Where are they? With the Tories! Where are those who are against unemployment insurance? Right over there. Where are the people who ... I will talk about health insurance later on, but in any case, I know that this Party not only has people who have spoken out against health insurance but it also has people who voted against health insurance. They are right there in the Progressive Conservative Party. They are against the changes in the Crow rate! They are even against helping Canadair! They are against Bell Helicopter establishing a plant in the Province of Quebec . . . The Leader of the Official Opposition says no, and I am not saying it was his own position. On the contrary, the positions of Leader of the Official Opposition on most of these issues have been very distinguished and generally honourable. But 1 ask him: Where are these people who are against all the issues I just mentioned? Are they on this side or on the other side? He knows perfectly well they are right beside him. It was obvious when we were considering the question of bilingualism in Manitoba. Certainly, we had a unanimous resolution. Thank goodness! It was unanimous because we did not need a vote. He is aware of that, and Canadians are as well. He is putting up a facade of unity despite all these people who are opposed to these issues. He
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
does have more open-minded people on his side. He has Members who are prepared to be progressive on a host of issues. But once again, where are the people who have taken a negative stand? They are with the Conservatives.
That explains why the Leader of this Party cannot afford to take a positive position on a single issue. He has to be against everything the Government is doing, without, however, saying what he would do instead: determine what the problems are and look into them. Of course, this takes a quick mind, and the Leader of the Official Opposition has shown this morning that he is no ordinary observer. He is aware of unemployment and the fact that people are in great difficulty. He realizes that peace in this world is threatened. But what would his Government do next month since he wants to have an election next month, since he will be voting in two days to defeat this Government and launch his election campaign? What does he want to do with all those who are opposed? How would he form an alliance to govern? Did he tell us this morning? Do Canadians-who are entitled to know-know how this alliance of disgruntled, rejected, short-sighted people and reactionaries will stick together and form a Government?

The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, is not against the Liberal Party. We were flattering ourselves to think he was opposed to the Liberal Party. He is not against the Liberal Party, he is against the 20th century.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think it is kind of tragic that that Party has been in opposition so long. I myself said some many years ago that perhaps 20 years is too long for anyone to be Prime Minister-I was saying that when Mr. Duplessis was Prime Minister-and I promise, Mr. Speaker, that I will not finish the next five years. That Party has developed the tragic habit of being against everything because it so rarely had the responsibility of government. True, it had it for some nine months in 1979-80, and I listened with some disbelief this morning when the Leader of the Opposition was blaming us and our friends in the New Democratic Party for having defeated the Tory Government, as though that Government deserved support and continuation and so on. Why, then, has the Leader of the Opposition been working so hard himself to get rid of the former leader of the Tory Party-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if he was so worthy of remaining in office? 1 repeat, Mr. Speaker, there is something tragic in that negativism, in that coalition of "antis" which leads the Conservative Party to believe that in a sense the federal Government is incapable of putting forward satisfactory solutions to the real problems of our country in this day.
If there is a problem with medicare, Mr. Speaker, what do we hear? "Let the provinces solve it". If there is a problem

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
with unemployment and the economy, "let the market forces and the private sector solve it". If there is a problem in energy, "let the multinationals solve it". If there is a problem in co-operative federalism, "let the provinces solve it". This, Mr. Speaker, is government by abdication. This is really admitting that somehow the Government of Canada is not called upon to solve the problems. If it were just a kind of sad comment on the frame of mind of the Conservative Party, well, I would say it is a sad comment. But it is more serious than that. If we are going to let the private sector and the provinces solve the problems; or if it is a world problem, let the United States solve it; if we are going to let the United States, the private sector, the provinces, the market forces, if we are going to let the past settle all the problems as was the case with the Crow when they said let us not do anything for another three years, it has been there almost 100 years-
[ Translation]
That reminds me of Moliere's character who blindly endorsed the opinions of the elders. For him, it was a virtue. [English]
What is the result, Mr. Speaker? Not just impotence of the Government of Canada but survival of the fittest.
What we have in the Tory Party is a return once again to the 19th century. What they would bring back is political and social Darwinism. If you let the provinces solve a problem, you can be sure it is the tough and stronger provinces which would take over from the others. If you let the market solve the problem in every case, in every circumstance, obviously it will be the strong who will take hold over the weak. If you let the United States solve all the problems, obviously little countries like Canada and Europe and the rest of the world cannot have much say. That, Mr. Speaker, is social Darwinism and that is why I say the Leader of the Opposition is taking us back to the 19th century. That is basically the difference between that Party and this Party. 1 hear a Tory over there saying "that is right". I am glad they have understood this.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I must refer to a newsletter put forth by Mr. Peter Blaikie in November, 1982. It has been made public and we saw it reproduced in the newspapers and so on. It gave a profile of the delegates to the Tory convention. That was a masterpiece of social Darwinism, Mr. Speaker. You look at the profile of the delegates to the Tory convention and you find, for instance, that 75 per cent of all the delegates are against affirmative action for women or minority groups. So when the Leader of the Tory Party talked this morning about the plight of women, the unemployed and other such, we have to know there is going to be no affirmative action to help them out of that plight.
We see that 65 per cent of the delegates to that convention were opposed to increasing not just old age pensions but the guaranteed income supplement, for gosh sakes! And family allowances. And putting more money into medicare, in spite of the words of the Leader of the Opposition this morning. It is
easy to see why that Party is against the Cl DC. why it is against Crown corporations, Canadair and CIDA. Yes, that is another quote from Blaikie's newsletter, that 65 per cent of Tory supporters were against increased aid to Third World countries. It is all very well to talk about commiseration and the barefoot boy who saw what it was to slug away and whose dad worked so hard. All these are nice things and we see the problems; but what are the solutions?
This Party put forward a Speech from the Throne. Admittedly it was not the greatest thing that any God could have dreamt up in His paradise, but it was an honest attempt to put forward solutions to the problems of the day. The mover of the motion in support of the address, the Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Burghardt), and the seconder, the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde), made honest speeches. They did not try to be buffoons for the first third of the time allocated to them. They were not trying to imitate, not Cecil B. De Mille but poor imitations of Laurel and Hardy, 1 suppose. They were making serious contributions to the debate. They were saying what they saw in the speech for their riding, what they saw for the country, how they thought it would improve things. Once again 1 would have thought the people of the country would have had some expectation to get this from the Leader of the Tory Party, but they do not know that the Tory Party is essentially a coalition of the "antis". They do not know that the Tory Party, when it says it is time for a change, does not want to bring us into the 21st century; they want to bring us back into the 19th century, and they say so in their policies.
1 was trying to jot down some of the subjects raised by the Leader of the Opposition this morning and wondered if I could take a few of them to try by induction to see what principles of action lay behind the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition here on previous occasions. He told us that unemployment is a terrible thing, which it is. He said this country needed jobs, which it does. He criticized the amounts that our various ministries are putting into job creation as not being enough. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) in his last budget put some $2.4 billion into bringing forth works off the shelves to create an infrastructure for progress in this country; another $2.4 billion went in tax incentives of various kinds.
The Leader of the Opposition this morning still found a way of telling us that taxes should still be cut. Admittedly, he is a good spokesman for most Canadians because no one likes paying taxes. But if we look at the report issued by the Department of National Revenue just about a year ago, we will see that comparatively Canadians, whether it be as private individuals or members of the corporate sector, pay taxes no higher and generally somewhat lower than people in the United States.
But never mind, we know from the Tory Party that when they talk about creating jobs, they also keep in mind the deficit. One thing that some of their spokesmen have said is the first thing they would do is to cut the deficit. Others have said they would cut taxes. One way or another there will be less money left for the Government to create jobs, particularly
December 9, 1983

since we know that when the Leader of the Opposition goes to Nova Scotia he says that more money will be put into defence. When he talks about medicare he says more money will be put into medicare, so the Provinces can solve the problem. Of course, he would balance the budget. He would spend all this extra money, cut taxes, and yet balance the budget.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a serious proposal to create jobs in the country. This is befuddling the economic solutions that this country sorely needs and which this Government is trying to put forward. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the need to be competitive, yet he says that his Party was right in fighting the six and five measures that we put before this House. What else were we attempting to do, Mr. Speaker, when we were tackling inflation which was at 12.8 per cent? We had a meeting with the provinces and they all said we should bring interest rates down. Interest rates were at 20 per cent or 22 per cent in the United States of America. What we said, Mr. Speaker, is that we will bring inflation down. When we bring inflation down, that will make Canadians more competitive and more productive and we will have the immense trade surplus of $18 billion that we had last year because we brought inflation down from 12.8 per cent to less than 5 per cent, the lowest it has been in 11 years.
Admittedly, the Government did not do it just by passing a law and imposing controls on everyone. The Government did it because the Canadian people understood the need in Canada for Canadians to be competitive if they wanted to sell in the world market, which they did. They became competitive. We brought inflation down to 4.9 per cent. Mr. Speaker, from there we began to create the jobs because there were the markets to buy the goods at these lower prices caused by lower costs. That is how it was done, Mr. Speaker. It was done easily and certainly not with the support of either of the opposition Parties who said it was unfair to index things at 6 per cent when inflation was at 12. We said it is not unfair because if the Canadian people co-operate, which they did, we will have inflation at 6 per cent and therefore indexing at 6 per cent will not be unfair for the old age pensioners, the trade unions, the civil service retirement fund or anyone else. We collectively, not the Government but the Government acting with the people and followed some distance behind by the provinces who criticized the scheme at the federal-provincial conference of February, 1982 and again in August, 1982, at the Premier's conference, brought inflation down below 6 per cent. The provinces scoffed at the six and five as something that would not work, that was insufficient and was wrong, but they finally jumped on the bandwagon, as the Leader of the Opposition so often does himself when he sees a thing work.
Inflation was brought down and what is the result? Unemployment rates are now at the lowest they have been in two years. Certainly they are not low enough, they have to continue going down, but when the industrialized world, the OECD countries, have something like 35 million unemployed, to say nothing of the hundreds of millions of unemployed in the Third World, surely an exporting nation like Canada cannot just
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
create jobs by throwing money at them. It can help create them by bringing the cost down, which we did collectively. It can, with as prudent management of the economy as it can muster, steadily bring down the unemployment figures, as has been happening in the last two years.
It can help by creating jobs. It created some 330,000 of them last year and probably almost as much this year. It was not as much as was predicted in the last budget, but since then we have had more and more pleasant surprises. In the third quarter of this year, the last one for which we have figures, we know that GNP in real terms in this country is growing at a rate of 8 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, that is probably not going to be true the next time. I do not think we can possibly grow that fast. As in the other quotation from Larkin Kerwin, that would be too much excellence for this country. We cannot do it that well that fast, Mr. Speaker.
Productivity is another thing. We discovered this morning that the Leader of the Opposition was very concerned with productivity, microchips and R and D. Let him look at the productivity figures. If I understood him correctly, he was saying that we should take a leaf out of the book of the Japanese who have productivity between 2 and 3 per cent. If he looks at our own figures for this year he will see that productivity has gone up 2.6 per cent. If he looks at the figures since 1980, since this Government took office, he will see that productivity has gone up by 2.3 per cent, which is well within the range that he said productivity should be. So what is the big deal, Mr. Speaker? Obviously we have to pull up our socks and work hard. That is what everybody is preaching.
Where are the hard decisions to be taken? The Leader of the Opposition would cut taxes, cut the deficit, balance the budget and somehow find enough money to increase defence spending, medicare and so on. This Government has brought in taxation measures, some of which are before the House now and will be voted on, hopefully, very soon, so that the taxpayers of Canada can have their refunds in time this year rather than as was the case before my hon. friend entered the House last year when procrastination caused days and weeks to go by while the same tax Bill was debated, which deliberately withheld money which was due to be reimbursed to the Canadian people. I hope that will not happen again. I think the Leader of the Opposition ought to co-operate on that score. I know he is not negative. He is trying to hold together a Party which is negative and against everything. He has my good wishes that he will succeed. It will be good for him, for his Party and for the country. Maybe if they can do that for a little while, then we will test them in an election, Mr. Speaker; but we will see if they can do it for a little while.
Time for a change; that is what the people think and that is what the Tories say. If it were 20 years it would be a long time and time for a change. It is time for a change, but let me tell the people of Canada who are thinking that that if they change to a Tory Party they would be wise not to be unemployed or to be poor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to deal with medicare which is another example the Leader of the Opposition gave this morning. He managed to wax very indignant about the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) who is "going around trying to create a feeling in the people that medicare was threatened". I noted the words. He said that medicare was a sacred trust and that he would stand by it. 1 saw the rolling applause, even among those who had spoken and voted against it some years ago. He said it was a sacred trust, Mr. Speaker, that all it needed was more money and the Minister of Finance was going to give it more money; therefore what was the big fuss about and why was the Minister of National Health and Welfare so agitated? On the one hand, he blamed the federal Government for in 1978 having brought in the Established Programs, Financing, the EPF block funding.


An Hon. Member:: That was 1977.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 stand corrected, 1977. He said that that was based on GNP and population growth and that is what had gone wrong with the system. I have news for him. It is because of that system that another $780 million was announced by the Minister of Finance in Vancouver. The GNP has grown more than the pessimistic views held by the Tory Party. So the system works to give more money and somehow the Leader of the Opposition criticizes the system. What is worse, he criticizes the system without checking that if we had kept the old system, the one that prevailed before 1977 and the one that was based on a 50-50 deal, the provinces would have received in those intervening years some $2.4 billion less than they received under the new system.
What is this sacred trust, when this Government is transferring some $12 billion this year under block funding and is adding another $780 million, give or take a few million? Somehow, the Leader of the Opposition says that we have created the problem, that if only the provinces still had more money there would be no problem. Of course there would be no problem if they had still more money, but he has just heard the figures which indicate that the system is not underfunded; it is funded more than under the previous system. This year it will be funded more than had been foreseen by the budgets of the various Ministers. Therefore, it is not underfunded.
Maybe it is underphilosophized by some of the Premiers of the Tory provinces who bring in user fees and are permitting extra billing. These are the two essential questions, the ones that have been debated in this country for several years now and on which we had a royal commission report. What is the position of the Leader of the Opposition on extra billing? What is his position on user fees? There is not a word. There is not a word because he knows that if he were opposed to those he would run into some problem with the provinces who philosophically want user fees. For some reason or other they do not remember that when this Party brought in medicare legislation some 17 years ago-and it was the first act of my Government after 1 was elected in June of 1968 to bring that legislation into effect in July of 1968-we promised then that
never again in this country would people not have access to universal medicare and medical aid because they were too poor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Never again would middle income families face financial ruin because some lasting illness or emergency operation caused them to dip into all of their savings. We said never again and we meant it. We meant it then and we mean it now. That is why we are going to introduce legislation, so that there will not be extra billing and there will not be deterrent fees.
We will not just say that it is the provinces' problem and we will solve it by throwing money at it. it is not a question of money. Alberta has a lot of money. Why would the Leader of the Opposition give them more money so that they change their philosophy, which is one of introducing and permitting extra billing? How will he solve this problem by throwing money at it, particularly when he is going to balance the budget?
It is a matter of Tory mentality, not a matter of dollars and cents. Let me tell all those Canadians out there who think it is time for a change that if they elect a Tory Party they better not be sick.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition has mocked our national energy policy. He has said there are no redeeming features in that policy. Well, there must be some redeeming features. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) will be talking about that in the House on Monday, 1 believe, but it seems to me that I have seen some redeeming figures. I have seen that in Canada lands and in the offshore, investment in spending has gone up from $282 million in 1978 to $1.8 billion in 1982. That is an increase of more than 600 per cent in four years. 1 have seen total investment in exploration, exploitation and discovery between 1979-the year my hon. friend's Party was in government-and 1983 has gone up to $5.6 billion, which is an increase of 70 per cent over 1979. 1 have seen revenue in the oil and gas industry between those years go from $4.6 billion to $11.8 billion. So it cannot be all that terrible, Mr. Speaker, this national energy policy which, according to the Opposition, will see its name changed. They will probably call it the American energy policy.
What is the essential thrust of the policy? I suppose there are three thrusts. The first is to ensure self-reliance in petroleum energy by the end of the decade. We are well on the way to attaining that, thanks to conservation measures and also, 1 must admit, thanks in part to the fact that there has been less consumption as a result of an economic slowdown.
We are well on the way to attaining the 50 per cent Canadian control and ownership which is obviously displeasing to some of the multinationals who prefer to keep control and ownership of this Canadian resource.
December 9, 1983

The third thrust was to ensure that Canadian pricing in that industry would not be determined by international cartels. In that respect we have managed, throughout the 1970s, to keep prices for oil and gas in Canada below world prices. In many years they were substantially below world prices. We did not do that by using arbitrary constitutional measures such as declaratory powers and so on. We did it through negotiations-hard, difficult negotiations between the producing provinces and the consuming provinces. Much of the time both the consuming and producing provinces were Tory provinces. That is a reconciliation feat: to get the Tories to agree on something in between. I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition will do it. Mr. Lougheed seems to say that he will wait to reopen the question until the Tories are in power. That is good; we are prepared to wait a long while. But presumably he wants oil and gas prices to be completely decontrolled.
What is the position of the Leader of the Opposition on that? He is thinking hard. He is thinking hard of what to say because if he gives me one answer he will please Premier Lougheed and if he gives me another he will please Premier Davis and Premier Hatfield. He surely will not be able to please both. Therefore he does not give any answer but just attacks the policy. There we are, the coalition of the antis. Lor every action is the reaction over there, the ugly face of reaction sitting on the Tory benches.
The Leader of the Opposition went out of his way to say that "particularly odious"-because "retroactive" in some sense did not explain it-"particularly unacceptable" was the back-in provision. The back-in provision, when you come to think of it, we see as a way to give the Canadian people a share in discoveries which were made, thanks to their tax dollars, paid by way of incentives or tax exemptions. But that is the philosophical view. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition not sharing it. He does not believe in the role of the state as protector of the interests of the people, except if it is the provincial state, the Washington state, or something like that. But not the Canadian Government state.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How will he deal with Mr. Peckford? He not only wants back-in but he thinks the back-in at a measly 25 per cent is not big enough. He wants back-in at 40 per cent. Mr. Buchanan. I guess, thinks 25 per cent is all right but he wants his share right away; he wants the Minister to collect it so he can get the money right away.
The Leader of the Opposition has talked about a measure of tenderness in federal-provincial relations. Let him talk to the Premier of Newfoundland, let him talk to the Premier of Nova Scotia, and he will come back here feeling pretty tender, 1 can assure him!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not want to go on too long, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: More!
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, a little bit longer then. Maybe I should talk about international problems.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition discovered, he told us, the peace movement as early as October 28, 1983. He knows something about the subject. I am very happy for the support he promises to give to the Government's initiative. 1 think it would be good and proper in this matter that we have a bipartisan approach. He asked me for my comments on his eight-point policy.


Erik Nielsen: Seven.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 believe he enunciated them last Sunday to a group in Toronto. I think much of it is okay. There is one point on which 1 have some problem. It is about the no first strike. 1 wish 1 could ask the Leader of the Opposition what he means by that because 1 have already heard that his official critic for defence and his official critic for external affairs do not agree on it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They shake their heads. They do agree on it. 1 would be very interested to hear what they would say if 1 were to stand in this place and propose a radical change to a fundamental posit of NATO strategy. I wonder if they would not say it would be better if that were done in some more discreet forum. If they are proposing to abolish the no first strike or no first use, depending on what meaning they mean, they would be I do not say saying the wrong thing, but I would say saying it in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Lor that reason I think it would be better if 1 reserved this kind of discussion for the NATO forum, which we are doing. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in that sense 1 commend the Leader of the Opposition for having some forward thinking. I would not want to bless every aspect of it lest I damn myself with our NATO allies. I am certainly prepared to discuss it with him or with his Party in this House or in other places, certainly with the honourable former Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister, who has been appointed to a task force on this subject.
1 have in mind that when I first made my statement the Leader of the Opposition was a little bit condescending and said 1 should not be raising subjects which would cause some confusion in NATO and perhaps some distress in Washington. He said-am I quoting him correctly?-"illusions of grandeur"? I withdraw it. I was told without my knowing it that the Leader of the Opposition had said that. 1 do know that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) called me a selfappointed messiah.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Denied again. Maybe not "self-appointed" but "self-annointed".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I heard with my own ears the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) describing me as a new Chamberlain and offering me his umbrella. All 1 can say is that if it were described as 1 am told, I would tell the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the former Prime Minister, that he is welcome aboard the political ploy. There is still room for another messiah and we can work together. 1 am sure we will because it is a very important subject.
I am glad that the 48 nations of the Commonwealth have supported this effort. 1 am very proud that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able to get the agreement of his fellow foreign ministers in Brussels to participate at the political level at the Stockholm conference on disarmament and to bring forth counterproposals on the CDE. Those were two of the proposals that I had made. I can say on the five-power nuclear conference that there is agreement among several of them that there should be a five-power nuclear conference. They pose different conditions and that will be a matter of negotiation, of trying to make sure they all accept each other's conditions or that those conditions are changed. I think the essential thing is that we have now a statement by political leaders of NATO, the political leaders of the 48 countries of the Commonwealth and several other political leaders that I have seen in the Middle East and in China, that indeed the politicians must take responsibility for searching for peace and for pushing for peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

I think 1 have said enough to show that in the few examples .. . Oh, no, before leaving the subject of foreign relations-

Before leaving the subject of foreign relations, I think I must take up the challenge given to me by the Leader of the Opposition this morning when he said that he thought I should state courageously that we stood for Israel's right to exist as an independent nation. I will state it again and again and again. 1 stated it in the Middle East when 1 talked of resolution 242, which says precisely that. It says that Israel has a right to exist between secure and defined borders. I do not think to my recollection, that 1 ever talked about Palestinian rights. It is part of government policy that they have a homeland on the West Bank and Gaza. It is part of government policy that there should be a withdrawal of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. I do not think I have ever stated publicly that the Palestinians have a right to be considered, that they must be at the centre of any peace proposal, peace solution, in the Middle East. I do not feel ashamed that l have said that at least once.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to see how any honest critic can fault me for having said that once in public when 1 have stated in public so many times our position on Israel. It seems to me the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) is quarrelling.
He is quarrelling with me over a rather insignificant issue when he blames me for not repeating in the same breath what I said so many times about the right of Israel to exist. When 1 was asked by Palestinian newspapermen what was our position on the Palestinian issue, 1 stated it very simply, but they were dissatisfied. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to see the newspaper headlines, I can assure him that the position of the Government on the Palestinian issue, on the PLO more precisely, led to the condemnation of those newspapermen and those newspapers in the Near East. In other words, it is not always easy to please everyone in such cases, but 1 can tell the Leader of the Opposition that this Government does not have to take any lesson from anyone-either from him or from Near East newspapermen-with respect to our hope to sec Israel live in peace.

1 have touched upon most of the subjects raised by the Leader of the Opposition. 1 have attempted to show that I understand those in Canada who say that it is time for a change. There has been high unemployment in Canada. Interest rates have caused great distress among small businessmen, home owners and many other people. 1 can understand people saying, "Well, this Government has brought us through some hard times. We are going to tell it that we are pretty darned sore at it. We are going to vote against this Government because it was not able to save us from the 35 million unemployed situation in the world, it was not able to protect us from the 20 per cent interest rates in the United States, and it was not able to ensure that the country was completely shielded from the woes the world has known in the past several years since two oil shocks and high interest rates". 1 can understand voter dissatisfaction. I must say that this Party is sorry that it was not able to ensure a shield for the country against the economic woes of the world. I can understand a lot of voters saying that it is time for a change. That is something we will have to take into account but, as I end this statement, 1 want to repeat and plead with them to ask themselves what they would change to.
I feel like asking the Leader of the Opposition, what we arc all in politics for? Is it just to sit on the Treasury benches, just to bear the title of Minister, Prime Minister of member of the governing Party? We all make some sacrifices to be in public life. We all do it because we believe that our particular Party-that one, that one, or this one-has an idea of the kind of Canada it wants to build and where it wants to see the country led, and feels that by its participation in the debates in this place it will help lead the country in that direction. We have not heard any directions from the Leader of the Opposition this morning. We know the woes he wants to avoid. We have not heard solutions to those woes. Earlier I was calling that Party a social Darwinist party. I wonder if 1 could refer to Engels, because I know the Tory Party would be outraged if I associated it in some way with Karl Marx's friend. However,
December 9, 1983

Hon. Members will recall that in his theories he talked about the withering away of the state; you remember that, Ed.


Mr. Broadbent:: You were around then, I wasn't.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He talked about the withering away of the state and the replacement of the government of men by the administration of things. 1 do not want to insult them by saying that that is their philosophy. However, they are certainly leading us in their tortured Tory ways to the situation where the government of men-with all it implies in terms of reconciliation, confrontation and argument-would be replaced by the administration of things, where the state could wither away and the Leader of the Opposition, having become the Prime Minister in such a state, would preside at the non-existence of the Canadian Government and everything would be handed over to the multinational corporations.
[ Translation\
I would wish him that but not the Canadian people.


Mr. Young:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think if you test the House you will find that the House Leaders have reached an agreement and that there is unanimous consent to waive the provisions of Standing Order 42(7) to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party to complete his remarks in reply to the Speech from the Throne without interruption.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to seek consent to suspend any Standing Order. It has been the tradition, custom and practice of the House to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party unlimited time to make his address in reply.


Yvon Pinard: Of course.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly getting closer to 1984 all the time! We have just heard, I am sure for the first time in history, someone in Canada call the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mul-roney) a Marxist. The mind boggles. Marx once said, I am sure all the scholars in this Chamber will recall, that he did not regard himself as being a Marxist. I am not sure how the Leader of the Opposition would respond to that observation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It does not require us to be near 1984 but simply in the House of Commons to have witnessed two such remarkable speeches of the kind we have just heard.
Before lunch we heard the Leader of the Opposition speak for almost an hour on the Throne Speech without proposing a single concrete solution to the problems that face our country about which he so correctly talked. Then we heard the Prime Minister, in his wonderful dialectical way, rise, lean back and point out that the Leader of the Opposition took an hour to say absolutely nothing, and then take an hour to talk about the nothing that was said and manage in the process not to talk about his own Government's Throne Speech.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
I found part of what the Prime Minister had to say strange. He attacked the Conservative Party. I will say in this context that only the Conservative Party of Canada can make the Liberal Party of Canada look progressive, from time to time. If the Conservative Party consists of such a collection of negatives, such a bundle of social Darwinists, the Prime Minister and his colleagues will have to go some way to explain how the Conservatives since the last election have voted with the Liberals more than 80 times. Maybe it takes one social Darwinist to recognize another. It was of interest to note how the Prime Minister, in his casual way, obviously gearing up for an election fight, defended the 20th century against the Conservatives' 19th century. We have the straw man carefully drawn up for attack. It is certainly good to hear the Liberals attacking the 19th century from their perspective of the first quarter of the 20th century. There is at least that much difference, if one is prepared to concede from time to time on certain issues.
I suppose that accounts for the almost paralytic state that the Conservatives experience from time to time. We have never denied that the New Democratic Party did indeed support a Canadian Constitution and a Charter of Rights for Canadians, certain beliefs we in this Party have had for a long time. The Liberals brought it in, we believed in it and we voted for it. The same collection of Conservatives, in noting that we voted with the Liberals, should remember that since the 1980 election they voted with the Liberals not once, not twice but three times as often as this Party. Maybe they should tell that to the people of Canada.
Unlike my two predecessors, I want to deal with the Throne Speech and deal with the Government of the day. Before doing that, however, I want to pick up on two or three observations made by the Leader of the Opposition. He talked about productivity. 1 say to the Leader of the Opposition in a straightforward way that, like himself, 1 was born into a worker's family. I did not have a silver spoon in my mouth, I did not live in a rich house, but I did not live in abject poverty. I do not want to leave that impression. It was an ordinary worker's family. I never became president of a corporation. I frittered my time away going to university, teaching people and trying to understand the world. Perhaps there is some sense of legitimacy in both types of vocations.
I was a little surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition speak as a businessman about productivity. He told us a little story about Japanese auto making. I thought it was an important attribute of a businessman, especially one who becomes a politician, to be really up to date when talking about such topics. 1 know a little bit about the automotive industry. He compared the automotive industry in Canada with that in Japan. He suggested there was a great gap in productivity between the automotive industry in Canada and that in Japan. Maybe he should check the most recent facts. He would learn that the productivity increase in the automotive industry in Canada in the sixties, seventies and early eighties far exceeded productivity increases in Canadian industry in general. Today,

December 9. 1983
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
if you discount the difference in labour costs between Canada and Japan, the Canadian automotive industry is just as efficient as the industry in Japan.
I want to say something that is very important to both the Leader of the Opposition and all Canadians. If we are going to enter into a competitive game with all the other nations of the world, especially the Third World on labour costs, they should say that. If they want Canadian workers to be paid $1 an hour, the Conservative Party should say that. If they want to go back to the 1920s in terms of our standard of living, they have an obligation to be frank and say that to the people of Canada. My Party will have nothing to do with that. There are different ways of approaching, understanding and being up to date on the question of productivity.
1 want to say something about medicare. The Prime Minister spoke with the same great passion which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) demonstrates in her defence of medicare. He left the impression that the Liberals sort of led the country, that they brought this to Canada. I remind the Prime Minister of what happened in the sixties. The Liberal Party in the Province of Saskatchewan and a man named Thatcher joined with the Conservative Party in that province in doing all they could to stop medicare from coming to Canada.
The Prime Minister enjoys his debating time with the Tories because the Tories can make him look progressive. He said he did not want there to be any sick people around, that if the Tories formed the Government they had better watch out. It was too bad that he did not go to Saskatchewan in the sixties to tell the Liberal Party there that it had better change its position because the sick in Saskatchewan need medicare. He would have been fighting a progressive battle. The Prime Minister said "touche". He said off the record that he was on the right side in the sixties. It just took his Party a little time to catch up.
We heard the views of the Leader of the Opposition on the need to provide more funding. My Party believes that the federal Government has an obligation to change and reopen the funding arrangements between the federal Government and the provinces with regard to medicare and post-secondary education. We say that candidly.
There is something else I want to say candidly. Politicians should say these things from time to time. If it means an increase in taxes at the federal level and Canadians have to pay a little more to ensure the restoration of a universal medicare system, adequately funded, this Party will support that increase in taxation if it is necessary to preserve the system. I am sure the majority of Canadians will support that.
I do not share the view of a former Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson. He said that an Opposition Party in a parliamentary system does not have an obligation to present a program. I am not defending Mr. Pearson. I flatly disagree with what he said at that time. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, particularly in these times that are perilous in the international domain as well as extremely difficult domestically, an opposition party in Canada, like the Government in Canada, has an obligation to stand clearly on the issues of the day.
The Leader of the Opposition tells the people of Canada that he is prepared to ensure funding of sufficient degree for the provinces to pay for medicare. We agree with him. In fact, we are saying that. I wish the Government would say that. I wish the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be honest and admit that the money, which they pretend in the Speech from the Throne was some largesse from the federal Government, would in fact go automatically, regardless of whether there was a Speech from the Throne. At the end of my speech in the House, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say that, once we get the money to Alberta and in particular the poorer provinces of Canada, he, as a would-be Prime Minister, would ensure that there would be no extra billing and no user fees anywhere in this land.
I also want to discuss Bill S-31. The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) said in his speech this afternoon that, as Leader of the Official Opposition, he was against Bill S-31. I am very happy to hear that; it is wonderful. Unfortunately, we, the NDP Members, took this position in the House of Commons before the Progressive Conservatives. At the same time, I would like to emphasize something which is rather important. As I recall, the Leader of the Official Opposition stated outside the House that he agrees with the principle of Bill S-31. However, he is not satisfied with this Bill because it was introduced by the Liberal Government. That is very funny! Perhaps he is suggesting that if the Government were Progressive Conservative and he himself were Prime Minister, he would like to introduce something like Bill S-31. However, in such a case, we would have a Progressive Conservative instead of Liberal Bill. As for us, in my Party, I repeat that we are against the principle of this Bill. We are against such a Bill, whether it is Liberal or Progressive Conservative. Whatever the case may be, we are against it.
Once again, I would like to hear the Leader of the Official Opposition explain the difference between the principle of Bill S-31 and that of Bill S-31 as introduced by the Liberals. [English]
That is all I would like to say at this point, Mr. Speaker, on the position of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party. I do want to turn now to the subject matter which is before the House, and that is the Speech from the Throne.
It is accepted as a truism in most democracies, I think, that to achieve political goals it is essential to focus appeal simply on the immediate interests of the people. I would say that this is a truism that holds only when the goals are very ordinary indeed. However, the stated objectives of the Speech from the Throne, if one reads them with care, are not ordinary goals. They are not at all simply the routine objectives of political discussion and debate.
December 9, 1983

The stated objectives of the Government in its Throne Speech are anything but ordinary. The twin goals are nothing less than international peace abroad and a national sense of well-being at home. The reason that those goals will not be achieved by this Government has nothing to do with the Opposition, with the intractability of the economy or, in the final analysis, with the people of Canada. In my judgment, it has everything to do with the Liberal Government's failure to see that in order to mobilize people and achieve practical results with such significant purposes as were stated in the Speech from the Throne, what is required is that the Government itself demonstrate through its own actions and legislation a commitment to the principle of fairness.
The Government must set by example a moral goal sufficient to the task of mobilizing men and women to achieve these very practical and important objectives of international peace and tranquility at home. Only such government fairness can produce the equivalent commitment in the population at large to work to achieve these ends. Without government programs and without legislation based upon fairness, the practical failure of the Government to achieve its goals is almost a forgone conclusion.
1 would like to put my specific criticisms of the Government's activity or inactivity in the context of what Canada is now facing. We all know that during the past two years, for domestic and international reasons, we have had a troubled land. Farmers have been unhappy. Women who were finally beginning to make progress in the past decades have suddenly during the last two years been curtailed in the improvement of their state. Miners, loggers in British Columbia and industrial workers all over Canada have been affected. There has in short been, as everyone knows, difficulty in our land. I need quote no statistics to show this because that would be pretty banal at this point in time after the debate which has gone on in the past two years. That is part of the problem the Throne Speech ought to have been trying to address if it wanted to achieve a sense of inner tranquility and excitement among the people of our land.
During the same period of time abroad, as everyone has noted and as the Prime Minister has spoken of, there has been an intensification of the nuclear arms race between the superpowers, a breaking down of detente and a spreading of nuclear weapons to other nations that had not before possessed them.
1 have an argument I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, and 1 say this with complete and utter sincerity. 1 am quite prepared to acknowledge that I may be wrong. As much as anyone else in the House, 1 am quite fallible, but perhaps 1 am not as fallible as the Government. It has a lot to be fallible about. However, 1 would like to say that the argument I will make is one in which I deeply believe. I believe that the failure of the Throne Speech is not in the stating of these goals to deal with a very troubled world indeed on the one hand and to deal with a very troubled nation indeed on the other. Those are goals that are shared by all of us in the House, 1 believe, as well as by the people in our land and in other lands. The failure of the Throne Speech really rests upon the failure of
The Address-Mr. Broad bent
the Government itself to mobilize the kind of commitment that is necessary in our nation and among other nations to implement and achieve those goals. That failure rests upon the Government's own incapacity to introduce, by past action or present commitment, legislation which includes the notion of fairness. It is my view that the absence of this fairness, both in terms of domestic goals and, as I shall try to indicate, in terms of international goals, will lead to a failure by the Government to achieve either of these goals.
Instead of charting a new course based upon fairness, the realism that is required, the Throne Speech and the Government's action reveal Liberal Members' true historical failures in our time and, regardless of what the Prime Minister has just said, their basic commitment to the status quo. Earlier we heard the Prime Minister defending past federal accomplishments of the Liberal Party. 1 am prepared to concede those past accomplishments even if I dc say at the same time that I cannot think of one of those accomplishments which was not first argued for either by the CCF or the NDP. However, 1 did not hear the Prime Minister, when referring to the domestic domain, argue for a single new, innovative idea either in terms of the economy or in terms of social policy. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party, now perhaps as never before, is committed to the status quo. That is the one failure which 1 believe is a serious one. Another failure-and I regret to say this-is the almost total feeling of cynicism about federal politics which 1 believe has been produced by the Liberal Government.
1 would now like to turn to the domestic policy implication of the Speech from the Throne and put what 1 have just said in general terms into context, to explain what 1 mean by applying it to some of the specific objectives which are alluded to in the Throne Speech itself. What do we have on medicare? 1 will be brief on the point because we have already had in the House some discussion on medicare. We have a Government which has said, "Yes, we want to get rid of extra billing, user fees and we want to restore the universal system of medicare". We have a Government which has talked about this not only all fall and all summer, but since last spring. If it really wanted to act on medicare, why did it not bring in a Bill last year? Why is it waiting for an election year? 1 believe such cynicism about the Government's commitment to that idea is a legitimate reaction by those who are sensitive to the issue and feel deeply about it. At the same time, the Government is unprepared to indicate it is willing to provide more money. As I indicated, as federal politicians we in the New Democratic Party want to see the system not only maintained and improved, but we also say that if that takes more taxes, we are prepared to support that principle. The Liberal Party, in our view, is using the issue in a blatantly cynical way. It refuses to commit money which is needed. And as recently as the Throne Speech, in the past 48 hours, it plays its numbers game. Instead of frankly stating that because of a federal-provincial arrangement there is going to be $500 million more going to the provinces, it tries to pass off before the television cameras on Throne Speech day the

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
notion that somehow the federal Liberals have come up with S500 million which was not already there. That is bogus, cynical politics, Mr. Speaker, which Canadians are tired of. There is hardly an element of fairness or justice in that approach to an important issue.
There is also the matter of jobs. I am not going to speak in detail about this subject. I have on other occasions made a number of concrete suggestions. 1 will have a few to make today. However, I do want to say that although the Prime Minister is proud of his record on lowering inflation, to say the least, he certainly exaggerated the benefits of the Government's six and five program. Perhaps it had some role to play, but I know, and the Prime Minister knows, that all kinds of economists in this country, in universities and in the private sector, have said that the main reason that inflation went down was not the six and five program. The main reason inflation went down was that unemployment went almost out of sight. That is why inflation went down in this country. I say to the Prime Minister: If he is proud of the six and five goals, if he thinks they were important, and if he could set targets for lowering inflation, why in heaven's name, when we have more than a million unemployed, can we not set the same percentage target for unemployment and work to bring that down?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We have received no such commitment for, say, next year, or in two years, whatever it would take to meet a 6 per cent level of unemployment-and I am not defining that as full employment, either. I am saying that it might be a realistic target for us to aim at in the months ahead, if we had a government which was really committed to the issue of job creation. The Government not only failed to set the target in the Throne Speech, but we had more trickery, more deception and more pretending of concern.
We had a reference to a billion dollar job fund. I am sure a lot of young men and women in the Prairies, who were late in feeling the effects of the recession but are now certainly feeling it, and young men and women in British Columbia, in Quebec or anywhere in the nation, when they heard about that billion dollars, said, "Oh, boy, there is a billion dollars of new money. The Government is really beginning to move". But within 24 hours, indeed earlier than that, it soon became clear that it was not a billion dollars. In fact, three different Ministers of the Crown, including the Prime Minister himself, had three different figures with respect to the money which was really involved. The point I am making is that this is not addressing the issue with any kind of fairness in terms of the economy. Certainly unemployment is as important as inflation, so why do we not set realistic targets? If we are going to bring in a new program for youth-and God knows we need it when we have 500,000 unemployed young Canadians-why not say honestly, "Here is an amount of money we are going to allocate within our framework", instead of creating an artificial bogus figure which can dampen the morale and expectations of a generation which has already become disillusioned?
I would like to make some suggestions on the matter of youth. We think it is important to use the private sector, which is now and will be for whatever future I can see in this land the main source of creating jobs in this country. We believe there should be a significant expansion of the subsidization program to small businesses so it could pay wages to young people when young people are taken on by those firms, say, over a two-year period, provided arrangements are made to ensure that older workers are not laid off simply to hire younger people and to get the government subsidization. We think it makes sense to use funds like that. The private sector, the small business sector particularly, employs most Canadians and they are the most hard-pressed in terms of expansion. It is more difficult for them to get capital. We believe it makes sense to give some young Canadians a sense of hope and expectation over this difficult but, one hopes, transitional period, by using government funds to provide that kind of subsidization. We would support legislation which did that.
However, in the same context, we also say that this is a country which has 500,000 young men and women who not only cannot get a job but, in province after province in this land, cannot get into community colleges, technical institutions and unversities because there have been cutbacks, the facilities have been curtailed. So what we are saying to the federal Government and to the provincial governments is, let us expand the money which has been cut back by the federal Liberals in the last couple of years in terms of transfer funds going to the provinces for post-secondary education so that some of those young people can get jobs. They certainly will not all be able to get jobs no matter what party forms the government in the next year or two, but many of them could at least go on to higher education.
The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister himself talked about the tough competitive world we live in. and it is a cliche but, like many cliches, it is true. Therefore, if we train our young people and give them greater skills, not only will they benefit as individuals, but all of us as a nation will benefit.
There is also the question of technological change. Surely, for advanced industrial nations-and by no means for them exclusively-it is a major concern for the present and for the foreseeable future. We feel that the starting point for dealing with technological change is not simply the establishment of committees and studies. My God, it has been studied to death. 1 have limited time myself, as Leader of my Party, to read that many articles, but I have read an ample number of them and 1 know there are a lot of studies which have been done. We do not need many more studies. We should be aware, first of all, what we are talking about when we are talking about technological change. We should keep in mind that technological change should be for people, for the workers who are involved in manufacturing, for the producers of goods and services and for consumers in our society. Surely they ought to be the prime consideration. With that in mind we say yes, we want to modernize in this country. The Leader of the Opposition talked about that. We want to be competitive, but the terms of
December 9, 1983

this tough, competitive existence certainly have to be moderated, As a democratic socialist 1 say frankly that 1 see a role for certain kinds of competition, but there are certain degrees and intensities in place where it exists which I for one want to get rid of, but that is a subject for another discussion. But we are in a world where we have to deal with that, so therefore we must modernize. We cannot be Luddites. But if we are going to modernize, fairness requires a certain attitude toward the workers. If 1 am going to say to the men and women whom I grew up with in Oshawa and who are working on lines in General Motors or in that industry that we want to become in that industry, that town and that small part of our country, as efficient as anywhere else in the world, then I want to be able to say: Yes, please co-operate with the introduction of technological change. That is my appeal and that is what the Government is saying. But if the Government is to get support for modernization, it must produce legislation which says that six months' notice at least has to be given to workers if it is going to introduce technological change. They, too, are human beings and, having worked there for 10, 20 or 25 years, they have a right to be participants in the decisions which are going to change their lives profoundly. So the first thing we as a Party say is that you cannot just have technological change which benefits the corporate side of the ledger only. The workers have to get at least six months' notice.
Beyond that, where a union exists, it ought to be involved in these changes. While some good firms might do this, 1 am under no illusion about what the majority would do given our environment, and we ought to have legislation which says that the terms of technological change ought to be a bargainable item. In the final analysis that means that if you cannot agree, the workers have the right to withdraw their labour. But 1 would hope, as happens in 90 per cent of the cases, and the Leader of the Opposition has had some experience with this, that if it is a bargainable item there will not be strikes. In most cases, there will not be because they will reach a settlement.
Where there are no unions in existence, Mr. Speaker, which is the case for a majority of Canadian workers now, then in legislation in the federal domain where we can set an example we ought to pass laws which make it obligatory to establish what might be called technology committees in the workplace. The workers as well as management would be compelled to sit down and sort out the terms of the introduction of such change.
Finally, we ought to have very sophisticated retraining programs. Other countries in the world have established these programs so that displaced workers-and there are going to be displaced workers, no doubt about that-will be able to be retrained in a humane and sophisticated way so that they will be able to spend the rest of their lives doing some kind of alternative labour.
Again, Mr. Speaker, 1 say it is an absence of fairness here. We get this nice talk about modernization and the need for technological change, but that is one side of the ledger. If you
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
want workers in Canada to be mobilized and feel good about their country and co-operate with the Government, then you should have the kind of legislation I have talked about to provide them with some real security about their future in case of technological change.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Many things could be said, Mr. Speaker, about the fate of women in Canadian society. A few minutes ago 1 said that, along with most Members now in the House- and this was not always the case-we are pleased to see the changes women have made, the increasing equality which has been achieved, particularly in the 1970s. I want to say that we should be under no illusions, and I speak as a man, that like all social change, the change that has been wrought upon our society has been made by those who needed the change. The women themselves created the pressure that brought about the changing attitudes in a lot of us which finally led to certain legislative improvements for Canadian women.
If the Government wants Canadian women who are working outside their home to feel part of our great land, to be part of the sense of community, which is one of the goals of the Speech from the Throne, then it should recognize that 71 per cent of the part-time workers in Canada are women. It should recognize that part-time workers in Canada, with very few exceptions, do not have the same benefits that full-time workers have. So we in this Party say that this is another area for reasonable legislation. If a man or woman works full-time in a bank, a mine or a forest, and they are entitled to a certain pension plan or to sick benefits, then the time is long overdue in Canada that part-time workers, most of whom are women, were able to get precisely the same kind of benefits on a proportional basis. They should not, and I use the word with care, be the victims of continued exploitation simply because they are part-time employees. I repeat, if we have a sense of fairness about it, and we want to mobilize support, then giving legislative testimony to that notion of fairness in this domain is something we ought to be doing and doing now.
There are two other domestic matters 1 want to talk about, and one is the notion of recovery. Again the Government has talked incessantly about that in recent weeks and months, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who is not here today-and 1 do not say that critically because I hope he is doing something that his ministerial responsibilities require him to do-has talked very much in recent weeks about recovery. 1 have said that in many cases the most revealing part of The Globe and Mail, and I am tempted to say the most honest part of the paper about what goes on in the nation, is the business section. It really tells you in cold, hard statistics about what is taking place. Day after day in recent weeks we have seen references to economic recovery. But I ask the Prime Minister and the Government through you, Mr. Speaker, is this a shared recovery? Is it a fair recovery? What is really going on? Since 1981, when the recession really started to bite, the following has taken place. As you will read in The Globe and Mail or any other business report, profits for the third

December 9, 1983
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
quarter have gone up 92 per cent. Bank profits came out yesterday and what are they? The poor banks are at $1.75 billion. The banks are right back exactly where they were before the recession. 1 am saying to the Government, "Talk honestly about the recovery". In the main, the recovery which has occurred has been on the business side of the ledger, for the rich, for those who need it least. That is where it has been going on. 1 am not begrudging that in this context, but I am saying that it is not taking place at the unemployment levels. If we have had almost full recovery in profits, and that will come in the first quarter of 1984, we have not had it in unemployment. Unemployment now is nowhere near what it was back in 1981 when it was at 7.2 per cent. Bank profits are right back to where they were before the recession. With almost 1.5 million, in real numbers, of unemployed Canadians there has been no recovery in terms of unemployment. Let us talk a bit more honestly about the notion of fairness. I would also like to say that we should make a commitment to a target level of unemployment to bring down that disastrous figure of around 11 per cent unemployed, a figure with which no civilized nation should live happily.
There are other matters in Canada that are of concern which illustrate the point I want to make about the Government's failure to mobilize the people in our land, because it has failed itself to recognize that values like fairness are very effective in obtaining concrete action. If the Government is not prepared to be fair, it is not going to get the concrete action it desires.
Let me use wages as another example. From time to time 1 have frank discussions with businessmen. They often, to reveal their bias, as do Cabinet Ministers to reveal theirs, are very happy to talk about men and women being reasonable in their wage and salary demands. Restraint is all for ordinary workers. There is a massive advertising campaign put on to get workers to keep their wage and salary demands down. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister if it is reasonable in Canada in 1983 to ask workers to keep their wages and salary demands down if at the same time in this country, in this House of Commons, we maintain a tax system which is riddled with golden loopholes that permit thousands of upper income Canadians not to pay a penny in income tax?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


John Edward Broadbent: If we want the workers to be reasonable regarding wages and salaries, then it is time that upper income Canadians paid their fair share in this country of ours.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I repeat to the Government with total sincerity that if it wants to go to the steelworkers or the IWA or the UAW and ask them to be reasonable on their wage and salary demands, by God it will be more effective if it is prepared to say, "We will introduce major tax reform at the same time". It is the failure of this Government to make that
double approach which has caused it to lose support as never before from those groups up to this point in history, and will cause it not to get the kind of support that would be necessary for its otherwise laudable goals which are laid out in the Throne Speech.
I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that if Canadian workers are to co-operate on technological change, if our youth are to feel good about their country, if pensioners are to feel content, if part-time workers, whether men or women, are to cease feeling grieved about their own nation, then concrete changes based on fairness are required, and required now, by this Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: 1 would now like to shift to the international field in which the Prime Minister has spent many recent weeks concerned about an issue that, to understate it considerably, has the support in its objectives of virtually every Canadian that 1 know, not to mention all people throughout the world. Many fine international goals have been staled by the Prime Minister, some in the Throne Speech and some outside the Throne Speech. What strikes me is the contradiction between the stated goals in terms of what we expect of others and many of the practices of our own Government here at home.
Once again 1 say that the perception of a double standard seems to me to be inevitable. If this perception of a double standard has led to less agreement, as I believe it has, than otherwise would have been the case in terms of some of those goals, then there is no one for the Government to blame but itself. To give some examples, it is good to talk about the need to halt the nuclear arms spiral abroad. We all agree on that. 1 simply say it would be more persuasive if Canada itself were not testing vehicles capable of delivering nuclear weapons or producing components of nuclear weapons here at home.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is very important to urge that steps be taken to stop the development of anti-satellite weapons systems. The Prime Minister has made that one of his goals. 1 say again that it would be more persuasive if we ourselves were not participating in the development of military satellite technology with the United States.
It is important, as the Prime did himself, to go to India to urge that Government, among others, to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This argument may have been better received by the Prime Minister of India if we had taken steps at home to declare ourselves a nuclear weapons free zone so that, not only would we have no nuclear weapons stored in Canada, but neither our air space nor our harbours could be used by vehicles carrying nuclear weapons. That too would be a demonstration that would be innovative and concrete. I suggest that would perhaps be persuasive to other nations that we are seeking to follow a serious nuclear role.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the international perception of the unfairness of our argument, because the Government simply refuses to set an example, is one important reason, if not the
December 9, 1983

only one, for our not being listened to as seriously as we would like.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with the following observation. The general goals as outlined in the Throne Speech for Canadians at home, or the world abroad, are worthy and indeed noble goals. However, there is a common failure embedded in the Throne Speech and the Government's actions that makes their realization by this Government almost impossible. That basic failure is the absence of a deep and serious moral commitment to building a fair society followed by concrete and simultaneous proposals for fairness.
Canadians, like the rest of mankind, are neither saints nor sinners, they are neither inevitably good nor inevitably wicked. Like the rest of mankind, Canadians are capable, from time to time, of exceptional action. They are capable of compassion for those at home and concern for those in other lands. Canadians and people in other nations are likely to demonstrate these qualities only when they perceive that their own lives take place in a nation led by a government committed to fairness.
Our times indeed require exceptional leadership. I say to the Government that if the Government expects exceptional action at home and abroad it must first stake out the moral ground which alone can make it possible.
The Address-Mr. Broadbent


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, before 1 sit down I want to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the amendment be amended by inserting after the word "nation" the following words:
and specifically, that your Government has failed to set targets to put Canadians back to work; to ensure that economic recovery is shared by all Canadians and to reform the tax system to close loopholes which allow the most wealthy Canadians to pay little or no income tax.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae).


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be called upon to respond to the Speech from the Throne. I particularly would like to talk about the peacekeeping movement. However. 1 understand that it is customary in the House for us to adjourn after the Prime Minister and the opposition Leaders had their say to consider and ponder over the wisdom contained in their speeches. At this time I suggest that we call it five o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock in the morning pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.02 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 12, 1983