1983-12-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 9, 1983, 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mulroney (p. 45) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 59).
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be able to respond to the Speech from the Throne and particularly to the first part of that speech which deals with peace-keeping. This has been a great concern of mine over the last four or five years and particularly over the last two years. I am very proud to be able to associate myself with members from both of the other Parties in a minority report which 1 believe in very strongly as the eventual solution to our problems.
Mr. Speaker, over the last few years I have come to conclude that a nuclear exchange in this decade is a strong possibility and that the consequences of that exchange would be that civilization as we know it would perish. 1 believe that is what is in store for humanity on this globe, and particularly for the people in the northern hemisphere. It is not simply a matter of something which will occur between the Soviet Union and the United States; it is something that will happen to all of us.
In the last couple of weeks over 100 million Americans and Canadians witnessed the film "The Day After". We saw the result of that nuclear exchange. I have not used the word "war" in terms of that exchange because I do not think we are talking about a war. We are talking about "nuclear omnicide". A war is something that one side or the other can win or one side or the other will lose. There is some expected political or economic gain which would occur from a war, but we are talking about something that would be the end of it all for virtually all of us. We saw that in the film The Day After. If you watch the film you see the horrendous consequences of a nuclear attack, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT]	(1110)
Some might say that this only concerns the United States because Canada does not have nuclear weapons or is getting rid of them; therefore we will not be part of it and it will not affect us. Of course, that is incredibly wishful thinking because
in the first wave, as we saw in Lawrence, Kansas, the first thing that would be attacked would be Minuteman silo bases and the Trident submarine bases which would be used to destroy the other side, the Soviet Union. The first attack would be an attempt to destroy those silos of which there are hundreds throughout the northern United States close to the Canadian border.
The Canadian Public Health Association has shown that half of the people in most of the cities in the West, from Vancouver right through to the East and certainly to communities like Thunder Bay, would die from the fallout of these blasts. Each silo would likely be subjected to 25 times the size and power of the bomb used at Hiroshima. In the first round alone, probably somewhere around seven million or eight million people in Canada will die.
In addition, Canadians would be subject to certain types of bombing because there are targets in our country of significance to an enemy even if we were not involved. One of those targets is airports with runways longer than 10,000 feet because they would be places where B-52 bombers could land after an attack.
The Canadian Public Health Journal says that 12 million or 13 million Canadians would die in the first round and as a result of its consequences. In all of the wars in which Canadians have been involved, we have only had approximately
125,000	casualties. Consider that in the first few days of a nuclear exchange involving North America, half of all Canadians would die. That is why I consider this topic to be the most important one to discuss. That is why I am pleased that the first issue raised in the Throne Speech was this event which could very well occur.
Further to the kind of information we have had about fallout radiation and so on, we have seen a far worse scenario which was developed by U.S. scientists, particularly at Harvard but which has been concurred in by different scientists around the world, including those in Russia who say that their findings are the same. Let me quote from a short article just to describe the other consequences of such an exchange:
The Soviet scientists said their own studies confirmed recently published American findings-
These are the American findings.
-that an exchange using only a small fraction of existing warheads would produce a 'nuclear winter' in which smoke and soot obscured sunlight, temperatures plunged to below freezing levels even in summer, food crops and other ecological systems were wiped out, radiation was several times more intense than previously estimated and, when the pall lifted, ultra-violet rays from the sun reached untenable levels.
That is what the Americans said, "using only a small fraction of existing warheads". The article goes on:
62

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. McRae
The Russians said their research indicated additional catastrophic consequences, including the creation of a global 'toxic smog', unchecked biological epidemics, a substantia! depletion of the earth's oxygen supply and-
And this is terribly important,
-the probable shattering of the interconnecting web of systems that sustain life on the planet.
I believe this is what is in store for us if we do not make some very major changes. However, many people say that this will not happen, that the superpowers or political leaders will not allow it, and that while the danger is ever great it will not happen and we can be fairly sure that we will all survive. The superpowers and the political leaders would not want or cause this to happen; but there are a whole series of scenarios which one could write whereby this could happen, almost as if by accident.
U5)
I would like to look at a couple of scenarios because it is tremendously important when we are dealing with this issue to realize that the danger is great and that what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others are attempting to do is vital. I could refer to the situation in the Middle East, a crisis in Europe, in West Berlin or something of that nature. Perhaps a crisis in the Middle East is far more possible than we might have concluded in the past. If the situation reached the point where one side or the other decided that a nuclear war could happen in a very tense situation, possibly with some other kind of ongoing conventional warfare, if one side decided that the other side would strike first, there is always the danger of a pre-emptive strike of weapons which can destroy the enemy silo before one can fire its warhead. That is always a strong possibility in any major crisis.
Perhaps there is even a stronger possibility when we talk about weapons like the Pershing 2, the MX and to some extent the SS-20, although it is a much older weapon, that these weapons could evoke a launch on warning response. The Pershing 2 could be deployed in West Germany close to the border with East Germany. This particular weapon would take anywhere from six minutes to ten minutes to go from launch to target. The time is very, very short and crucial. There have been hundreds of occurrences where computers mistakenly have misread some danger or that a particular warhead was coming, but these have been corrected. Six, eight or ten minutes is not time enough for correction, so the Soviets have threatened-and the Americans have talked about the same thing-a response known as launch on warning. If a computer error occurs and a flock of geese is misinterpreted as a warhead, if one has only six minutes to ten minutes to check it out, then one launches on warning. That is what is going into play at this very moment as these weapons are being deployed.
There are various possibilities, although I have only mentioned one. We have a large number of our warheads in submarines at sea. In each submarine there are two people whose job it is to fire the weapons. They cannot be fired unless the two of them do it. Each has been sworn to kill the other if one should try to do it on his own. Suppose the two of them, having been at sea for three months or four months-and I
have been at sea for 30 days or 40 days and I know that one can become a little strange over that period of time-decided to fire the weapon, one Poseidon submarine has 160 warheads which can destroy 160 Soviet cities. With the Trident submarines coming along, they have something close to 200 warheads. God knows what the Russians have, but this is the kind of thing that can occur. I list these few examples only to show what could happen.
Then there is the example of a decapitation strike; that is, to destroy the enemy command post. A small war could become much larger because there would be no one to restrain those who would fire at will. Unless we get control of this situation, this nuclear exchange will occur with all of the consequences that I have mentioned.
There is a myth that the Soviets are much stronger than we are, and therefore we have to become stronger. All evidence, including the Scowcroft Commission, the Pentagon and other military people, shows that we are far stronger than the Russians. There is general parity, but in most areas our side, including the Americans, is well ahead. We are ahead where it counts. For example, the Russians have far more land based strategic ICBMs, 5,500 to 2,100, but we have $,700 to 1,970 sea based missiles, and the sea based missiles cannot be destroyed in a first strike.
It would take me another half hour to develop this subject of weaponry. I would like to do so as it is tremendously important, but times does not permit. I repeat, there is general parity, but where it really counts, our side is better protected. The myth that we are about to be destroyed by the Russians, that we are much more vulnerable, is just that-a myth.
I wish to say a few words about what the Prime Minister is attempting to do. I admit that this will sound partisan but I do not know of any leader of a middle power who has the ability to do what he is attempting to do. I have spoken with high-ranking military people, not just Canadians, who have had conversations with him. I brought Paul Warnke the Chief SALT negotiator, to see him a year ago. Everyone is amazed at the knowledge which the Prime Minister has on this subject. It is a very complex subject and he is extremely knowledgeable. A very high level American general stated that he has not met any other political leader and only a few military people who have that knowledge.
This is exceedingly crucial when dealing with this matter. You have to know the situation. I do not think the Canadian people are aware of the degree to which the Prime Minister is so well informed. In the conversation with Mr. Warnke the Prime Minister said he was not as well versed as he should be. However, the two of them talked for an hour and a quarter as virtual experts. This is what we need.
The other factor is that the Prime Minister knows many people around the world. He has been a political leader longer than anyone else. It is important that he continue and complete the project.
December 12, 1983

There are four very important points in this project. I wish to deal with the last point, stability. There is a great deal of instability. 1 have indicated how a nuclear war could start, partly because of the weaponry. The Prime Minister is very concerned that stability be maintained and increased. We must stop building such destabilizing weapons as the Cruise missile, for example. We must do something about the very serious situation involving destabilizing weapons such as the Pershing 2 and the MX. We should attempt to stop the development of these things and we are very conscious that we must move into a new phase in this matter in order for the world to become a much more stable place to live.
We cannot get rid of nuclear weapons immediately. We can put a freeze on them, but in one way or another we must do something about those elements which are far more destabilizing than others and those are some of the things that the Prime Minister has been talking about.
1 believe there is now a period of time allowed for questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae)? If there are none, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent the constituents of Provencher and my Party by replying to the Throne Speech. The theme of the Throne Speech, peace and prosperity, is both seasonal and laudable. The script writers are obviously more attuned to the times than the principal actors who are supposed to act upon the Throne Speech. The principal actors, those opposite us, obviously had a major input in it, because what at first seems to be seasonal yule tidings is, on reflection, clearly Liberal pre-election strategies and tithings.
The Liberal message is simple: "Buy our Throne Speech, vote for us and good times will continue". That is the same old message from the same old Government with the same old pre-election schemes and promises. Indeed, the Throne Speech confirms that the Government is competent only in the area of promises and platitudes.
Some good programs have been promised, and as the Leader of my Party said on Friday, these programs will be supported. However, Canadians have seen the Government in operation long enough. Hence, they seriously question which programs will be adopted and worry about the form those programs will take. Additionally, they are concerned about the time that will be needed to put those programs in the form of legislation.
The public is gravely skeptical of the Government. That is the tragedy of the situation, Mr. Speaker. Even potentially good policies are jeopardized with this Government in power because it has made the Canadian public so suspicious. The Throne Speech has not changed the public's perception of the Government. In short, the Government has lost public confidence.
The Address-Mr. Epp
Most Hon. Members in the House lost confidence in the Government long ago. Some Liberal members who are more openly honest than others have also made their views known. If those members along with others would let their conscience be their guide and their constituents be their primary concern, this Parliament would respond this week to the public's wishes with a vote of non-confidence in the Government.
During his speech on Friday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that our Party was reactionary. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we along with the majority of Canadians, over the last 20 months, have reacted to a government marked by economic mismanagement, a government marked by complacency, a government full of avarice, a government known for its arrogance, a government that has shown a lack of concern with Canadians' reactions to Revenue Canada's tactics, a government that is cynical toward those who elected it. Yes, we are reacting, along with the majority of Canadians, to a government that promises lower energy costs, lower inflation, lower interest rates and then produces just the opposite.
I know that the Liberal back-benchers wanted and needed, during the Christmas recess, to be able to scurry hither and thither in their constituencies proclaiming the Throne Speech as Liberal gospel, selling bits and pieces of the Liberal tithes and insisting that they had experienced certain new revelations. The Prime Minister, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) have all participated in what has been euphemistically referred to as the big lie. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on Friday, as reported at page 50 of Hansard:
Let me tell all those Canadians out there who think it is time for a change that if they elect a Tory Party they had better not be sick.
That is what the Prime Minister said. That comment drew my thoughts back this weekend to George Orwell's book 1984. In that book a new language would be used called newspeak or minitruth. Public statements would be announced from a pyramidal waste concrete structure rising 300 metres into the air. Of the three principles of newspeak, one of them was "ignorance is strength". The Government has already perfected newspeak-keep people in the dark and only let them see and hear what is favourable to the Government. Newspeak is not designed only to keep people uninformed, Mr. Speaker, but to develop a second theme and that is doublethink. It has never been better said than it was by the author, and I quote:
The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war: the Ministry of Truth with lies; the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy. They are deliberate exercises in doublethink-
And now comes the important statement:
For it is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely.
No matter what you have to say, no matter what you have to do, the point of the Prime Minister's actions is to stay in power. That is the theme of the Throne Speech.

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Epp
With those revelations in sight the Liberals have vowed to make amends. A fitting penance, in my view, would be banishment to political oblivion as judgment day approaches for that entire lot. Among their biggest crimes in my mind and in the minds of many Canadians is their use of medicare as a political football. Much to their chagrin, no one has taken them up on their dare to kick that football or reacted to their taunts designed to draw somebody offside so that they can pick up that football and run to an election with it. Their major concern is not medicare, it is what I quoted earlier, to stay in power indefinitely. This is one of the vehicles they want to use.
The reason no one has kicked that football or gone offside is that all Canadians support medicare. Certainly everyone in the Progressive Conservative Party supports medicare and will continue to support it. Make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker. It was this Party while in government in 1979-and I could go back to the period of the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker as well-that commissioned the father of medicare, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, to undertake a review to ensure that it was sound. In his report Mr. Justice Hall indicated that he had, and I quote:
-found no one, not any Government or individual, not the Medicare profession nor any organization not in favour of Medicare.
That group includes the progressive Conservative Party and nothing has changed, absolutely nothing.
The Throne Speech failed to make an important distinction which needs to be made for parliamentarians and the general public and that is that medicare on the one hand and the Liberals' proposed health care Act, which I hope comes in today, on the other, are two entirely separate things. They are not, I repeat, one and the same. I will explain that. If we keep this distinction in mind then we will have a more reasoned analysis of what the Government's proposed legislation might contain and how it can be improved without the hysteria and fear that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has tried to generate. She has already spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars trying to convince Canadians that a crisis exists. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to look at her own polls which show that there are a number of issues well ahead of that concern. I say to Hon. Members opposite that from our perspective medicare is good; medicare must be kept; medicare must be fostered and it must be enhanced.
If the Liberals' proposed Health Care Act contains provisions that maintain and foster medicare, we will be the first to support it, along with others in the House. We, along with millions of Canadians, have been anxious to see that legislation and I understand that it will be brought in later this day.
In the past several months provincial ministers have requested that federal representatives meet with them to discuss this issue. The Government has steadfastly refused and I will give you one example of this. There was a meeting of health ministers in Halifax in September. The Minister did not go there to consult, she went there to insult, Mr. Speaker. That is a strategy which she is still following, today. Then, in selfrighteous indignation she huffed back to Ottawa proclaiming in this House that "the meeting was quite a waste of time".
Indeed, if it was a waste of time that was due to her continued unwillingness to listen. That indeed has wasted a lot of good time.
The provinces wanted to discuss underfunding and they wanted to talk about medicare. The Minister told them that she was not going to discuss the funding side of medicare. We have seen the Minister of National Health and Welfare running around the country like a cannon that has lost its moorings on the deck. She is going hither and yon, shooting here and shooting there, but about all she is doing is hitting herself in the foot.
The unwillingness to act among Ministers in the Government probably stems in part from the Prime Minister's conviction, which he stated earlier this year, that co-operative federalism is dead. If it is dead, Mr. Speaker, Canadians know who killed it. In the Throne Speech the Government proclaims that it wants to resuscitate the corpse. In the Throne Speech we read that the Government intends to introduce more permanent mechanisms of consultation. Is it the mechanism or the attitude of this cast of actors at the federal level that has failed in the past? I put it to you and to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, that it is the latter. No amount of new mechanisms can change that. What is needed is a change of personalities that have the trust and confidence of the Canadian people and who understand co-operative federalism.
Even in the Throne Speech the Government has found it hard to be honest with Canadians. Over the past several days it has had to adjust several figures and concede that many were nothing more than half-baked statistical information and manipulations. This was particularly true of the statistics concerning health, welfare and post-secondary education.
First, it was trying to take credit for money which legally belonged to the provinces under contractual obligations it signed under the Established Programs Financing agreements. Second, it tried to give the impression, at least, that most of the money was discretionary, so-called new money, and subsequently the Minister of Finance had to admit that none of it was discretionary and that it indeed legally belonged to the provinces.
Third, in the Throne Speech the Government told us the amount involved was $500 million, but the Minister of Finance goes to Montreal, a mere 100 miles away, and suddenly, on the road there, finds another $269 million. The Government cannot even get its facts straight any more. Are the Canadian people expected to believe that the federal Government did not know about this beforehand-that the Throne Speech suddenly made this revelation and the next day, within 100 miles, on the road to Montreal, it just happened to find another $269 million? Who is it trying to kid? The Minister of Finance is developing a reputation for marginal adjustments of $200 million or more since his last budget speech.
The fourth manipulation is that Ministers have also tried to leave the impression that the sum to be transferred to the provinces in entirely targeted for health care. They know and we know that is not the case. In their public statements they should make clear what those amounts are and not leave in the
December 12, 1983

Throne Speech the statement that this is an example of the federal Government's strong support for medicare and the funding thereof.
The fifth manipulation is the deliberate attempt to create the impression that this increased money going to the provinces, which legally belongs to them anyway, is somehow guaranteed on a long-term basis. It is not, Mr. Speaker; it is only for 1983-84. Future sums are subject to fluctuations in the economy and the GNP. If the economy falters, so does that money and so does the funding of medicare. The Government had better understand that.
The sixth and to my way of thinking by far the gravest fact that these Ministers try to hide is that the new sum does not take into consideration the estimated $5.8 billion-count it, Mr. Speaker, $5.8 billion-less than what the provinces anticipated from 1982 to 1987 under EPF. The reason for the shortfall is that in 1981 there was a change, a formula alteration, a loss of the revenue guarantee. That unilateral action is causing tremendous difficulties, especially in those provinces where 50 per cent of the income is federal transfer payments. Do they want to stand here today and say that the Premiers of Atlantic Canada are mean spirited and do not know how to run their medicare programs? That is not the case.
I know the Premiers met as recently as ten days ago and one Atlantic premier said he needed $150 million right now just for medicare. Another one said $200 million. Another one estimated $150 million. Prince Edward Island estimated $40 million. When you add up those numbers you are already in excess of $500 million but this Government goes to Halifax and will not even discuss it. That is what happened and they had better understand that.
The Speech from the Throne says, Mr. Speaker, that legislation will be introduced to increase the supplement for single pensioners. I understand the task force on pension reform must report by December 31 of this year but likely will report earlier. We urge the Government to make an early response to the recommendations of the task force which will directly help those below the poverty line, those who need an increase in the GIS to retain the dignity that the elderly of Canada are entitled to. The same applies especially to any provisions for widows and widowers between the ages of 60 to 64.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I will say more when the Canada Health Act comes before us, but part of the Government's strategy is that somehow Conservative provincial governments are mean spirited. Well, I want to give an example of what has happened in Winnipeg with an NDP government in charge. The Health Sciences Centre is our largest hospital in that province. Two infants died in that hospital and Mr. Justice Gyles delivered a report on that situation. I do not want to be misinterpreted in any way, Mr. Speaker. I am not blaming the Government of Manitoba for those deaths and I want that very clearly understood. But what is interesting is that, yes, it is conservative provinces and NDP provinces that want to discuss
The Address-Mr. Epp
underfunding because they are all facing the same problem. It has nothing to do with partisanship or the political philosophy of the party.
1 have before me today an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press headlined "Nurses Complain of Staffing Shortages" in the Health Sciences Centre. They want to meet with the provincial Minister of Health, the Hon. Larry Desjardins, to discuss these issues. These are the issues that must be discussed, Mr. Speaker. The issue of changes from acute care to home care, to community care and preventive health care. The list goes on and on and we will expand on it in the debate on the Canada Health Act. But I want to say that Canadians support this program; and I say to the Prime Minister and his supporters, yes, let us have a spirited debate but let us stay with the facts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 pointed to that case as an example of what is happening.
Lastly, the Minister bases much of her argument on the fact that she has experienced tragedy which has moulded her thoughts and attitudes. I respect her experiences but I tell her that Liberals do not have the exclusive right to compassion. It is not the exclusive right of any party or person. All members in this House, everyone in society, has or will experience in his or her family's lifetime joy and sorrow, life and death. I know the Minister is aware that illness touches everyone. So this debate, which will be launched very soon, should be based on the facts and not on the basis that somehow some people have more compassion than others; that somehow some people experience the tragedies of life and death more acutely than others. Oh yes, some of us can speak of those experiences as well. 1 can speak as a father who took his infant daughter to her grave. All I am saying, Mr. Speaker, to the Government is this: "When we deal with medicare, deal with the facts, and we will deal with you".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) a couple of questions concerning the deteriorating health standards in Manitoba under the NDP government. The situation has become quite tragic and there is legitimate concern, as my colleague has outlined.
We know that control of the Deer Lodge Hospital was transferred to the government in April of this year and it received considerable funding to bring it up to proper standards, but the money has not been properly utilized. There are hundreds of beds available, but there is just a trickle of patients going in. There are line-ups at every other hospital in Manitoba of patients trying to get operations. Would the Hon. Member recommend that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) launch an investigation as to why that hospital is not being properly utilized?

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Epp
I would also like to ask him about this regressive payroll tax which the NDP have in Manitoba. The hospital administrators have stated that the 1.5 per cent payroll tax is killing them. Would the Hon. Member recommend that the Minister take a look at this disastrous situation in Manitoba and have her recommend to the NDP government that it remove this regressive payroll tax and launch an investigation to see if all health care funds are being allocated for health care in the Province of Manitoba?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), I think all members are aware of the transfer from the federal Government to the provincial government. I have had a number of representations from veterans' organizations, both collectively and individually, who would like Deer Lodge to be utilized more for their use. There is a special concern for people who have had a long wait to get into Deer Lodge, and that obviously should be discussed as well as the whole matter of transfers of federal veterans' hospitals to the provinces.
With regard to the payroll tax, there is no doubt that hospital administrators and others in similar institutions, for instance university presidents, feel that this tax has created a very serious difficulty not only in cash flow but also regarding their ability to hire people. That is one reason some hospital administrators give for certain positions not being filled, They just do not have the money from the funding of the provincial government and the 1.5 per cent payroll tax is possibly hurting more than the revenue gained. The impression is left that the government is anti-jobs. It is also pointed out very clearly by investors and others that the 1.5 per cent payroll tax is a tax which people cannot understand. Why do they have to pay a tax when they create a job? They have to pay 1.5 per cent of the gross payroll of any company. Every hospital, every university and every school board has to do that. Mr. Speaker, this has seriously affected job creation in the provinces.
The last point the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) made was on the question of whether health care funds from the federal Government to the provinces were being diverted to purposes other than health care. The best evidence I have there, Mr. Speaker, is the report of Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. He was asked to investigate that question, among others, and he said he had found absolutely no evidence that there was diversion of those funds.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the Hon. Member's comments. 1 have great respect for his compassion on the subject. There are two questions I would like to raise with him. When he talks about the money that the Hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) indicated would be available to the provinces over and above the standard block funding because of the way the calculations were made in the past, is it his contention that the provinces had budgeted this money already because they knew it was coming, and that therefore when the provinces talk about underfunding by the federal Government they had already
calculated receiving this money and the underfunding was with that in mind? Where does the Member personally stand on the question of user fees and extra billing?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that those questions were asked and the manner in which they were asked by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). It is now established that we are talking about $769 million. The $769 million flows directly from what is known as the Established Programs Financing formula. There has been debate for some period of time between the provinces and the federal Government. The provinces said they were not receiving the money which the formula should be giving to them, even the formula that they had not agreed to, as you recall, in the negotiations that took place in 1981. They thought that the formula itself was giving them more money.
I obviously cannot speak for every province, but I can speak from some discussions I have had with them. They will obviously have spoken for themselves when they were in Montreal last week with the Minister of Finance. There is no question that they thought more money was coming from the formula. Their concern is that while the federal Government says it is supporting 50 per cent of medicare, that is acute care hospital costs and medical costs, so many other programs, which are both needed and can take people out of high cost, acute care hospital beds, are not being cost shared. Their argument is, why can we not look at those areas? Why is the federal Government so narrow on its 50 per cent? Should we not look at those areas and see if we cannot target some of the additional money for those areas to remove people from acute care hospital beds? Our Leader has been saying very directly that that is what this Party would do. 1 would like to speak more on that when the Canada Health Act is before us.
On the point of user fees and extra billing, our Party has come out quite strongly federally saying that we do not support user fees. 1 will also indicate very quickly that there are various kinds of user fees. 1 do not have time to discuss that.
The Member for Kitchener (Mr. Lang) smiles. He is a doctor. I guess I will have to discuss that because I do not want him to misinterpret again. For instance, there are people in chronic care hospitals, as he should know, most of whose pension money goes for the maintenance of that facility and the services provided. I take it when we talk about user fees that that is not what we are talking about, unless the Member for Kitchener sees it otherwise as a medical doctor. I take it what we are talking about when we speak of user fees is people coming into acute care hospitals and emergency wards, for example. We said we do not support that. If the Member for Kitchener has any other thoughts he can enlighten us.
I would like to wait for the introduction of the Canada Health Act to determine how the matter of extra billing is going to be determined. We will have to have a very serious discussion of a number of points on extra billing, such as professional freedom, services, people with specialties who have opted out and whether in areas in northern Ontario, if all the doctors opt out, people can still get services under OH IP.
December 12, 1983

There are a number of questions that need answering. That is why we are looking forward to the Canada Health Act to discuss exactly these issues.


John Leslie Evans: The question I would like to get at relates to the answer to the first question. The provinces had contended that they were to receive this under the formula. They had not budgeted for that because the federal Government had been arguing that indeed it should not be that way. Now that issue about these moneys flowing has apparently been resolved.
Regarding the underfunding issue that has been raised over the last year, were the provinces saying that they were underfunded by the money that you are giving them, or they were underfunded according to their calculation of what they should have been receiving? I contend it was the former and therefore the extra money that is now flowing to the provinces was money that they had not counted on. Although they had held that they should receive it, they had not budgeted for it. If that is the case, does that not reduce the issue of underfunding that the provinces have raised? I would like the Hon. Member's contention on that.
The second question, Mr. Speaker, relates to what amount of funding should be provided, according to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would there be unanimous consent by the House for the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) to comment? The time allotted has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Could the Member just repeat the last part of his question because I just did not hear it.


John Leslie Evans: In his answer he indicated that the question of expanding the 50 per cent cost sharing to other areas would be a position that his Party would take. Has he any estimate of how much that would increase the federal contribution to medicare under such a regime?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on the last point first, I hope the Government does this or any Opposition party that is trying to take over government, as soon as the Hon. Member and his colleagues will screw up their courage and call an election. We obviously have figures in mind but we are not going to release those figures-


John Leslie Evans: That is not fair ball.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well, I am going to do it the Liberal way. I will sit down with the provinces and discuss an issue which is their primary responsibility. I say to the Hon. Member that that is what I am going to do.
On the other point of underfunding, there are provinces who argued from the beginning that money was withheld from them which legitimately was theirs according to the formula. The real question that should be asked is to what extent, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of
The Address-Mr. Desmarais
Finance had forwarded that money, would we now not be seeing the difficulties in the health care system that we are now experiencing?


Mr. Louis R. Desmarais (Dollard):: Mr. Speaker, as we fight our way out of the recession there are a lot of tough questions facing Canadians today. Must this happen again? Are we forever doomed to be sort of a coat tails economy, depending on others for our prosperity? Or can we do something really different? Is there a bold new course that we can take as a nation to build a brighter future for ourselves and our children? There most certainly is.
Nature has provided Canada with a priceless key to its own economic salvation. With this jey we can both unlock the doors of our dungeon of economic dependency and offer world leadership in a crucial area of global concern to bring fresh hope to humanity's hungry millions. This key is water, the white gold of the 21st century. Through imaginative, efficient management of this most precious resource we can generate wealth. We can create and sustain a vast range of new and meaningful jobs for Canadians and we can enhance the overall quality of life on this continent from the Arctic circle through to the heartland of Mexico. All the ingredients are at hand. We have the resources, the technology and a heaven sent geographic blueprint for success. What we need is the vision to grasp this opportunity and the will and courage to transform it into concrete reality.
Let us take a look at what we have. Canada enjoys a greater abundance of water wealth than any other nation on earth. With well under 1 per cent of world population, we have more than one-quarter of all the global reserves of fresh water. This accident of nature has shaped our history. Its enormous potential somehow fails to occur to us in our normal planning for the future. Unless we wake up and realize all the implications of this position in today's world, realization will very soon be thrust upon us.
Across the world, inequitable distribution of water lies at the root of untold human hunger and misery. As we approach the crossroads of the year 2000, the stark reality carries the seeds of mounting international tensions and the risk of global conflict. On our own continent the crisis is not so acute but the same pattern of inequitable distribution is evident. More than 90 per cent of Canada's population is concentrated in a 300-kilometre strip along the Canada-U.S. border. Yet over 60 per cent of the fresh water flow of our mighty rivers is northward. Thus, every day these northern rivers pour countless millions of gallons of pristine pure water into the salty Arctic sea. At the same time our Great Lakes are desperately in need of flushing with fresh supplies. Our agriculture is threatened in a growing number of areas across the country, industrial development is curtailed or halted by lack of water availability and we have a mounting pollution problem.
The magnitude of the water problem in Canada's West was pointed out a couple of weeks ago in a brief to the Royal Commission on Economic Union by the Minister of Agricul-

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Desmarais
ture (Mr. Whelan). Noting that the Canadian Prairies are a semi-arid region, the Minister referred to the excess of evaporation over precipitation. He stressed that this condition prevails precisely in those areas where the majority of production for export takes place. "Getting water to the right place at the right moment can make all the difference between success and disaster", says the brief, and I quote:
Let me quote further: "Timing of rainfall can be critical during the growing season. A delay of one or two weeks in rain can make the difference between a bumper crop and crop failure". The Minister adds that the presence of water brings development opportunities which take advantage of positive characteristics of climate, soil and labour availability. Thus a sound irrigation infrastructure, he points out, can provide the basis for strong, diversified economy and employment opportunities.
To give you an idea of the importance of water, it takes
60,000	gallons to produce one tonne of steel and 14,395 gallons to produce a single bushel of wheat. There is a clear and present threat to Canada's ability to sustain productivity in the agricultural sector, and certain areas of the West have already been obliged to call a halt to further industrial development, until adequate water sources can be ensured. These are certainly not the prospects our economy needs at this crucial moment in Canada's history.
Outside of our borders the crisis potential is even clearer. In California and the American southwest, water scarcity is an ongoing and growing concern. Just recently the potential crisis situation has been pointed up in six southwestern states, ranging from west Texas up through the agricultural midwest to Nebraska. And, of course, throughout the U.S. the pollution problem is compounded by its stagnant waterways, inadequate flow and depletion of underground aquifers.
Further south, the arid highlands of northern Mexico stand as a barren monument to the deprived. Other areas of the North American continent which could help feed a hungry world remain unproductive wastelands for lack of adequate irrigation. It is not that there is not enough water to go around. Thanks to its endless renewal in nature's hydrologic cycle there is as much water around today as there was in the time of Julius Caesar.
On the world scene, our constant water supply is estimated at roughly ten times demand and, even allowing for massive population growth, projections still show sufficient over-all global water supplies for the foreseeable future.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the crux of the problem is that this vital resource is not located where it would benefit us most. As far as Canada is concerned, an accident of geography has bestowed on a small fraction of the human race an immense resource, while billions of people are suffering the consequences of poverty and famine. In seventeen years, at the end of this century, the world population will have exceeded the six billion mark. More than five-sixths will be living in developing countries. In that same year 2000, the population of Canada
will be not more than 0.5 per cent of the total population of our global village.
When we consider our rich water resources, the white gold of today, we may well ask ourselves how long we can expect to maintain this privileged position when hunger is everywhere, and mankind is on the brink of a serious crisis. Today, the real challenge is to use our expertise, our technology and our creativity to solve the problem created by the differences between rich and poor. It is clear that water distribution is a matter of life and death for the millions who are starving, and this problem is a very real threat to the survival of our entire civilization. We have the technology to go to the moon. Thanks to our nuclear arsenal we also have the power to wipe out the entire human race. Will future historians be prepared to believe that our intelligence faltered when faced with the problem of water distribution? Today, we must accept the fact that water has become a world resource, and this implies that its distribution must be assured in terms of continental rather than national requirements, if we are to survive until the next century. Canada, however, is hardly in a position to criticize. For over twenty years, we have held the key to world leadership in this area. We could use our water surplus in order to increase the quality of life in Canada and throughout North America. This priceless gift of nature could be used to generate wealth and restore economic stability, without hurting anyone. We shall probably never know what caused us to ignore this path to economic self-sufficiency. Perhaps we needed a shock treatment: the recession with the social disruption of unemployment and economic uncertainty. We are now faced with the realization that the good old days will not come back and that perhaps the time has come . . . The industrial age has come to an end and we are now entering an era where we can no longer count on our non-renewable resources. Our old values are useless. At last we will have to learn to stand on our own two feet.

The practical blueprint to which I referred is the Grand Canal or Grand Recycling and Northern Development Project. This concept is the result of more than one-quarter of a century of dedicated study and effort by one of Canada's leading water management and engineering experts, Thomas W. Kierans of Newfoundland. In essence, the plan involves turning our shallow, shrinking and salty James Bay into a fresh water lake. This would be achieved by building a 100-mile dyke across its junction with Hudson's Bay. This lake would be fed by the run-off from the 750,000 square kilometre surrounding watershed. This run-off totals some 400,000 cubic feet per second or more than one cubic mile of fresh water every three days. All of this precious run-off is now washed uselessly away into the sea.
For the environmentalists, it is worth stressing that this can be achieved without diverting one drop of water from these northern rivers. Each would continue its uninterrupted flow to its normal outlet in James Bay. What is envisaged is simply a
December 12, 1983

recycling as opposed to a diversion of the water supply after it has run its natural course and would otherwise merely be dissipated in the salty vastness of the Arctic Ocean. James Bay, therefore, would become a gigantic reservoir of fresh, pure water to serve the needs of Canada and the continent.
The next stage is the channelling of surplus supplies of pristine, pure water south from James Bay to the Great Lakes. This would be achieved by pumping stations, powered perhaps by nuclear energy, to lift the water to a height of some 900 feet and speed it on its journey to the Canadian heartland. The essence of the plan, however, lies in the central location of the Great Lakes for continent-wide distribution. With their 100,000 square mile area and 580 feet elevation, they constitute a natural reservoir to serve a thirsty North America. One might almost be tempted to think that a benevolent providence had designed the whole thing for our express benefit.
Another godsend is the fact that the distribution can make use of an existing network of vein-like rivers and waterways already covering most of North America. Linked by strategically located canals and regional storage reservoirs, these waterways can carry fresh supplies to our water-short western areas for agriculture, industry and human consumption. With a virtual infusion of new life, it can open up infinite horizons for this country's areas of actual and potential water shortage. An enhanced environment due to ability to reduce flood damage is just one of the spin-off benefits.
Beyond our borders the prospects are even more staggering. Imagine the impact of a revitalized mighty Mississippi carrying fresh, pure water south to the continental heartland, to the thirsty American southwest and the arid highlands of northern Mexico; or consider the implications of a link-up with the Missouri River system and waterways. Perhaps the once great Colorado, now just a trickle where it crosses the Mexican border, may again become a torrent of life-sustaining fluid.
Given adequate supplies of fresh, renewable water, the food producing potential of all these areas is enormous. Combined with Canada's yield and the as yet untapped land of resources of the arid Mexican plains, there is hope for feeding countless millions. And, more immediately, we should think of the results for Canada's economy. Imagine what it would mean to be in a position to export an endlessly renewable, inexhaustible and vital commodity, for which demand can only grow in the future. Consider the wealth to be generated and the jobs to be created.
In addition to the direct creation of new and meaningful jobs for thousands over a very extended period, there are all the implications for northern development. This includes the opening of navigable waterways such as a Great Lakes-Sea-way linking Ontario and Quebec with the eastern Arctic.
With all these increased activities, new employment and long-term sustained increase in our GNP, indeed the future could look very bright indeed for Canadians. All this can be achieved within the context of a vastly enhanced over-all quality of life. Our environment will undergo marked improve-
The Address-Mr. Fennell
ment and we will have pure, palatable water to drink. The opportunity presented to us here is close to incredible. We can use our resources massively to stimulate North American food production without diverting a single drop of our water from its natural course. I repeat, all this can be achieved by recycling; not a drop of water will be diverted.

Of course, all this is not a matter of days or weeks. A project of this kind will need years of planning and hard work, and the sooner we get started the better. As things are today, we have no time to lose. Considering the problems facing North America, there is no doubt that a project of this kind must be developed. It is only a matter of deciding who is going to take the initiative. Considering the magnitude of the costs involved, we will need co-operation on an international scale, as well as the support of various levels of government in Canada.

In conclusion, in Canada's case the most obvious benefits deriving from the Grand Canal project include the following: sustained generation of wealth with an increase in the GNP surpassing the value of all our present wheat production; creation of a wide range of meaningful jobs for Canadians from the project itself and from spin-off developments; opening of vast new areas of North America to produce food to feed a hungry world on the eve of entry into the 21st century; vastly improved prospects for Canada's agricultural and industrial future, bringing fresh life to water-short areas; opening of wide, new horizons of northern development projects including a Great Lakes-Seaway link with the eastern Arctic; introduction of vastly more efficient flood control, water flow and level stabilization throughout Canada's waterways; pollution abatement and provision of pure, fresh drinking water all across the country through flushing out stagnant waterways; development of new fisheries and an over-all enhancement of the Canadian environment from the Arctic to the United States border; stimulation of domestic expertise in a host of areas, including hydraulic engineering, tunnelling techniques, nuclear power, et cetera; and, finally, creation of a new sense of unity and purpose for all Canadians, with pride in the ability to stand on our own economic feet. Within our grasp today lies the ability to achieve all this. Just what, then, are we waiting for?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members who wish to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais) who has just spoken? Since there are none, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for Dollard (Mr. Desmarais) on his thoughtful concept for Canada. It sounds very worth the while, but I believe that now is the time to allow the private sector to access the funds and stop government spending. We require the government sector to take advantage of the natural resources of the country. Once the private sector is working and the machinery is in place to generate the revenue, we in

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Fennell
turn can consider his concept. I believe it is very worth while, but it would be taking too much money out of the private sector.
I listened with interest to the Throne Speech, more particularly when 1 consider those who read it. I believe the person who read it would have agreed philosophically with the speech. We must consider that he was the ex-Premier of an NDP government in a province of Canada. It is rather appropriate that he should be the one who spoke at that time.
Also I point out that the entire Throne Speech is another example of the Liberal Government making promises, bringing out new programs, but never finishing anything it starts. I recall vividly-and it was brought to my attention last weekend-when Bruce Phillips read on CTV a paragraph from the previous Throne Speech which in essence indicated that the Government would never allow the increase in gasoline to go to 18 cents. Canadians will recall that. They are well aware that whatever was said this week has little or no meaning in fact. It is just another example of many broken promises.
I would like to commend the author of the Throne Speech, whoever wrote it, because he has made it so much easier for us to run in the next election. I found pitfalls throughout the whole document. There are no facts, absolutely none. It is a great idea without any plan to follow. Having been here four and a half years, I know we have not accomplished 10 per cent of what was promised in the Throne Speech. However, I want to address specifically the lack of initiative and incentive for the industrial sector of Canada. We in Canada have been operating with an interventionist, socialist policy. There are no specific incentives in the Throne Speech for industry. The private sector is tired of change. It needs consistency, something it can live with day in and day out. The private sector cannot exist with tax changes in the system every year. It cannot plan for the next year. In addition, we have fallen far behind in productivity because there has not been consistency in policy.
All that comes out of the Throne Speech is conflict with the private sector and interventionism. Thinking that the Government is better able to pick winners and losers is false. The sooner we get away from that, the better it will be. An interesting comment in the Throne Speech is that for the small business sector, that sector which employs 66 per cent of Canadians, there will be a "buy-Canadian" program developed. Two weeks before the Throne Speech, a Minister who sits in the other place said that Canadians must start buying Russian products. There is a total conflict between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his ministers.
One program being brought forward is a rehash, other than $269 million of new money. As the Hon. Member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp) mentioned, they seem to have these $200 million photo opportunities from time to time and there is another one in the Throne Speech.
The $1 billion youth program is commendable, but only if you depend on partial or band-aid solutions. It does not solve
the problem for the youth of this country and does not create long-term jobs for them. It will provide the youth with some skills and experience, but after six months there will not be one job for those people. They will have to return to unemployment insurance.
We must develop long-term programs for our youth. The only people who can do that are those in the private sector. We have a bureaucracy that creates jobs according to Parkinson's law, but that is not productive. The Government is unaware that we have machinery to get in place. The faster, more effectively and efficiently that machinery operates, the sooner this country will be able to afford the social programs now in place. We require total industrial renewal, stimulation of research and development and higher productivity. We are probably the only country in the world whose productivity has dropped by 4 per cent since the last election.
While every other country has moved ahead, Canada has fallen behind. That is because we are too concerned about esoteric issues rather than paying attention to economic issues. Until we get our industry operating efficiently and creating wealth, we will not have job creation. There is nothing positive in the entire Throne Speech to assist the private sector in creating jobs and thereby wealth which will in turn create additional jobs.
The Throne Speech touches on trading corporations, for international trade. That is extremely commendable. However, unless we deal with productivity, the trading corporations will not have anything to sell. We must identify trading corporations. Certain industries have survived the depression, and I call it a depression because it has gone beyond a recession. In addition to developing trading corporations, we must develop higher productivity.
Part of the problem is that the Government has only increased research and development expenditure from 1.2 per cent to 1.3 per cent of GNP. In the same period, Japan increased its research and development expenditure from 1.83 per cent to 2.23 per cent. 1 should point out that the Government of Japan contributes far less to research and development than the private sector. Interventionist policies for research and development have not worked in Canada. The private sector has the initiative to develop new products and better ways of producing them. Recognition of that is totally lacking in the Throne Speech.
We then get into the wonderful, generalized discussion of the world product mandate. As we know, that deals with multinationals to a great extent. If the tax incentive is there, the multinationals will take advantage of wherever the incentives is greatest. This has been proven internationally for many years.
A prime example of a very successful Canadian multinational is Northern Telecom. It does not want grants and aid. It wants stability. It can then produce a world product. When it moved to the United States three or four years ago, there was severe criticism about its heavy investment there. It had to get out of Canada and go where there was stability to develop
December 12, 1983

world products. Those who criticized Northern Telecom at that time now have to eat their words.
The Throne Speech refers to the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. That is a wonderful name but what does it mean? It does not say. Maybe it says that we will be more friendly with the people of the Pacific rim. Elowever, without higher productivity we cannot sell to those people. All we can sell is our natural resources and raw materials, and that does not provide jobs in Canada.
1 would like to see some terms of reference set out for the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. I would like to know their budget, their goals and how they are going to be accomplished. Perhaps it could be a reverse way of getting back into the economy money that has been taken out for other purposes.
The Throne Speech then refers to U.S.-Canada relations. Who caused the problem? It was a Liberal Government attacking our best trading partners, neighbours and cousins that caused the problem. We all know, and I need not say any more about it, that the National Energy Program has been an absolute disaster for our relations with the United States, let alone a disaster for western Canada, as my friend for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) will confirm. It has led Americans to say that we have one rule for our own oil companies, particularly our Government owned oil company, and another set of rules for everyone else.
I would simply like to relate this point to the early days in Canada before Canadians were aware of the major importance of the oil industry. Who had the courage to come to Canada and develop the oil industry? The pension fund did not do it and Bay Street did not do it. The only place for the oil industry to turn was the United States. The Americans had guts whereas we Canadians did not have the guts to develop our own resources. The Americans developed the industry and then the National Energy Program came along and cut them off at the knees.
Another point that has been very offensive, not only to the United States which is our major trading partner but internationally as well, is FIRA. That set of rules is unrealistic. Canadians will not invest in anything that is not secured or guaranteed. They are very much like the people in the Middle East. They will not take the risk unless its success has been proven. I say that we have a bad relationship with our neighbours. Instead of confrontation we need co-operation with our neigbours, because the more we export to the United States, the more jobs we create in Canada.
The Throne Speech mentions bilateral agreements with the petrochemical industry. The petrochemical industry would not need bilateral agreements if it were given tax breaks on raw material. It is those taxes that are destroying that industry. Recently, Petromont was allowed a $50 million grant. Petromont did not want a $50 million grant, it wanted relief for the taxes that are being paid on the raw materials that are turned into finished products and exported out of the country.
The Address-Mr. Fennell
The textiles and clothing industry is a very important industry in Canada. The Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) has said that we must open our borders to textiles from all over the world. We are talking about 200,000 jobs in Canada. How many small entrepreneurs like Alfred Sung are making clothing in Canada? What protection are we to give them? Many of them will leave the country and let us depend upon imports. We are losing our creativity. I would say that the textile industry, under very adverse conditions, has had to depend too heavily upon tariff barriers. It has not been given the incentive to upgrade its facilities, to increase its productivity and to create new ideas because the Government does nothing for the industrial sector.
As 1 said before, we pick winners and we pick losers. The Government has recently picked the helicopter industry as a winner. We should realize that we are only a small sector of the North American market and we must develop our proportion of the GNP that is to go to the North American market. That does not necessarily mean that we will compete with helicopter manufacturing companies elsewhere. Perhaps we will make the blades and the tires or the tail assemblies, as has been done so successfully by McDonnell Douglas Industries in Toronto. That is one area in which we are really failing.
Higher productivity for the world market is of great importance. Since the present Government came into power in 1968, our percentage of world trade has dropped from 5.7 per cent to 3.8 per cent. That has affected at least one million jobs in Canada. At the same time Japan, a country which produced less than Canada in 1968, now carries on twice the amount of international trade. That is because the Japanese have not been dependent upon natural resources. The only thing they have is human resources. They have used their ingenuity to create new products, new jobs and new wealth in their country.
In 1968, there was a deficit of $3.4 billion for fully manufactured goods in Canada. In 1982, that deficit was $13.4 billion. That tells us a great deal about our industrial sector. Furthermore, if it had not been for the automobile industry and the fact that people in North America are still demanding large cars, that deficit would be far in excess of that amount.
The Throne Speech refers to the Japan-Canada auto pact. When we consider the fact that the Government has turned aside the task force report that it requested and has not accepted the recommendations for a value added requirement, a Japan-Canada auto pact would be a one-way street. We will ship all of our raw materials to Japan and we will in turn buy all of our cars from Japan. Again, Mr. Speaker, exporting raw materials is not a solution to the problem of the million and a half people who are looking for jobs. I would like to preserve the Canada-United States auto pact. It has worked well for Canada. I do not want to see any damage done to that auto pact. However, I would like to know what the Japan-Canada auto pact is all about.
The Speech from the Throne refers to research and development. However, it did not refer to any specific goals, targets or direct incentives. To make such broad statements without anything concrete is only to spout rhetoric.

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Fennell
1 would like to conclude by saying that industry in the country does not want handouts. It wants stability. It wants tax relief where it is fair and equitable. The faster our industries operate, the faster we will be able to pay for the social programs that have been implemented. The only thing I request of the Government is to resign, call an election and let the public decide who can best manage the country.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to ask the Hon. Member. I heard him talk about the auto pact with Japan but I am not sure whether he viewed it favourably or unfavourably. However, I would like to tell him that the task force report has not been rejected by the Government but is under consideration.
I would first like to ask the Hon. Member where he stands on the task force recommendation that there be a 60 per cent Canadian content regulation for foreign automobiles which are imported into the country. Second, with regard to research and development, does the Hon. Member fail to recognize the initiatives that were put forward in the April budget which have been very favourably received by industry and by people in the R and D community and has led to a substantial increase in attendant R and D for this coming year on top of the big increases that were realized in the last two years? We have seen a substantial increase in R and D. The April budget brought forward new measures to stimulate R and D and to allow passthroughs from the R and D companies directly to investors which, according to the industry, will lead to a major stimulus. Is the Hon. Member saying that in addition to that there should have been other measures specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could have asked the same questions of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary as we have worked together fairly closely on the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee. Referring to the Japanese auto pact, I could not comment on that because the speech simply indicates that a Japan-Canada auto pact will be created. I do not know what the concept is and I do not know what is intended by it. I do not know if it means bilateral trade. There is nothing there that would allow me to make a decision. I will be interested in the matter when the legislation comes up.
As far as the task force report is concerned, as with every task force report there will have to be some modifications made. I must, however, support the thrust of that report. There are weaknesses that have crept in. One is the fact that General Motors is going to have to start importing Toyotas under its portion of the agreement. I do not think that was intended to happen so we will have to watch it.
If Canadians can build some portions of the world car effectively-not necessarily assembly-and if we get 60 per cent of the manufacturing, for bumpers or springs, for instance, that would be a worth-while goal and would create jobs in this country.
1 cannot argue with the Parliamentary Secretary about the R and D measures in the April budget. I think the proposals were excellent but they did not go quite far enough. People do not understand them. They should have been made operative for a period of years because the general public and the industry do not know if they will last for this year or for next year. People want to plan for five years.
I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary would admit that there have been some major changes in policy on the Government side that have confronted industry with a conundrum. He mentioned major increases in research and development over the past two years but, Mr. Speaker, we have only gone from 1.2 per cent to 1.3 per cent. The Japanese have done far better.


Mr. Sargeant:: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) if he does not consider his opening comments about the reader of the Throne Speech to be a slur on the office of the Governor General. I would like to ask him to withdraw those comments out of respect for that office.
I should also like to ask the Hon. Member if he knows the definition of socialism. If he does, he would know that this Throne Speech was anything but socialist.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I was not making any slurs against the Governor General but against the Throne Speech, which I think is nothing more than more government intervention. I am totally opposed to government intervention.
1 appreciate the Hon. Member's view that 1 do not understand socialism, but I do, Mr. Speaker. I have watched it happen in Russia and 1 have read about it in Poland. Socialism has not worked. It is the initiative of indidivuals that works.
I am tired of hearing the red rump say that we do not understand socialism when anything which seems to be socialism has not worked. We must get the economy working. The Hon. Member's Party would want many more Crown corporations but they do not generate profits, Mr. Speaker; they generate losses and are a cost to the taxpayer. I do not want to know anything more about socialism. I have seen enough and it has done enough damage to this country.


Mr. Miller:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell). He is quite concerned about the textile industry in Canada and rightfully so, and also about research and development which we all know has been woefully inadequate. Part of the difficulty with R and D is that many corporations that should be carrying this out are branch plants of other economies.
1 want to relate that to the Hon. Member's position on FIRA. We all know that over the last year FIRA has not been effective in preventing greater control of foreign ownership in Canada. Is the Hon. Member not concerned that if we scrap FIRA then the textile trade would be in greater jeopardy, because it could be bought out by foreign companies which might find it in their best interests to close the industry down? What does the Hon. Member advocate to protect the textile
December 12, 1983

industry if there is no protection from an agency such as FIRA?


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we should totally scrap FIRA; I think it could have a position, but at the present time it is a waste of money and is doing nothing. We may as well get rid of it. We may not even need it. Perhaps we should be assessing major takeovers through DREI and keep a Canadian ownership content.
Part of the reason that we lose Canadian industries is that we do not have equity funds available to buy them. The Government was going to bring in Bill S-31 to restrict the opportunity of the Caisse de Depot de la Populaire, for instance. It is already the largest shareholder of the largest textile industry in the country so it is being retained as Canadian.
We have to give private sector pension funds the same permission to invest in equities and let them help bring this country back on track. There is $80 billion sitting in private pension funds. If that was put into Canadian industry it would create millions of jobs.


Edward Allan Miller: I should like to ask the Hon. Member why those funds are not invested in private industry. There are no great restrictions on how private pension funds can be invested in Canada. The argument used by the business community is that they are much better invested in Canada than are the public plans which simply go into non-marketable bonds. Is the Hon. Member not aware that, by and large, private pension funds are invested in Canadian industry in the private sector? How could we get any more of that money invested in the private sector than there is at the moment?


Thomas Scott Fennell: There is no money left in the public pension funds; it has all been spent. We will be depending on our children to pay for our pensions. That money is gone; the plan is not properly funded. By the year 2001 no money will be left for the people who intend to retire.
The way to broaden pension funds is through the basket clause which restricts everything to 7 per cent for investments that have not paid a dividend for five or seven years and which qualify as grade A-l. All the new technology firms such as Mitel come under that basket clause. We are into an evolution of new industries, new businesses and new development and we should look at that clause and give private funds broader scope to invest. The amount is inadequate at the present time.
The United States made adjustments in its pension funds and the way they can be invested. Equity investment in industry has increased 300 per cent in about four years. Those funds are available and we should be able to tap them, but new industry cannot tap them at the present time.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the comment go by that the public pension funds are bankrupt when at the present moment there is $22 billion in the Canada Pension Plan. Increased contributions over the next years will certainly increase that fund. The money in private plans is currently
The Address-Mr. Clarke
being invested in the industry. If it is not being invested properly it is not because of the regulations but because of the need of industry to fund the research and development that is important. The Ontario municipal employees pension plan has $7 billion invested so there is equal public pension fund investment. That may not go into marketable bonds as the private plan funds may, but the funds are being used by federal, provincial and municipal governments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to extend the period of questions and answers so the Hon. Member for Ontario may reply?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, 1 think we are getting into another debate. A group has spent about eight months studying the problems of pension funds in the country and attacking the problems of the recipients of those funds. It is a major problem. I do not want to get into debate but the Hon. Member has said there is $22 billion in public pension funds; proportionately there is so much left in the Caisse de Depot de la Populaire and that is a public fund. It was invested by private sector people. That is the problem. Investing in government is a zero return. But I would not want to get into the broad scope of pension funds; that has been studied thoroughly and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) spent many, many months on it. It will come before the House as a finished report and at that time we should discuss it.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the Speech from the Throne 1 want to add my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is a pleasure to stand this early in the second session of this Thirty-Second Parliament to observe what the Government has proposed as its legislative program for the oncoming year. As I watched His Excellency reading the Speech from the Throne, I was moved to see that it covered such a broad spectrum of issues, everything from divorce to drinking drivers, from health care to housing, child care to pensions, small business to foreign trade. On the way it takes in charities, broadcasting, the Security Service and emergency planning.
Well, Mr. Speaker, talk about Orwell's 1984. I realize 1984 is next year, but according to this Government's proposals, all we shall have to do from now on is to get up in the morning and everything else will be taken care of, if the Government has the will and the time to bring these proposals in.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with housing as it is dealt with in the Speech from the Throne and as it has been dealt with by this Government in the past decade. The operative part of the speech is as follows:
The Government recognizes the concerns of home owners and potential home buyers about the uncertainty of future mortgage costs. Legislation and other measures will be proposed to further strengthen confidence in the housing market by giving protection to home owners. The choice of mortgage instru-

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Clarke
ments will be broadened. These measures should increase the accessibility and security of home ownership, provide a greater measure of confidence and stability to the home building industry, and enhance the flexibility of the mortgage market.
That raises a number of very important and interesting questions, Mr. Speaker. How did we get into such an awful state that the Government has to propose measures such as these? It says "the concerns of home owners and potential horn buyers". Of course, potential home buyers are all those tenants who are having difficulty covering their heads, as well as home owners. It says "the uncertainty of future mortgage costs". I wonder which government had what economic policies in effect which led to such high mortgage costs, or even such fluctuating mortgage costs? There is no secret about why mortgage costs fluctuate. It says "to further strengthen confidence in the housing market". It was this Government's policies which destroyed confidence in the housing market. When this Party proposed greater protection for home owners in the last Parliament, it was the Official Opposition, now the Government opposite, that was vehemently opposed to those proposed measures.
The mortgage market used to work quite well on its own, Mr. Speaker, but now long-term money has all but dried up because of the uncertainty of the economic policies of this Government. Of course, people are in difficulty and things are in bad shape right now. I want to make it clear that I am not this Party's housing policy critic, but I have spoken many times over the last seven years on housing issues. As one who has been in the housing business for over 20 years, I have watched developments in the industry that 1 am still involved in and I have seen the effects of this Government's policies.
Twenty years ago mortgage rates had just risen to 7 per cent. Imagine that! I remember looking at a deal that was 7 per cent and we were very disappointed and seriously considered not taking the deal because the mortgage rate had gone from 6.75 per cent to 7 per cent. Twenty years ago the apartment vacancy rate in Vancouver's west end was about 20 per cent. I know because 1 was subsidizing tenants in the new buildings as they came in. No help from the Government in those days. It was not needed and was not asked for. Twenty years ago housing prices in Vancouver were less than one-tenth what they are today. A perfectly good building lot in the best area of Vancouver could be purchased for $15,000, and a Shaughnessy mansion, which might cost $750,000 today, could be had for $50,000.
Having looked back at some of the debates in this House on housing, I am glad to see my colleague from Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) here today because I am going once again to quote something she said when she was the housing critic for this Party. In 1975 I referred to a speech she made in November, eight years ago. In replying to a statement of the then Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Mr. Danson, she expressed the views of this Party when she said that we welcome any Government initiative to stimulate the residential construction industry. I stress, Mr. Speaker, to "stimulate the industry"; not to meddle with it, but to stimulate the construction industry. This was particularly so in view of the fact that
moves taken by the Government in the past 18 months have largely been responsible for the depression experienced by this very important sector of the economy. Well, nothing has changed and I am sure my colleague will agree that nothing whatever has changed.
Several times I have argued in this House that the best thing the federal Government could do for the housing industry and for people who have to have housing, whether they be buyers or renters, is to get out of the housing industry. The industry would take care of itself just as it did for a very long time when housing was a lot more readily available and a lot cheaper.
In March, 1973 I argued that, and 1 quote from Hansard for March 22, 1973:
-federal housing policies, current or proposed, do more harm than good, and that the best thing the federal Government could do to help Canadians with their housing problems would be to leave us alone. Disband the bureaucracy, cut taxes and let us solve our own problems, with the interference of our local or provincial government if we choose, but without federal interference; without federal bureaucrats taking our money from us in taxes and spending it as they want to spend it, rather than as we want to spend it.
I had some allies, even in those days, Mr. Speaker. At that time the Vancouver Province editorialized that our housing difficulties, particularly in the rental field, compose a classic case of problem creation by government. Still true, Mr. Speaker. Nothing has been the same since the Government introduced its changes in true accounting principles in 1971. At that time the Government decided, all on its own, that business losses created by capital cost allowances on rental real estate would no longer be deductible from income from other sources. That was probably the first major blow in driving out the suppliers of rental housing and forcing those entrepreneurial Canadians with money to invest to withdraw their support from the housing industry and go elsewhere to invest their money.


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.

Madam Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to lay upon the Table the report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons for the financial year ending March 31, 1983.
December 12, 1983



I remind Hon. Members that under Standing Order 69(1 )(q) this Report is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I am also pleased to introduce to the House the Auditor General, Mr. Kenneth Dye.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, tragedies are often used as a pretext in the House to present grievances to the Government and to discredit the work of departmental employees and members of the armed forces. Today, I would like to remind the House that on December 7, thirty to forty-foot waves swept along the Gaspe coast, causing serious damage. The Peruvian freighter Unisol was wrecked on the reefs of lie Dupuis near Chandler. At 8.30 a.m., the Quebec Provincial Police at Chandler informed the Coastguard of the freighter's situation, asking that help be sent immediately to rescue the crew. Two Canadian Forces helicopters were dispatched from the Summerside Canadian Forces Base in Prince Edward Island. The rescue operation took place in extremely difficult circumstances, with fifty-mile-an-hour winds. At 12.30 p.m., the thirty-four crew members and pilot Milton Molloy were on dry land. Today, I wish to pay tribute to the members of the Canadian Forces who took part in this rescue operation, to the Coastguard, members of the Quebec Provincial Police in Chandler and the municipal police who co-ordinated emergency measures to rescue the crew of the Unisol.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the Government the pending request for a stabilization program for all Canadian apple growers for the 1982-83 season. In view of the fact that an initial request for assistance of this nature was primarily requested in February of this year, and that the Agriculture Stabilization Board, after receiving market returns, has reviewed this matter and has now sent the findings to the
Cabinet for a final decision, on behalf of the apple growers in my riding of Grey-Simcoe and across Canada I would like to urge the Government to take serious steps to ensure the establishment of this much needed assistance as soon as possible.
As the Government knows, it is essential that all Canadian apple growers receive such assistance when warranted, so that they can properly operate their farms and remain viable. I therefore ask that the Government please respond to this request and take the necessary action to compensate and resolve these problems by initiating a stabilization program for the apple growers as soon as possible.



FISHERIES


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, the Government in its Throne Speech indicated some major funding for Atlantic Canada in terms of $200 million being put to work improving fish grading, freezer facilities, and other measures of benefit to independent processors. It has also recently contributed $138 million to the restructuring of the industry on that coast, so it is over $338 million.
The Throne Speech also mentions the Pacific Fishery. The commercial, native, as well as the sports fishery are mentioned. The speech indicates that it is an important national resource. The Government recognizes that the problems of this essential West Coast industry require urgent attention. That is all the attention that it gets in the Throne Speech.
The answers to our problems in British Columbia are not to slash the fleet by one half, or to reduce the Salmonid Enhancement Program for two years, or to pit one user group against the other user groups in the industry. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) must commit his Government to an emergency program of expenditure for a 20 per cent commercial fleet reduction, to an increased commitment to SEP, and to greater enforcement and research capability while beefing up habitat protection. He must also make a commitment to ignore some of the advice from his bureaucracy and policy advisers and to listen to his industry advisers whom he appointed to the ministerial advisory committee with the express purpose of dealing with the Pearse Report. The West Coast fishermen ask no less and no more than his East Coast-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.

December 12, 1983



Four hundred thousand others are without hope. The Liberals are in power; the Black Hole has arrived.



APPOINTMENT OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR YOUTH

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne it was announced that the Canadian Government proposes to appoint a Minister of State for Youth some time during this session. This decision has been eagerly awaited and recommended by many groups, and I believe that a special Ministry for Youth will be able to channel all its energies into providing for the well-being of young Canadians. 1 am particularly pleased, since last spring, there was a proposal from the Youth Commission of the Liberal Party to create this kind of ministry, a proposal that received the support of our party's general executive. Early last summer, the Liberal Members for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) and Senator Jacques Hebert recommended a measure of this kind, which received the full support of the caucus of Liberal Members from Quebec at Lac Delage. I am glad that the Progressive Conservative Party is supporting the project, but as usual, their support has come six months too late. Nevertheless, 1 hope they will also support the other youth measures announced in the Speech from the Throne, including the creation of a national voluntary service to help youth employment, the creation of a bonus system for travelling in Canada and all the other measures applying to young people.
* *
*



CONDEMNATION OF GOVERNMENT'S EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, this country was built by young people. John A. Macdonald was only 15 years old when he articled as a lawyer. J. Wesley Dafoe was only 19 when he became the first editor of the Ottawa Journal. William Van Florne was just 14 when he started his railroad career. Instead of real job creation, the Liberals use Monty Python doublespeak and sleight of hand to delude today's youth.
On April 18 of this year the then Minister of Employment and Immigration announced the youth initiative program with over $1 billion for employment and training. The same program reappears in the Speech from the Throne. This time it is called the Youth Opportunity Fund. Ministers promised us
10,000	jobs in a conservation corps, which now concerts to a new name. Environment 2000. Instead of 10,000 jobs, we now get 4,600. On December 7 the Minister claimed youth job creation at 125,000. The next day he reduced the figure to
90,000.	In one night he spilled 35,000 jobs. This is an attempt to deceive the youth of Canada. There are no new dollars.
This is a Government whose imagination is limited to shortterm employment for 20 per cent of the unemployed youth.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, there is a growing concern among Canadians about the annual delay in processing income tax returns. In 1983, particularly. Revenue Canada had such a backlog of unprocessed income tax returns that some areas refused to accept individual inquiries from taxpayers on when they could expect a refund, indicating, in a recorded message in June, they could expect an additional wait of at least 10 weeks for a refund, despite compliance by the taxpayers with the filing deadline.
Revenue Canada officials have stated continually that the delay in processing tax returns and issuing refunds is caused by Parliament's failure to expedite approval of amendments to the income tax laws. Even though Revenue Canada paid interest at 10 per cent on refunds to those who met the filing deadline, many Canadian taxpayers became so frustrated, or were so financially hard pressed, that they flocked to income tax firms which offered instant refunds at a discount rate, as opposed to waiting further.
It is of concern to me, Madam Speaker, that Canadians arc subjected to this type of inconvenience due to the delays encountered in receiving their tax refunds. 1 therefore urge this House to consider remedies to this problem and recommend particular emphasis be placed on reviewing the propriety of the procedural tactics invoked by the Opposition which contributed substantially to the delay in passage of amendments to the income tax laws.
* *
*



MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, Canadian municipalities require a commitment very soon from the federal Government that there will be a suitable replacement for the Urban Transportation Assistance Program. Under that program many municipalities acquired federal funds for transit related capital projects. This Program expires in March of next year, but for all intents and purposes it is already over. Most of the funds have already been spent, and in my home Province of Manitoba no new projects are being approved.
There is some urgency attached to this matter in that municipalities want to know, before they begin their annual budget deliberations, whether they can count on a program similar to UTAP. Their concern is understandable.
December 12, 1983

It is a fact of life that most municipal transit services operate at a deficit. The smaller ones particularly rely on capital assistance from higher government levels. 1 am convinced that many municipalities will face serious, eleven desperate budgetary problems if the federal Government does not come up with an adequate replacement for UTAP. Therefore I urge the Minister of Transport to recommend to Cabinet a program with a funding arrangement similar to UTAP. In that way the federal Government would continue to offer 80 per cent capital funding for municipal transit projects. Such a program should receive cabinet support as soon as is reasonably possible.



THE SENATE


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and welcome back. Last week two young boys appeared before the Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economy and pointed out that for many young Canadians Santa Claus is dead. Many hundreds of thousands of Canadian families are without jobs or funds for a festive holiday season.
Well, 1 have identified a way to set up a Christmas fund, a fund that already exists, worth $106,472,701. This fund is a secret Liberal trough and the chosen few-69 at latest count- are often seen wolfing down steaks and gulping down imported wine not too far from this Chamber. These lightfingered dandies are the non-elected friends of Santa Pierre and his pointy-eared friends.
Leading the happy gang is Rudolph Jack Austin, pulling in $3.9 million, followed closely by Dancer Keith Davey at $2.7 million, and Old Red Nose Ray Perrault at $2.6 million. These are the audited figures of Liberal senatorships. Imagine if the figures for the Conservative Senators were added.
Needless to say, the $79,000 of public funds just spent by the Conservative leader to spiff up his publicly provided housing will doubtless not be Tory policy on free tax dollars for home renovation or ownership across Canada. Santa's federal bag is emptied to the rich, and empty for the poor. What about the kids?



ETHNIC AFFAIRS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, all Canadians of Ukrainian descent were viciously slandered last weekend when an official of the Soviet Embassy referred to the Congress of Free Ukrainians meeting in Toronto as a "gathering of former Nazi lackies and supporters' . Canadians of every ethnic background and race will feel nothing but repugnance and outrage at such an unwarranted and malicious attack.
Oral Questions
During the Second World War untold thousands of Ukrainian Canadians answered their country's call and volunteered to fight against Adolf Hitler and the national socialist policies for which he stood. They served in every facet of the Armed Forces and distinguished themselves in every field of battle. Many gave their lives in the cause. Through his words, the Soviet Embassy spokesman has sought to defile the sacrifices and contributions made by those men and women.
The smear campaign launched against Ukrainian Canadians by the Soviet Union has underlined the Embasy's lack of credibility. This is a country whose Embassy refused to accept delivery of a diplomatic note from the House of Commons after a coldblooded attack on a defenceless Korean KAL airliner. This is a country and a system of government that were directly responsible for the man-made famine that swept the Ukraine in 1932-33, resulting in the deaths of some seven million Ukrainians.
Along with thousands of other Canadians of Ukrainian heritage, 1 am outraged at being termed a "nazi lackey". There can be no excuse for such a scurrilous and abusive attack.
When it comes to a question of totalitarianism versus freedom, it is clear that Ukrainian Canadians stand on the side of liberty, freedom, and justice.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, the Auditor General's Report which you tabled minutes ago contains items of concern to Canadians. In the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration 1 wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. I suggest to the Prime Minister that the most important part of the Auditor General's Report for 1.5 unemployed Canadians will be the section on employment and immigration. Would he advise the House of the Government's response to the criticism that the Commission does not determine its future human resource needs in a detailed and systematic manner?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not have any response to that, not having read the Auditor General's Report. As has been mentioned, it has been tabled today. 1 am sure that 1 will have the pleasure of looking at it over the days and weeks to come, but 1 would be happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the Hon. Minister.

December 12, 1983
Oral Questions DELIVERY OF SERVICES


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's difficulty in dealing with the question when the Minister is not here. However, the Auditor General states specifically in the Report that there is an absence of a national strategy to determine whether the Ministry is delivering its services to the clients who need them most.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that the absence of a national strategy to deliver services to the clients, whether they be employers or employees, may very well be at the root of our job-creation problems today. What action is his Government taking to establish that national strategy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member will refer to my previous question, he has the assurance that 1 will notify the Minister of the Hon. Member's concerns and the concerns of the Auditor General.


MONITORING OF GOVERNMENT'S PROGRAMS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have a further supplementary question, and 1 would refer to the same section once again. In that section the Auditor General raises a concern that the programs that have taken place, such as Summer Canada Projects, the NEED Program and the LEAP Program, do not have in place the proper method of evaluating what actually took place.
I ask the Prime Minister what action the Government is taking to monitor the programs that have taken place, such as the Canada Works Program about which we have some very real concerns now that the Government is funding private enterprise. What action is the Government taking to evaluate and monitor the programs it is putting in place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I really regret that the Hon. Member had these three questions written out. He feels that he has to go through them all. I answered in the first question that I had not read the Report, therefore I do not have the answers. I told him that.


An Hon. Member:: You're tired.


Mr. C'rosbie:: You are the leader of the Government. What is wrong with you?
Mr. 1 rudeau: Now we have some nervous nellies on the other side.


John Carnell Crosbie: You've got some reading to do. You are going around the world.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the Hon. Member for St. John's West wants to get into the act. What does he have to say? i don't know, but it is probably nonsense as usual.


John Carnell Crosbie: Can 1 take your spot for a while?


TREASURY BOARD MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I can understand why the President of the Treasury Board is not with us because the Auditor General's Report, tabled by you today, is an indictment of the Treasury Board for not really functioning as it should as a central agency.
In view of the fact that the Right Hon. Prime Minister has not read the Report, perhaps I can direct my question to the Acting President of the Treasury Board. Previous matters reported in previous auditor generals' reports have indicated such things as prior payments in advance of needs to Crown corporations such as CN Marine, Devco, $20 million to Ridley Island out in B.C., and VIA Rail. Why does the Government accept a letter of guarantee from Dome to cover the fact that its subsidiary, Davie Shipyards, cannot qualify for a surety bond on a $70 million contract? Talk about smoke and mirrors.
Has Treasury Board lost all ability to control the system? Why cannot these management aberrations be brought under control? Are political priorities interfering with decent, productive management practices in the system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Acting Minister is attending business consultations in Halifax.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It distresses some Members opposite. 1 do not have notice that the President of the Treasury Board will be away today, so perhaps the Hon. Member could save the question for later. The Acting Minister is not here.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I welcome the opportunity to address a question to the Prime Minister.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S CRITICISMS
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, after five years of work by the Auditor General, five years of hard work by the Public Accounts Committee, and five years of dedicated work by the Comptroller General of Canada, there has been IMPAC. We have seen the President of the Treasury-Board announcing principles of management for the federal civil service. We have had the Glassco Report, the Lambert Report, and the D'Avignon Report. Now we have the Auditor General's 1983 report which says there is a lack of a sense of urgency within government and the system, that there are really no votes in good management, and that the system continues to run out of control. Why does this situation exist? Will the Prime Minister not take the matter in hand, implement report No. 7 of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and see if the House, if Parliament itself, cannot come back to a position of relativity with the Canadian people and do something to change the attitudes and bring the total system under control?
December 12, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think, as the Hon. Member recognizes, the Auditor General is, as he should be, a perfectionist. It is always his job to scrape and find further faults. I am sure if the Hon. Member's quotations were placed in context he would see that the Auditor General recognizes, and has stated, that there is enormous progress in the application of administrative practices. For instance, I know for a fact that many other countries are coming to study our PEM system. They find that we have made more advances here than in any other democratic society.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Name one of them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: PEMS is one of them, Madam Speaker.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member wants to see the good things the Auditor General has said about the Government's progress, 1 will gladly send him an underlined copy. I say that without even having read it. I know that the Auditor General once again has recognized progress. It is his job to try tb find ever new sources of perfection, of excellence, and that is what the Government welcomes in his research. It has to be put in context. Madam Speaker.


MANAGEMENT CONTROL
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister is absolutely correct. Canada is light years ahead of other western world governments in its progress in management. There is no doubt about that. That is due to the work of the Auditor General, the Comptroller General, and the Public Accounts Committee. But where the system seems to be out of control is that all the things about which the Prime Minister speaks deal with process and not substance. Will the Prime Minister not now move the system out of process and into substance so we can get the system under control, because if it continues like it is, nothing will happen?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, like Le Verrier I knew there was a star there without having actually seen it, just by studying mathematics. In the same way, knowing the Auditor General to be a fair man, I told the Hon. Member that his questions were not balanced, and the Minister of State for Economic Development has just brought me a couple of quotes. Let me read from page 95 of the Auditor General's Report:
By contrast with our findings in 1978, we found that departments have made considerable progress in planning and carrying out corporate program evaluations.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Now answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Also on page 95 we find:
-we observed improvements in the quality of evaluations undertaken.
Oral Questions
I jump a couple of pages to page 98 which reads:
We found that very real progress has been made. Most of the major departments and many of the agencies have the basic infrastructure for evaluation in place. Many of these are actively attempting to carry out evaluations.
I said the Auditor General is fair. I do not think the Opposition is.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION AND INVESTIGATION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Minister will be aware that when the Petroleum Incentives Program was introduced, we in this Party were critical because it would meet neither the energy needs nor provide jobs anywhere proportionate to the amount of money spent.
The Auditor General was particularly critical of the Program this morning, a Program which has cost the Canadian taxpayers $2 billion to date and will cost up to $8 billion by the end of 1986. In view of the harsh criticism of this Program by the Auditor General, will the Minister now announce suspension of the Program until it is looked at by a committee of this House and until that committee reports back?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Again, Madam Speaker, the Auditor General said that the Program was well managed. He said that we should try to evaluate the Program immediately. But in fact the Program has only been in place for one year. Therefore it is very difficult to have a progress report when a program has been in place for less than one year.
I would like to say to the Hon. Member that what he is proposing at this time would amount to closing down all activities off the coast of Labrador, off the coast of Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia and the North. I do not think anybody in Canada who believes in energy self-sufficiency and security of oil and gas supply would advocate that we should stop all drilling at this time in Canada Lands, as the Hon. Member is proposing.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, as the Conservative Member beside me has just said, why do we have to stop the drilling? There are other ways of doing the drilling than under a program which is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. That is the point.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REVIEW
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Considering that the Auditor General

December 12, 1983
OraI Questions
said about this program-and I want to be fair-that there is "poor monitoring of the payments" from the Government, and "one of the most serious problems is that there will be no real evaluation of the program until 1986", when the program is due to end; and finally, the Auditor General said "the statements of the Government", about this program, "are misleading"-in view of the all these damning quotes by the Auditor General of the Government's program, 1 repeat, will the Government suspend this program until this matter is seriously reviewed by a committee of this House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, 1 said that less than two weeks ago the House of Commons was facing supplementary estimates of $600 million and I was available to appear before the committee to discuss this program. Neither Members of his Party nor the members of the Official Opposition bothered to ask me to appear to explain this program to members of the committee.
If people want to stop the drilling in northern Canada, in Newfoundland, and in Nova Scotia, you abolish the program. If you want to achieve self-sufficiency and security of supply in Canada, you have to maintain the program. If you want to have a policy that will Canadianize the oil and gas industry, you have to give grants. If you go to the old system, through tax incentives, only the multinationals will be drilling, but this House has decided that this industry should be Canadianized for the good of all Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, one is tempted to suggest that the Minister almost believes his own propaganda by the passion figure with which he expresses such nonsense. We in this Party thought Petro-Canada was created to do the job of the multinationals, not to play the hand-out game which the Minister has used and which has been criticized by the Auditor General and which is wasting, 1 repeat, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We do not need that kind of giveaway program.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the Minister just offered to explain to a committee, and in light ol the fact that the Auditor General, not someone on this side of the House, but an important official appointed by this House, has made such serious criticism of the program, will the Minister now have the matter referred to the committee, come before the committee himself and try to justify such an unjustifiable mess?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, last week when I rose in the House 1 said that 1 was prepared to go before the Committee on National Resources and Public Works as soon as it would be examining the Estimates for my Department. There are procedures in the House for allowing Ministers to testify
before committees. Last week, or maybe it was two weeks ago. when I was willing to meet the Committee, not a single Member of the Opposition asked me to appear before the Committee to discuss these programs, although 1 was willing to do so. I suppose the Opposition was still thinking it over. It so happens that months ago we already took the necessary action to ensure that program monitoring and efficiency would be evaluated so that I could report as soon as possible on the subject to the House of Commons.


DISASTERS
Alexandre Cyr: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council. The storm on December 8 of this year has caused very serious damage in Eastern Canada, estimated at millions of dollars in the Gaspe. Through agreements arranging for financial assistance in case of disasters, the Government of Canada provides the provinces with financial aid to cover damages caused by such disasters. Could the Minister inform the House whether he has received an official request from the Province of Quebec which would enable the Province to take advantage of this federal program, and if so, was the request received favourably?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm to the Hon. Member that if an official request is made by the provincial Government to the Government of Canada for cost sharing under the familiar agreement formula, we can then contribute an amount that may be up to 90 per cent of the cost of damage incurred. In the circumstances, if Quebec submits a request and the extent of the disaster so justifies, we can then contribute up to 90 per cent, but we have yet to receive a request. Finally, I can assure the Hon. Member that if an official request is made, it shall be given very serious consideration.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF PETROFINA-DENIAL OF INFORMATION TO AUDITOR GENERAL
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. One of the most damning quotes from the Auditor General's Report indicates that he has been unable to ascertain whether "due regard to economy has been demonstrated and value for money received" in the $1.7 billion acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada because Petro-Canada refuses to
December 12, 1983

make the information available to his Department. Specifically, it will not give the evaluation of the assets acquired. Will the Minister direct Petro-Canada to make this information available to the Auditor General, since Canadian taxpayers put up the money?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, this question was raised last year, and 1 think it was repeated this year by the Auditor General. The process followed for the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada was within the rules as they exist in the Government. It was not an acquisition made by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It was made by this Crown corporation which has its own system of evaluation and its own system of audit. When the President of Petro-Canada, or its chief executive, appears in front of the committee, Hon. Members of the House-as they have in the Past and will in the future-will be able to interview and ask the questions they want of them.


Pat Carney: I am glad the Minister made the point that this was the second year the Auditor General has asked for this information, and said that Petro-Canada should be accountable to Parliament.


TAX TREATMENT OF PETROFINA'S FOREIGN SHAREHOLDERS
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources The Auditor General also reported that the financial arrangements made by Petro-Canada for the acquisition of Petrofina exempted the foreign shareholders of Petrofina from payment of Canadian capital gains tax. This break was not accorded the 18 per cent of shareholders who were Canadian. Is this the Government's interpretation of "Canadian benefits"?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I have not had the time to review that matter with Petro-Canada. I have asked my officials to be in touch today with Petro-Canada on this point. When 1 have more information, 1 will be able to deal with it.


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the report of the Auditor General this morning, and is based primarily upon his concern at the lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the Ministry with respect to problems facing it, problems which range all the way from crew manning, the entire fleet replacement program, improperly based, to lousy if not totally unacceptable analytical processes.
Oral Questions
Could the Minister make some kind of undertaking to the professionals in the service, and to those of us in this House, that he might now, since the Crow is out of the way and behind him, spend a minute or two a week looking at these very critical problems identified by the Auditor General, about which he is very much aware, but about which there has been no significant action by the Minister or his predecessor in the last three or four years? Will he interest himself in Coast Guard matters and in maritime matters? Will he undertake to imbue his departmental people in authority with a sense of leadership, which would give them a sense of urgency with respect to the resolution of the problems?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it appears the Hon. Member has read a very different report than the one the Auditor General presented, which in fact suggested that some progress had been made by the maritime administration in addressing several of the issues that were raised in the past year. Of course we will look at and respond to the recommendations which have been put forward with the kind of dispatch we have shown in all other matters related to transportation.
It is unfortunate that the Hon. Member tried to create some kind of a distinction between the very important attention the House paid to the matter of the grain transportation Bill and the fact that we were not paying attention to the maritime area. Just last summer we announced a program of over $700 million for the purchasing of brand new maritime ships in the Coast Guard fleet, which will go a long way toward addressing the problems of that fleet. It seems that he has conveniently ignored that very major commitment on the part of the Government.


J. Michael Forrestall: When the minister gets around to reading the Auditor General's report he will become very painfully aware of his comments with respect to the improper basis on which they went ahead with the ordering of those ships. We do not know whether we need them. We do not know where to use them. We do not know how they should be manned, or how they should be scheduled.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, let me return to just one quotation from the Auditor General. Having identified many areas of required change, he says "its actions have not resulted in significant change". It is the significant change I am asking the Minister to address. The Auditor General identified it in part as a lack of a sense of urgency with respect to marine problems, shipbuilding problems, and crewing problems.
Will the Minister just give us a simple undertaking, a little promise that we can take away from here, that in fact he will pay some attention in the future to the extraordinary difficulties of search and rescue, scheduling, crewing, manning and unmanning of lighthouses? Will he address himself to these

December 12, 1983
Oral Questions
problems, some of which have been in front of us for I I long
years?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member was trying to ask a question. If we can decipher that morass of maritime bilge he has put forth, perhaps we can get to the point.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Careful.


Lloyd Axworthy: This Government has taken action. We have committed ourselves to a major expansion program in the Coast Guard training system.


J. Michael Forrestall: Improperly; improperly.


Lloyd Axworthy: We have committed ourselves to a major purchase of a Coast Guard fleet. We have committed ourselves to a task force on a new deep sea fleet for the maritime area. It seems to me that the Hon. Member should go back and talk to his constituents about what they would like, rather than simply sort of festering around in his own sense of fantasy about what should be done. We are taking action. He is simply talking about it, and he is out of date.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. For years Indian women have heard the Government promise quick action to end Indian Act discrimination against them. Now, in spite of a Throne Speech promise, they hear the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development indicate that this is not one of his priorities. Why can the Government not now table legislation to end this discrimination so that the Standing Committee can study it and hear representatives of Indian bands and Indian women's organizations? Why can the Government not table it so that it will receive the study it needs, rather than attempt to push it through at the last minute?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member does not seem to know what he wants. He keeps talking about studies, and at the same time he is blaming us for not taking action and not tabling legislation right away. I would be very surprised if the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development actually said what the Hon. Member says he did, but I will check with my colleague as soon as he gets back to the House.


James Douglas Manly: The Minister can check with her colleague, as well as the transcript of Our Native Land last Saturday night.


THRONE SPEECH ANNOUNCEMENT
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Considering the long history of discrimination and suffering of Indian women as a result of the Indian Act, will he make this promise in the Throne Speech a legislative priority of his Government, or is it just so much empty wind to keep people quiet for a while?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a legislative priority. Madam Speaker.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible forCMHC. He will recall on December 17, 1982, dismissing a concern I expressed in the House about the illegality of payments made by the Government under the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program. Is he aware that since December 17, when he gave those concerns the back of his hand, the financial statement for CMHC has been qualified by its auditor and, second, that the Auditor General sought and received a legal opinion on the legality of this over half a billion dollars worth of payments to the effect that "transactions of CHOSP are not within the powers of CMHC under the Act"? If so, when does the Minister intend to take action?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I have been absent from the House for three days. I have not been briefed on what the Auditor General's Report contains. Since 1 am not a lawyer, and as this is obviously a conflict of legal opinions, I will consult my lawyer before answering the Hon. Member's question.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, if this Minister cannot answer for his Department, 1 will go to one of his colleagues about another Department, the Department of National Revenue. The Auditor General points out in his report today that, because of an error made by the Department of National Revenue, taxes have been collected on an illegal basis by the Department of National Revenue from some Canadians. What attempts are being made to identify those Canadians who have been double-taxed or unfairly assessed under this scheme? What efforts are being made by the Government to pay back any payments that were illegally demanded by the Department of National Revenue?
December 12, 1983


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad the Hon. Member was able to have a briefing session this morning on the Auditor General's report, but I think he ought to realize I was unable to read those parts of the report that concern the Department of National Revenue. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, will be in the House tomorrow, when he will be able to answer the Hon. Member's questions. Regarding the measures to be taken to reimburse Canadians from whom taxes were collected in excess of the tax owing, I believe it is current practice at the Department of National Revenue to make such reimbursements.


DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At page 529 of his Report, the Auditor General states that DREE paid out $315,000 in loan guarantees for a motel to be built in Tracadie, New Brunswick. The motel was sold recently for $200 at public auction, contrary to terms of the agreement, and resold the next day for $75,000. Today the motel is valued at $625,000. Can the Minister explain how this scandalous situation was allowed to happen?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Or get a new auctioneer.


Hon. David Smith (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: No, Madam Speaker, I am not able to explain the situation, but on behalf of the Minister I am happy to take notice of the question.


OFFICIALS' RESPONSIBILITY
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, will the Acting Minister also inquire why the rules of the Department have not been changed? The Auditor General has stated that this can happen again. Will the Minister find out whether the responsible officials who allowed the situation to occur were fired?


David P. Smith: As 1 mentioned earlier, Madam Speaker, I will look into all of these questions on the Hon. Member's behalf.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


EAST GERMANY-DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government is planning in the near future to extend diplomatic recognition to East Germany, the German Democratic Republic?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that.


An Hon. Member:: Can he deny it?


Benno Friesen: That's a good point. Can you deny it?


PROTECTION OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, since negotiations have been going on for a number of years, and as the Prime Minister knows very well that East Bloc countries extend compulsory dual citizenship to those people born in their countries and who have taken up citizenship in another land, automatically making them criminals for the simple act of leaving the land of their birth, will the Prime Minister undertake to make certain that Canadian citizens who were born in East Germany will derive some protection from this Government as a result of the policies of the East German Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the Hon. Member says, Madam Speaker, it is the practice of many countries to claim dual citizenship. We have shown by our actions in the past that we intend protecting Canadian citizens regardless of whether some other country claims them as their citizens. If they are Canadian citizens, we do protect them within the Canadian law. Of course, our writ does not reach into those countries nor, as I said, are we contemplating having diplomatic relations with the country the Hon. Member mentions.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Economic Development. Recently the Minister gave a very thoughtful speech relating the income tax system with productivity. Of the income tax system, he said that it was inequitable, unduly complex, and was not making the contribution that it should to economic growth. With that, Members on this side agree. The tragedy is not only that the Minister understands the problem and knows the solution, but nothing has been done. Why was no priority given to this statement in the Speech from the Throne?

December 12, 1983
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, it is not true that nothing is being done. As the Hon. Member probably knows, when the Minister of Finance addressed that same body, the Canadian Tax Foundation in 1982, he underlined the problem of complexity which exists in income tax law. Subsequent to that, I understand that a committee was struck between the Canadian Tax Foundation and the Department of Finance. To my knowledge, that committee has not yet reported. There obviously will be progress made on that front, particularly with respect to small business and other such sectors.
In addition, the Hon. Member will know that the Minister of Finance has recently introduced legislation with respect to research and development in order to introduce a new mechanism which allows a flow-through of tax credits, which was raised in the April budget. It was subsequently confirmed as a good idea by the community, the clientele which it affects. That will go a long way toward permitting equity to flow in a less complicated fashion into that particular sector.
I do not think it is fair to say that nothing has been done. Something is being done all the time. As I stated in that speech, complexity still exists in many areas. All of us must constantly try to address the problems of making the Income Tax Act more simple and effective, and make it contribute in that fashion to economic development and growth.


MINISTER'S SPEECH
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, in the same speech the Minister said: "I blame the complexities and the burdens of our tax system that drive taxpayers to seek tax savings as an end unto themselves rather than putting talent and capital to other productive and profitable purposes." That is the problem with the economy. As the senior Minister in terms of economic development, why was no priority given in the Speech from the Throne to this threshold question?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, the issue of taxation and making the tax system, making it effective, making it simple, and making it contribute to economic growth, is a continuing priority of the Government. It is not a new initiative that had to be introduced in the Speech from the Throne. The point I make with respect to seeking tax savings for their own sake is one which has bothered me for many years as a tax practitioner. I am sure that all Members of this House will agree. It is a problem with which we have wrestled, and with which the United States and other jurisdictions have wrestled. Surely the massive brain power which we have wandering around in the Income Tax Act could be put to better use elsewhere, particularly in the laboratories of this country.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In September of last year it was announced in The Canada Gazette that the Government would examine regulations restricting auto emissions, particularly of nitrous oxides, hydrocarbon, and carbon-dioxide. As the Minister knows, these standards are three to four times those presently allowed in the United States. There was no mention of introducing that in the Speech from the Throne. Are those emission standards proposed in The Canada Gazette going to be introduced-yes or no?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, the matter is under active consideration on my part. It is the object of continuous studies and efforts.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, tied in with that, I am sure the Minister is aware that lead is one of the most serious poisons in the environment for children. There has been a 37 per cent drop in the amount of lead found in Americans since they went to unleaded gas almost a decade ago. Is the Minister going to introduce amendments to the Clean Air Act to eliminate lead from gasoline in Canada-yes or no?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Madam Speaker, it is certainly my intention to proceed with that policy and implement the one that was so successfully initiated by my predecessor.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Public Works explain why his Department pressed ahead, as pointed out by the Auditor General, with committing the taxpayers to $120 million in lease payments for office space in Ottawa? There is a photograph of what appears to be the Centennial Building on Kent Street. In terms of the 32 proposals, this rated twenty-fourth. According to the Auditor General, in terms of acquiring that leased property, the Minister's Department was in breach of many Treasury Board directives.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the tender call was issued in the summer of 1982. This building and others were examined. The need in relation to Bell Canada's desire to reoccupy its own building was analysed and it was felt that this building, once refurbished, was perfectly acceptable. A number of other builders who had not tendered in the tender call to which I referred, came forward later. I believe I have answered the Hon. Member's question, but perhaps I left one point out.
December 12, 1983


OCCUPANCY OF BUILDING
William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, the Minister did not tell me why 24 preferable locations involving a saving to the taxpayer were not seriously considered and, indeed, acted upon.
May I ask the Minister if that building is fully occupied? Rental payments of $1 million worth of taxpayers' money per month commenced 12 days ago. If the space that is leased by the taxpayer through the Minister's Department is not fully occupied, then when does the Minister anticipate that we will begin to get our $1 million a month worth?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that I would accept the Hon. Member's statement referring to 24 out of some 30 or 32 locations. However, I will certainly examine the matter. Referring to the question of the building being occupied, yes, it will be occupied and is being fitted now. It is being made ready for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which will move into that building as soon as the walls and separations are put up.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has received a telex from the Premier of Newfoundland regarding the fisheries agreement which was signed a few weeks ago, and the allocation of fish stocks.
The Minister of Fisheries has allocated a large part of the northern cod resource to independent companies in the maritime provinces. He has allocated fish stocks for next year to some foreign countries which would permit them to take some of the northern cod stock. The Premier has requested that the Prime Minister intervene because the Premier believes that there will not be sufficient fish for the inshore fishery in Newfoundland next year, nor for the new supercompany which is to be set up by the Government. Could the Prime Minister tell me what he has discovered in his investigation of this matter, and what reply he has made to Mr. Peckford who is very concerned, as are the fishermen of Newfoundland, about this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, my information is that the Minister of Fisheries had some plans for allocation and he indicated that he had the agreement of at least one of the maritime Premiers, but then subsequently, as 1 am informed, that Premier seems to have changed his mind. The matter will be before Cabinet again and we will have a report from the Minister of Fisheries this week, I believe.


NORTHERN COD STOCK
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that the matter of the allocation of fish stocks, which is so important to the Atlantic
Oral Questions
provinces, will come before Cabinet again during the next week. Will the Prime Minister take into consideration the fact that the northern cod stock is the only fish which, by tradition, the inshore Newfoundland fisherman has a chance of catching, and that its importance to the Newfoundland economy is therefore pre-eminent? Will those matters be his highest priority? Will he pay more attention to the Newfoundland Premier than to some other maritime Premier who might like to see his Province's fishermen get their hands on part of that resource?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is making a legitimate representation since it concerns his own province. However, he will know from his short experience in Government that we will have to attend to the wishes of all Premiers in all regions. That is what makes governing so interesting and so difficult.


Madam Speaker:: Supplementary. The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich:


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My question is supplementary to the question posed by my colleague from Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Madam Speaker:: Supplementary to this-


Donald W. Munro: No, it is a supplementary question though, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York-Peel.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I was wondering if he could indicate, having regard to his recent visit to the Middle East, if the Government has filed any protest with respect to the bombing in Jerusalem of two buses which killed four people and injured many more, a bombing for which a faction of the PLO has claimed credit. If such a protest was filed, did the Government also send a note of condolence to those involved in the tragedy in Israel?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be well aware of the Government's consistent action of opposing all terrorist acts and, indeed, working toward the development of peace in the Middle East. The response of the Government in relation to the outrage mentioned by the Hon. Member has been one which is consistent with our established policy.


OFFICIAL PROTEST INQUIRY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of External Affairs. Could he explain to the public whether he in fact did make a protest of an official nature with respect to the bombing, bearing in mind that on at least two earlier occasions a very quick protest was made to the Israeli Government when

December 12, 1983
Oral Questions
the Canadian Government felt the Israeli Government had acted wrongly? Did he make a similar protest with respect to this PLO bombing?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware of the fact that this Government does not have official diplomatic relations with the PLO.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Speech from the Throne indicated that it was the intention of the Government to negotiate some kind of auto arrangement with Japan. 1 wonder if the Prime Minister can tell us whether or not the basis for that arrangement will be the recommendations contained in the auto task force report particularly as it relates to Canadian content?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it will take into account representations made by the task force, but in order to know the content of the announcement regarding the auto pact, the Hon. Member will have to wait for it to happen.


POSSIBILITY OF CANADA-JAPAN AUTO PACT AGREEMENT
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister then indicate whether the Government has in fact put before the Japanese Government a proposal for an auto pact arrangement, either similar to that which we have with the United States, or based upon the auto task force report? If so, has there been any reply to that proposal? Does the Government believe that it is likely that sometime within the next six months such an agreement would be signed with Japan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is thinking of an agreement which would be exactly parallel to that which we have with the United States, the answer is no. Once again the Hon. Member will have to wait for the announcement which we intend to make.
enough resources to attend to its real function, which is policy review. 1 wonder if the Solicitor General could tell us what he will do about that situation.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we will be increasing the priority of policy review.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report indicated that the Minister was in such hot water all the time that the policy branch was not able to devote enough attention to middle and long-term policy development. Perhaps the Minister could give us a simple answer. Would he be prepared to resign his portfolio in order to solve this problem?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to resign my portfolio, but the two points made by the Hon. Member seem to conflict with each other. Policy reviews are undertaken when policy development might have been undertaken instead. A balancing of resources must be found between policy development and policy review.
1 understand the Auditor General's position on the matter, and we will do our best to come up with a solution for next year in order to please the Auditor General.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and is related to the question raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, which dealt with dual nationals. Could the Prime Minister make any comment on the progress being made between Canada and Czechoslovakia in defining dual nationals and having a dual national agreement put into effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is the country I had in mind when I was answering the question of the Hon. Member's colleague about East Germany. 1 would have to take notice of the question and find out what stage we are at in the negotiations.


DEPARTMENT OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In his Report today, the Auditor General indicated that the Solicitor General's policy branch is so preoccupied with crisis management for the Minister's many, many problems that it does not have


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Welland (Mr. Parent) on Friday, December 9, 1983, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
December 12, 1983



STANDING ORDERS


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, following the motion that was passed by the House last week in respect of a special committee on parliamentary reform, I have had consultations and it seems that we will obtain the unanimous consent that is required for the motion that follows.
1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Members of the Special Committee on Standing orders be Messrs. Allmand, Blaikie. Cooper, Cousineau, Cullen, Dick, Dionne (Norlhumberland-Miramichi), Evans, Epp, Gourde (Levis), Herbert, Hnatyshyn, Huntington, Lachance, Lefebvre, McGrath, Nowlan, Reid (Kcnora-Rainy River), Sargeant and Simmons; and
That the Special Committee be empowered to engage expert staff.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the Member whose name is Simmons is qualified to sit on a committee?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-3,
An Act relating to cash contributions by Canada in respect of insured health services provided under provincial health care insurance plans and amounts payable by Canada in respect of extended health care services and to amend and repeal certain Acts in consequence thereof.
Motion agreed to. Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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: and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mulroney (p. 45) and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 59).
The Address-Mr. Clarke
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before 1 was interrupted for the lunch break I was explaining the comments which appeared in the Vancouver newspaper The Province some eight years ago concerning the state of the housing industry, and comments which appeared in The Globe and Mail in 1975. The paragraph that I referred to recently said that rents, like other prices, go up, and that there is no magic umbrella to shelter property owners from inflation. It asked, if mill rates rise, fuel rates rise, if the cost of materials, appliances, mortgages, hydro, water and wages all rise, how can the rent that is made up of all these things stay the same? The writer of the article then asked how long the activists, or indeed the tenants themselves, would sit still for control on their own wages and salaries. The voters gave their answer to that in the 1974 election when they rejected wage and price controls, only to have them imposed by the Government 15 months later.
The Government's chief housing instrument, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has grown over the years into an enormously complicated corporation. If I may, I will refer Your Honour to the December 31, 1982 issue of the public accounts of Canada which shows the total assets of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be over $10 billion and its borrowings from the Government of Canada to be over $10 billion also. In other words, this is just a shell corporation by which the Government takes money from one set of taxpayers and lends it to another set of taxpayers. The question is, to whom should these moneys be loaned and how is it decided to whom they should be loaned? If it were a matter of good management, one might be more sympathetic to the aims of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I should like to read Note 2 of the audited financial statement of December 31, 1982, concerning real estate. It shows that the over-all appraised value of real estate is in excess of its book value by $17 million. However, potential losses on specific properties could amount to $28 million, according to the report, based on appraised values determined at November 30, 1982. Later in the report an item appears under the heading "General Administration" which shows real estate operating losses of $6.6 million and real estate disposal losses of $15.5 million. That is all part of a total of $1.6 billion shown in the statement under the heading "Total Charge to the Government of Canada". In other words, that $1.6 billion, including those losses, is not even in the corporate accounts of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
One might ask why that is important. A recent report issued by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation showed that very many middle income Canadians were benefiting from the programs it offered in subsidized housing. Canadians earning $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 per year were found to be living in subsidized units. The same study showed that some officials in Vancouver were found to be living in Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation units, although I think they have since been moved out. That shows the kind of abuse that can develop with an instrument like Canada Mortgage and Housing Cor-

December I 2, 1983
The Address-Mr. Clarke
poration running away with billions of taxpayers' dollars, not knowing what to do with them or to whom to give them.
In 1978, 1 was a member for an all-Party task force of the House which went to the United States to study the experience there and proposed legislation to deal with mortgage interest and property tax deductibility. They have some instruments which have run amok and if we go this route, we will be in the same position very soon. I refer to the instruments known as "Ginny Mae" and "Fanny Mae"-the General National Mortgage Assistance Program and the Federal National Mortgage Assistance Program. They all come under this huge bureaucracy called Housing and Urban Development, or HUD as it is known in the U.S. It is in the business of providing housing units. They have developed a huge bureaucracy to construct, operate and maintain their housing units. The result has been that the subsidized housing units are better than those the taxpayers who are paying for the subsidized housing can afford. In other words, the equation has gone backwards and those who arc paying cannot afford the housing they are providing for those who supposedly cannot afford it.
In its portfolio, Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing has other examples of the ineptitude and bad management practices that I am afraid we are going to see more and more of. I refer specifically to a development in Vancouver called Granville Island, which some in Vancouver call "Basford's boondoggle" because he was the Minister of Urban Affairs at that time and Granville Island is located in his former riding of Vancouver Centre. At that time I was critical of CMHC taking over the Granville Island development, a light industrial area, to become a retail and artsy section of town. It is a very popular place, no question about that, but it has nothing whatever to do with mortgages or housing. What was the result? Well, through CMHC the taxpayer provided subsidized rents for selected merchants who managed to get into Granville Island and therefore unfairly compete with merchants in commercially provided space. The battle was on. The Government found the administration of this development to be a convenient place to put former Liberal Party supporters.
It has now come full circle, Mr. Speaker, because recently I was visited in my constituency office by a group of merchant tenants. They are having great difficulty with CMHC, which is using totally unprofessional and unbusinesslike methods in running this place so that it is going to be a disaster very soon. Certain tenants are being put out of their space for no reason. Their lease expires and they want to renew but cannot find out what the new rents are except that they are higher than the rents under private sector owners. That is what we are going to have if we do not have a better idea about what this Government wants to do in a critical area like housing which affects absolutely every Canadian.
I have heard a lot recently from the other side about the policies on this side, whether we have any or whether they are any good. Since the opening of this session of Parliament I was able to distribute a very long list of statements made by this
side about various policies. I would like to remind the House, especially Members opposite, that the policies of this Party, developed over many decades and which were in place on June 10, 1983, did not all of a sudden change on June 11 just because we had a leadership convention and elected a new Leader. The policies of this Party on various subjects are well known in basic terms, and as has been pointed out by the Leader and various other members of this Party, details will have to wait until the Government screws up its courage and gets around to calling an election. We have seen the statements by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) about medicare, but it took until today for the Government to table a Bill which will tell us in detail what its policies are, at which time we will be able to respond.
Earlier this year we saw the former Minister of Transport fly his trial balloon or kite over the Crow rate policy. Then the Government wanted to know what our attitude was. Fortunately we waited because the big Liberal caucus in Quebec got to the Minister, and when the time came the Government introduced a Bill on the Crow rate which was totally different from the issues first put forward.
I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you very much.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members who wish to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)? If not, the Chair will recognize the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part today in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and 1 would like to start by congratulating the sponsors of the motion. First of all, the Member for London-West (Mr. Burghardt) who made an excellent speech in the House and demonstrated, with great eloquence, his convictions about our country, and spoke about the participation of every part of Canada in this nation's progress and the fact that Canada is a united country and as such can prosper. 1 am also very happy to congratulate the Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde), one of our junior Members. This reminds me of 1964, during the second session, when like the Member for Levis, I was called upon to second the motion on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. 1 feel the Member for Levis has done so with great eloquence and persuasion, and 1 am sure his constituents will not regret the day they elected the Hon, Member as a successor to Raynald Guay, and I am sure he will have a successful career in federal politics.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today, because Friday was a particularly interesting day in the House of Commons.

Last Friday was a great day because it was in fact the first speech on policy from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. December 12, 1983

Mulroney), and we had a masterful speech by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). It was amazing to compare the two. Of course, when we hear the people from the other side of the House, they all complain that our Prime Minister is not effective, that the Party is short of ideas and so on. So the contrast this week, Mr. Speaker, is very fabulous.
On Friday the Prime Minister made a speech that was so good that even Charles Lynch had to say that it was very, very good. He said it was the best speech he ever heard in the House from the Prime Minister. He said that Brian Mulroney, even if he were to be here 20 years, would never achieve such a level of contribution to the House of Commons.
When we look at the substance of the Speech from the Throne, most observers say there is too much in it. That is probably the first time in my life that I hear something like that. People have said it is not a program for the last session of Parliament, but a program for the complete Parliament.
The people who say we are running out steam will now have to recognize two things: the Leader of my Party made a speech that put the Leader of the Opposition in the league he belongs, the midget league; and that we have produced a Throne Speech with so much that most policy observers say we could not implement any part of it because there is not enough time. But what is good for members of my Party is that we have been able to prove in the last few days that, despite all the rumours, there is a lot of energy and vigour on this side of the House.
When we compare that with the performance of the Leader of the Opposition, who was more or less making his maiden speech in the House of Commons, it gave us a lot of satisfaction and hope. Looking at the Leader of the Opposition we thought that maybe after six months he might come up with something; that would have been normal. Of course, he is a very brave man. He has not held one press conference since he became the Leader of the Opposition. We understand that the man might be nervous, but we thought that with all the time he had. two days having passed since the Speech from the Throne was read, the Leader of the Opposition would come up with something. We were hoping that the kid from Baie Comeau would produce something very substantial. But what did we hear on policy? Absolutely nothing.
The only thing they are able to talk about on the other side is a few principles which they talk of all the time. First they claim that the deficit is too big and we should cut taxes. We listen to the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition these days saying that the problem with medicare is that we should put money into it. If we were to put more money into medicare, suddenly there would be no problem. They complain that at this time we are planning to increase the supplement which we pay to the old age pensioners in Canada. The only answer they have is that what we are offering is not enough, we should give more. They see some problem with productivity and with research and development. What is their solution? Their solution is to give more money to
The Address-Mr. Chretien
that side of the economy because if we were to do that there would be no problem. They say that in defence policy our problem is that we are not carrying our share, that if they were in power they would be spending more on defence. After that, in the same speech, Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, they say they will do all of these things, increase spending on every front, and reduce the deficit and cut taxes.


Some Hon. Members:: You don't understand, do you, Jean?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It reminds me very much of what they call in the United States "Reaganomics". President Reagan was elected four years ago. A reduction of the deficit was his motto and now he has a $250 billion deficit after four years of administration. On top of that he has cut programs that we, the Liberals, have refused to cut. That is one of the big distinctions between us and the Opposition.
After a performance like that in which they do not present any new policies, I am tempted to go after the Leader of the Opposition a little bit. He talks about productivity, entrepreneurship and so on. He is a very effective man, as 1 said many times. Not only did he close the mines in Schefferville, Mr. Speaker, but he closed the whole bloody town in one shot. This is the type of thing they are trying to use to tell us that they have solutions but refuse to talk about them.
The Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is the one who tells the truth. He says: "We are not about to say what we will do because the Canadian people will never vote for us". With great candour the other day he said that he was very proud to see that they befuddled the press and befuddled the public. I asked myself, what does that word mean? My English is still a bit deficient so 1 looked it up in the dictionary. It means "to make drunk." As I said on TV the other day, the Tory policy as enunciated by the Member for St. John's West, is the screech approach to the economic policy or international policy of Canada: "Let's confuse the people; do not tell them the truth because they will not vote for us". At least there is a member of the Opposition who is honest with the people of Canada. He said: "Don't ask too many questions and you won't have any answers". I could speak my mind and say a lot of things about that.
What is this new leadership that the Tory Party is giving to Canadians? As Canadians we are entitled to know. If 1 speak my mind completely it might be tough and they would say Jean is a bit too partisan. Over the weekend 1 had the benefit of reading a little bit. 1 looked at this big book which is just out called Contenders. There is a very very interesting description of what the Leader of the Opposition is. These are not my words, Mr. Speaker; 1 just want to quote a man named John Thompson, not the one we have in the House of Commons, but another John Thompson from the blue machine. In Contenders: The Tory Quest for Power, he gave a description of the Leader of the Opposition. It is not 1 who said this; it is his chief organizer who said this in a memo which is public today:
They don't trust you because of the slickness-

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Chretien
We had a lot of slickness last Friday.
-smoothness, pat answers, feeling that there is no substance, plastic image and the feeling that you are someone's candidate-big business or Conrad Black.
It continues like that for pages and pages. While it is the problem of the Leader of the Opposition, it was visible in the House last week. We heard absolutely nothing of substance on anything. There was just attack and no solution. There was contradiction about everything. We have seen it since the beginning. Suddenly the Americans invade Grenada and two hours after that they were on the side of the Americans. Twenty-four hours after that Prime Minister Thatcher of England said that the Americans were wrong, so they were not on the side of the Americans any more. They sent the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) to inquire about the situation and we are still waiting for the answer. This is the type of policy that they are trying to offer to us. We are not too afraid of that type of approach, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mayer:: Call an election then. If you are not afraid, call an election.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The time will come. We will finish our mandate because we have to tell Canadians what happened over the last four years.


Charles James Mayer: We will challenge you. We will move a motion right now. 1 will get up on a point of order and move a motion right now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is where we will be able to face these gentlemen. When we came to Parliament four years ago the people of Canada were faced with one of the biggest problems that we have had since the war. We were faced with the separation of Quebec from Canada. We have tackled the problem. There was a referendum and Canada won, but they do not talk about it any more. We decided to patriate the Constitution. They were in favour of that but they dragged the debate on for months in the House of Commons. They were in favour of a Bill of Rights, but 1 was a witness in front of the committee for 115 hours. All the time they were for and they were against. They were on the side of motherhood and they were trying to block the Charter of Rights.


Miss MacDonald:: And you kept women out of the Constitution. You kept equality out the Constitution.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We put them in.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You kept them out.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Members of the Opposition were telling us: "Just patriate the Constitution. We do not want a Charter of Rights; we have a Charter of Rights in Canada. We do not want the Brits to make a Charter of Rights for us".


Some Hon. Members:: Shame on you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That was their position. We said at the Canadian constitutional conference that we wanted to have a Charter of Rights immediately.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We know what you did with a kitchen cabinet.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have done it in spite of the Opposition, the delays and the frustration caused by the incapacity of the Opposition to decide.
To give another example, the other day some business people asked me why we have not enshrined property rights in the Constitution. The so-called business community wants it and wants to know who is blocking it. Not long ago the Leader of the House proposed that we enshrine in the Constitution property rights. It is the Opposition who denied us the opportunity to do that because they do not want to offend their Premiers in the provinces who are opposed to that. In the committee the PEI Government was the most strongly opposed to that. They are the head waiters. They have to wait and see what the Premiers say.


J. Michael Forrestall: Pretty weak.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 also want to say a few words about the opportunity the Leader of the Opposition gave us when he opened his mouth just a little too wide. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he did, and it was about our energy policy. Well, we are still waiting for the answer, since that evening he stated with great enthusiasm that he was going to destroy our energy policy and that it was tantamount to holding up a gas station at three o'clock in the morning, but the next day he was in Edmonton, and not a word. As the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I said to myself: What is going on? Maybe he will bring up the subject in his speech on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. He did say timidly that he did not disagree with the objectives of our energy policy but was opposed to certain aspects, namely-

-confiscates someone else's property, to make the case. [Translation]
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond and provide some explanations, since people have a right to know. [English]
Parliament has set out in the legislation that the back-in is a way for Canadians to get access to the resources that are found in Canadian territory. When I negotiated with Newfoundland, Premier Peckford did not agree with me because he wanted a 40 per cent back-in and felt that I was too timid with the 25 per cent.
There is a proposition in the Speech from the Throne for a Bill to be tabled in the House which will permit Nova Scotia to benefit from the 25 per cent back-in right away. The Opposition Party says that it will remove that. I do not know what the Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) will have to say about that because Premier Buchanan has stated many times that he wants to have his back-in share
December 12, 1983

and does not want to give it away since he needs it right away. How will the Opposition solve that problem? We are waiting for the answers.
In the oil and gas industry at this time 52 cents on the dollar for a barrel of oil is going to the industry. When the Tories were in power the industry got only 41 cents. While they say that the policy is not working, we have multiplied the income for the oil companies by two and a half times from 1979 to today. They say the policy is not working-


J. Michael Forrestall: Not coming from you, because it is not correct.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is absolutely correct. Read my speech. If you want, 1 will table it all. Do you want me to table it all? I made a speech outside the House the other day and if you want a copy, I will send you one. There are the critics, right here in the House. I hope that some day you will pick up my speech which I tried to describe.
The Opposition wants to get rid of the PIP Program. That will mean no more drilling in Nova Scotia, no more drilling in Newfoundland.


J. Michael Forrestall: Read what the Auditor General had to say
about that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They say they want to do that to save money, but if they do so it means the end of drilling in the Canada lands.
An Flon. Member: Absolute nonsense.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If they do this through the super depletion which existed before, it will cost the Treasury more money and only the multinationals will benefit because they are the ones who can deduct the tax incentives from their income. The person who makes $10,000 a year cannot use a tax incentive of $1 million because he does not pay taxes. That is why we had to proceed with the grants programs, because we wanted Canadians to have a share in the action in the oil and gas industry. We have brought that share up from 27 per cent to 38 per cent of the ownership and management in Canada lands. That is what we want to do.
1 can give a long list of companies which have benefited and still benefit from that. When I was in St. John's recently, Husky and Bow Valley were there and told the press that if the PIP grants did not exist they would not be in a position to invest there. Some day the Opposition will have to take a position one way or the other. If you told the Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that there will be no more work in the Canada lands, what would his reaction be? What would be the reaction in Newfoundland? It is very important that we achieve self-sufficiency and security of supply in Canada.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: That is why we will have more Members from the Northwest Territories.
The Address-Mr. Chretien


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is only one there now, and if you cut the PIPs I can tell you that he will be in trouble.


Mr. Nickerson:: You have got one. It is the other guy who is in trouble.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you can see that we are touching nerves over there because they are in complete contradiction with themselves. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) is in Calgary, he makes a speech to please the crowd in Calgary. When he is in Toronto, he does not speak at all about the energy policy. I was in Niagara-on-the-Lake with Premier Lougheed and Premier Davis. Premier Davis wants to keep controls on the price of oil in order to protect the petrochemical industry of Ontario. Premier Lougheed docs not want control over the price of oil because he wants to have more for Alberta. However, when it comes to natural gas, Premier Lougheed wants to control the price of natural gas because he knows that with the large surplus of natural gas in Canada the price will go down if it is decontrolled.
Therefore, Mr. Lougheed wants to keep the control and Mr. Davis does not want control. He wants the market forces to decide the price of natural gas. What will the Leader of the Opposition do with those two? To whom does he owe the most? How many delegates did he get from them? Eventually he will have to choose and tell Canadians what he will do with respect to these oil and gas policies.
The Opposition says that we cannot work with the provinces. In July we made an agreement with Saskatchewan and Alberta very easily. For the first time we have a complete agreement with the producing provinces in terms of an export policy for oil and gas. There arc Members in the House from Saskatchewan who will tell you that never has there been so much drilling activity in Saskatchewan for oil and gas as there is today.


Charles James Mayer: That is because of the Saskatchewan Government. It has nothing to do with you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Why were you blaming the federal Government before? The provincial royalties were too high and they had to reduce them. We did not have to do anything. The provinces were taking too much, and now we have a more balanced situation.
So we have a few questions to ask of the Opposition. We can see that they are getting nervous, but it is only the beginning. Wait until we are finished.
Some Flon. Members: More.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) wishes to ask a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 am ready to continue- however, I sec the Opposition is getting jumpier and jumpier!

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Chretien


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Minister seeking unanimous consent of the House to extend his time?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent for the Hon. Minister to extend his remarks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker. I should like to explain something to Hon. Members. I am happy to have the opportunity to give the Leader of the Opposition some clarification because he is somewhat confused about the policy. When referring to the back-in, the Leader of the Opposition stated "... to break your word and confiscate someone else's property". Perhaps I can take a couple of minutes to explain this. This is not well understood in Canada and even less so by the Opposition.
When I was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in 1970, we had a system in Canada lands that we called the checkerboard. We were giving a square to an industry-let's say a square mile-to drill. If a company discovered some oil, it had to revert half of its lands to the Crown without compensation. That was the system.
In theory, if the square mile was full of oil, the company would be obliged at that time to return half of the oil to the Crown free of charge. That was the regime at that time, and the industry did not like it. It asked me for a new regime. I repealed the order and we began negotiations in 1970.
At the end of the negotiations ten years later we have a new regime whereby we take back 25 per cent and we pay for the cost of the find. Previously we did not pay anything. The Americans got excited about this and claimed that it was confiscation after the fact. Let me tell you that before 1970 we were taking back half of the lands. If there was oil, we were taking half of it. But now we are taking 25 per cent and we are paying for that. Where the argument by the Opposition, the Americans and the oil companies is false is that between 1970 and 1980 nobody knew what the regime was to be. I repealed the regime in 1970. When they were sinking pipe in the ground they did not know what the regime was to be between 1970 and 1980. Companies just gambled. They knew a new regime was to come. If they were imprudent between 1970 and 1980, why blame the Government? When the opposition members call this confiscation, let me tell them that Mr. Peckford in Newfoundland thinks that 25 per cent confiscation is not enough, that we should confiscate 40 per cent. Your friend and my friend. Premier Buchanan, is quite ready to accept 25 per cent confiscation right away.
I wanted to have a little more time, Mr. Speaker, to explain that aspect. 1 keep saying, when I meet representatives of the industry who complain now, that they would have been well advised to agree with me in 1970 and not wait until 1980 for the new regime. They gambled and they lost. I do not think at all that the regime means confiscation. It is a law of Parliament which has replaced another law. In the meantime, no one knew what that regime was to be. They gambled.
I went to Norway last summer and I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, that the regime we have in Canada is nothing compared to what they have to take on the nose or on the chin, or whatever it is called in Norway. What the industry wants is one thing. It is stability. That is what we have given to the industry. Now the industry knows what it has got. Things are working. There is much less controversy about this policy now. We have signed agreements with the provinces. What the industry wants most is to tear off the name of the game, to live by rules, and the industry will be happy. That is exactly why I do not want to change things now. I want to give stability to the industry.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to say a few words in French, because the performance of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) on Friday was really pitiful. I know why the people around Baie-Comeau have already told him not to run in that part of the Province where he is best known, because after all, it is just words, words, words and never . . . When he closed down the mine in Schefferville, he made all kinds of promises. They were going to solve all those problems with federal programs, and today, he has left an appalling situation behind in Schefferville. If we consider the solutions they arc offering Canadians today, we sec they are not offering any at all, Mr. Speaker. It was a speech empty of any meaning. There was that short conversation between Lloyd and his brother Tom. He was trying to make us laugh, but he was not even funny.
I must say that if we compare the performance of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) last Friday to that of the Leader of the Opposition, it is pretty obvious that the people on the other side of the House are utter midgets compared to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
And the Speech from the Throne! Well, once again, we have shown Canadians that this Government still has plenty of ideas. In criticizing the Speech from the Throne, people said there were too many proposals and that it was impossible to implement them all before the next election. So if people appreciate our having so many programs and new ideas, while the Opposition, and I say it again, is offering us a program that has no substance at all, the answer for Canadians is quite simple. When they go to the polls, they will realize that the Opposition has nothing to offer and that on our Party's side there is no lack of energy, talent and ideas to make Canada prosper.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may have read the speech of his colleague, the Minister of State for Economic Development. In that speech the Minister said that he preferred tax expenditures and incentives over grants. The Minister of State for Economic Development gave four very cogent
December 12, 1983

reasons for that, the first one being that tax expenditures were non-discriminatory to all comers. Second, they favoured winners, not losers. He said governments often look after the losers but not the winners.


Dave Nickerson: Like Maislin.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Third, he said tax expenditures can be administered without an army of bureaucrats. The Minister would know that because he has an army of bureaucrats. Fourth, he said they encouraged market forces and did not get us in trouble internationally provided they were non-discriminatory. Does the Minister agree with the Minister of State for Economic Development? If so, why does he not change his program to be a tax expenditure program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that is a good question and 1 would like to reply to it. If you proceed with tax incentives-and I said that in my speech-only the big corporations with big incomes can benefit. If you want to help Canadians participate in the oil and gas industry, you have to proceed by way of grants, because under international law it is very difficult to give tax incentives that are different from one type of company to the other. When you want to help the nationals do something inside of an economy, you have to proceed above the table and proceed through grants. That is exactly what we have been doing.
The point is that either you proceed by way of grants or through tax incentives. For the same level of activity, it costs the Government, exactly the same amount of money. One way you give grants and you take money out of the Treasury to pay for them. When you have tax incentives, the people who normally pay tax do not pay tax, so you do not get revenue into the Treasury. For the same amount of activity, it costs the Treasury the same. However, the mechanisms arc different. When you give a grant, you can favour one company over another. We did things deliberately in this program because we wanted to help Canadians participate in the Canadian oil and gas industry. If we had proceeded as we proceeded before, through tax incentives, the cost to the Treasury would have been the same but the only companies to benefit from the program would have been the multinationals, as the situation was prior to the National Energy Program. The House of Commons decided to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. Not only did the NDP and the Liberal Party say that, but even the Tory Party said we had to Canadianize the oil and gas industry. The only way to achieve that effectively is through a system of grants. If you do not do that, things will remain as they were before, a privilege of the big multinationals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney).


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid this is still the question and answer period. The Hon. Member for Western Arctic is rising to ask a question?
The Address-Mr. Chretien


Dave Nickerson: No, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member on the other side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Mississauga South is rising on a supplementary?


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Restigouche is rising to ask a question?


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Minister on his contribution to the debate on the Speech from the Throne. Since we talked about the National Energy Program and we talked about incentives and grants, my question relates to a situation in Canada, particularly with respect to the Atlantic Provinces and particularly with respect to the Province of New Brunswick. We talk about premiers, co-operation and negotiations for transfer payments and other negotiations. I speak specifically with respect to assistance which has been given by the federal Government through DREE and through financial aid for the construction of nuclear generating stations, such as the one at Lepreau. They are now talking about Lepreau II. We have a situation that exists in which we sec the New Brunswick Power Commission enjoying currently windfall profits of an estimated $28 million to $30 million. Yet at the same time we have plants, industries and newsprint mills which are in some difficulty with the European Economic Community. There is the question of the fluctuation of currency rates, and problems in competing effectively in selling newsprint abroad. What would the Minister's position and view be in assisting to negotiate with this particular Government to have it look favourably upon giving some relief to these types of industries, particularly the newsprint industry-


J. Michael Forrestall: Sales allocation is the problem.


Maurice James Harquail: -and giving them a more reasonable rate than they face now, which would allow them to be competitive and to continue their operations? I would certainly appreciate a response in the House today by the Minister as to his assessment of the point I have raised. I would like to hear whether or not he would be disposed to discuss the matter with the Premier of New Brunswick and other Ministers, such as the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister responsible for the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission, to see if, through intervention, there can be found ways and means to be more reasonable in the rates which are being assessed, in light of the past co-operation and contribution of the transfer of funds from the federal Government to the provincial Government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make a very large contribution to that point because I have no authority over the administration of the hydroelectric power or powers available to the citizens of New Brunswick. They are under the authority of the Government of New Brunswick. Of course we helped
94

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Chretien
them to build Lepreau E They want us to help to build Lepreau II and so on. However, I agree with the Hon. Member that if some sector of their economy is in trouble at this time, such as the pulp and paper industry, they should attempt to help the industry in terms of the power rate if they can, because they have to match the competition.
Natural gas has now come to the Province of Quebec. 1 am informed that the Government of Quebec, Hydro Quebec, is reducing the rates of some industry for electricity. In the case of approximately 20 buyers in my own district, they had to choose between natural gas and hydroelectric power. Because Hydro Quebec wanted to keep them as clients, not to lose clientele to its competitors in natural gas, they were given new rates. Of course it is the responsibility of the Government. I agree that we have helped them, but they should ensure in their economic planning in terms of energy that there is help for the industries in New Brunswick which require it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a very brief question for the Minister. Could he give us some indication of what will be the price of offshore gas with that regime so that we might properly take a look at the rate at which we should go ahead putting infrastructure in place? Does he agree that we should put infrastructure in place in anticipation of a competitive level of gas pricing by approximately 1986-87?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, to have rational development of Sable Island natural gas, first we have to assess the quantities of available natural gas and, second, we have to find markets. Most of that gas, if we want to market it, will have to be exported, because there is not an adequate market in the Maritimcs for it. I have been informed that the companies involved at this time are in negotiation with utilities in northeastern United States to sell their gas. Of course, if they do not find markets, they will be unable to develop and the infrastructure will be too expensive to take the gas to the shore just for the markets of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. They have to look at other markets. This is exactly what the companies are doing at this time. They keep both the Government of Nova Scotia and myself informed of their progress.


J. Michael Forrestall: When will we know?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know. They will have to sign firm contracts. However, the work is proceeding at this time. They have hired engineers and so on to design the system for the development of that natural gas. The work is proceeding normally, and they are working on the social and environmental impact. There will be public hearings and so on. We hope to have reports soon, as well as the develoment program of Mobil Oil, the main developer. The work is progressing normally, but probably the final decision will be made in the context of market availability.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questioning has expired.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this rather rare opportunity to participate in a debate on the Speech from the Throne. As we all know, it has been a long time since the last one. After waiting some 3.5 years, I found it somewhat ironic that last Wednesday, a typical Canadian December day, the Ottawa airport was closed, preventing many Hon. Members of the House, including myself, from hearing the Throne Speech. As 1 learned later with a great deal of disappointment-but I must say without much surprise after having an opportunity to read it-1 did not miss very much.
If I have learned nothing else in the last four and a half years I have been in the House, I have learned that one should not hold one's breath waiting for a Liberal Government, or a Tory Government for that matter, to do anything meaningful, innovative or sincere in addressing the myriad problems facing Canadian society and indeed the world society today.
The Throne Speech addressed three major themes-jobs, medicare and peace. As well it should have; no one can argue that these are not the three most important concerns of our society today. However, one can certainly quarrel with the Government's proposed solution's to these concerns. In the area of jobs, with over 1.5 million Canadians out of work, with a half million of them being young people, the Government is offering something like $300 million in short-term band-aid solutions. That $300 million is like spitting in the Pacific Ocean.
In the area of medicare, which has been under increasing pressure for the past few years, we have learned this afternoon that there will finally be some action, the Canada Health Act having been tabled today. The Minister has been promising the House this Canada Health Act for well over a year and a half. If the Government and if the Minister are really sincere in their oft expressed concern or commitment to preserve medicare, why did they wait so long to take any action?
In the area of peace, the promises in the Speech from the Throne offered less real initiatives than those offered in 1980. Given that the promises made in 1980 were for the most part either abandoned or greatly weakened, one might be forgiven for being somewhat sceptical about the success of current peace initiatives. Supportive? Yes, we are. We are very supportive of these initiatives but, alas, we are not terribly hopeful that the Government will deliver on them.
in the few minutes available to me this afternoon I want to address in particular two topics. The first is what the Throne Speech will do for my constituency of Selkirk-Interlake or, more specifically, what it will not do. Second, I want to comment somewhat on the peace initiatives. In preparing to make my comments today, I reread my speech of April 1980 in reply to that year's Throne Speech. I was struck by how little had changed. On looking over that speech, I discovered that I could have reread most of it today and those comments would have been appropriate in reply to this year's Throne Speech. I was also struck by the article of a regular columnist who covers the Hill which pointed out that not very much had changed from this Throne Speech to the one of 1978.
December 12, 1983

In April, 1980 1 said that my constituents share with most Canadians a desire to share in the good life that we know the country can offer. They share the same frustrations at not being able to share fully in this good life. They share the hardships, both economic and social, that are the results of decades of unconcerned and misdirected government in our country. In that 1980 speech, 1 spoke of the farmers, their problems and concerns, one of which at that time was their fear that sooner or later they were going to lose the benefits of the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. As we all know, that has now gone. Almost immediately, instead of getting the great benefits which the Government promised us, farmers are already feeling the adverse effects of that change.
This last week I received a letter from a farmer in my constituency in the Town of Stonewall. He wrote that the Canadian Wheat Board will not be introducing regular quota increases until after January I, when the new rates take effect. It does not take much to figure out that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific are once again putting it to the farmers. They are refusing to move grain until such time as they will be getting paid more for that movement. This is known to my friends to the right as corporate fair play. Let me read a paragraph from that letter which my constituent Mr. Ross wrote to me:
This is distressing to me and many other farmers. We are operating in a period of depressed grain prices and high production costs. Year-end is a time when many bills must be paid including crop insurance, taxes, mortgages, et cetera. A cash flow is necessary to meet these obligations, and we depend on an increased quota at this time of the year. Moreover, considerable difficulty is experienced by many farmers in reaching granaries and loading grain during mid-winter.
As a layman in the field of agriculture, I have always been mystified by the fact that the return that a farmer receives for his work does not at all reflect the increases in his costs. This has not changed for years, let alone since 1980. This is a problem that is getting very close to the breaking point. It must be addressed and solved very soon, or we will have catastrophic effects both for the Canadian farmers and the many people around the world whom we feed, yet we see nothing in the Throne Speech to address those specific concerns.
In my 1980 speech, I spoke as well of the concerns of the fishing industry, a very important sector in my constituency. I will at this point recognize the one positive item in the Throne Speech that I have come across, that is the increase in the fishing vessel assistance program. Aside from that, continuing low prices, and in some cases even decreased prices, for fish, along with the continuing stagnant economy, have made the fishing industry in Manitoba less viable today than it was in 1980. As well, the ongoing construction of the Garrison Diversion unit in North Dakota of which I have spoken often in this House, continues to pose further threats to the viability of this industry.
In 1980, I also spoke of the plight of my constituents who are natives. 1 said at that time that the natives of Selkirk-
The Address-Mr. Sargeant
Interlake were concerned about unemployment, the lack of adequate educational opportunity and the lack of decent housing. They are disturbed about the lack of understanding among the bureaucrats in the Department of Indian Affairs. They asked to be allowed to run their own lives, a not unreasonable request in Canada of the 1980s.
Very recently a report on Indian self-government was tabled in the House. It was a remarkable report, not only for its contents, which are bold, far-reaching and would go a long way toward addressing and eventually solving many of the concerns of Canadian Indians, but also remarkable for the process by which it was produced. Members of all Parties of this House, each with their own political interests and political biases, worked together with representatives of the Canadian Indians to reach this agreement.
It is no secret that Canadian Indians for very obvious reasons have come to distrust the white governments of this land. They have waited for over 200 years in this part of the country and for over 100 years in my part to be treated with the minimum of rspect deserving to human beings, but especially to Canada's first peoples. One group of Indian bands in my constituency has become so distrustful of the Ottawa Government that they do not believe in the good intentions of this report on self-government. They fear that it is simply a means of taking more power away from the Indians. Let me quote from an article in a recent edition of the Winnipeg Sun. quoting Chief Bill Traverse of the Jackhead Reserve in my constituency. It reads:
The new law is such that the Indian nations will be told how to run their governments and they'll be forced to deal with several departments, which only multiplies the troubles they now have with one Department of Indian Affairs.
I do not share Chief Traverse's concern at this time. Having played a very small part in the preparation of that report, I believe in the sincerity of its framers. I believe it will have very positive benefits for our natives if and when it is implemented.
The Government promised in the Throne Speech to implement that report. I say to the Government today that this is one time that it must live up to its promise to Canada's Indians. Indeed, it is absolutely imperative that we not let the Indians down yet again.
This Throne Speech does little for my constituents. It gives them very little hope that their lot is to improve in either the immediate or long-term future. Certainly we welcome the crumbs that will come from the few extra dollars available for Canada Works and other such programs. In these difficult times, we would be fools to reject even these small amounts. However, we want real jobs, real opportunities to live a full and decent life that we know our country is capable of providing to all Canadians, if only we had the governments with the guts to lead us in the directions necessary to provide those opportunities.
I would like to comment for a few moments on the peace initiative mentioned in this Throne Speech. We in this corner of the House certainly welcome the priority given by the Throne Speech to the pursuit of peace as a paramount goal of Canada and Canadians. As I said a few moments ago in this

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. Sargeant
speech and on numerous other occasions over the past few weeks, 1 and my Party are fully supportive of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his current mission to assist in breaking the logjam that is the present state of the arms reduction talks between the superpowers.
Most Canadians of all political stripes support the Prime Minister, with the possible exception of a few members of the Tory caucus who this morning heckled the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) when he was detailing some of the fears that many of us share about nuclear war. God knows that we in this Party have long called for the Canadian Government to play such an intermediary role.
While we support the Prime Minister's intentions, we have some serious problems with his actions. In the course of his current mission, the Prime Minister has used such words as "new, bold and innovative" among others, to describe what is needed to unblock the arms talks, yet this Throne Speech offers nothing that is new, bold or innovative. Indeed, it is a step back from what was contained in the 1980 Throne Speech. If I have time later, I will elaborate on that. The message I want to get to the Prime Minister today, a message that this Party has been trying to get him to understand for quite some time, is that he cannot work both sides of the street. On Friday the Prime Minister chided the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) for being so unwilling to taka a stand that he even tried to take both sides in the recent Grey Cup game. The Prime Minister should listen to his own words. If the Prime Minister is sincere in his stated desire to "create the conditions for greater security and lower levels of armament", as was stated in the Throne Speech, then he must change his Government's policy. If he wants to be taken seriously in his role as intermediary, not only by the world at large but particularly by the leaders of the two superpowers, without whose co-operation he cannot even begin to have success, then he cannot be slavishly tied to the foreign policy of one of those superpowers. Just think for a moment how receptive NATO would be to a peace initiative led by Czechoslovakia or East Germany, for instance. If the Prime Minister wants to be taken seriously in his stated desire to "slow the steady spiral of the arms race, halt the spread of nuclear weapons", then how can he allow his Government to continue to co-operate in that arms race?
Let me give you three examples of that co-operation, Mr. Speaker. The first and most obvious example is the Cruise missile. The development of this missile clearly violates one of the specific points in the Prime Minister's own strategy of suffocation, which was first enunciated at the 1978 special session on disarmament at the United Nations and reaffirmed in the 1980 Throne Speech. That specific point called for a stop to the flight testing of any new delivery system. It seems odd that the Government is pledging in the Throne Speech to expand resources for research and development on verification while at the same time it is aiding to develop a missile that is supposed to render verification meaningless.
The second example of this co-operation, Mr. Speaker, is the MX missile, a much more accurate ICBM than the current arsenal of Minuteman missiles. We know that Boeing of Canada and Bristol Aerospace, both situated in Winnipeg, have been doing R and D work for well over a year now on the MX re-entry vehicle system. We also know that the federal Government, through DIPP, has made an initial commitment to fund Boeing's bid for a production in the development of the Cruise missile guidance system to the tune of $48 million, the Government is directly contributing to a less stable international environment.
As well, Mr. Speaker, there is a third example of this co-operation. I have learned that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has been doing extremely accurate mapping of the earth's gravitational field in the Arctic. This information is passed on to the Department of National Defence which, 1 am told, passes it on to the United States to help increase the accuracy of its ICBMs.
It is all well and good for the Government to say that Canadian forces will not be armed with nuclear weapons, but these three examples show that its hands are dirty. It contributes to the growing instability and threat of nuclear war. The Government does not actually need to deploy the weapons to contribute to the instability which new generations of nuclear weapons bring to the international scene. An important and obvious point to be made is that by helping the United States develop its counterforce arsenal, we are only encouraging the Soviets to develop their own counterforce weapons systems. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister really wants to be effective in his mission, a mission in which we all desperately want him to succeed, and if the Prime Minister wants the continued support of all Canadians and all world citizens, then he must remove these contradictions.
Let me conclude by saying that I am worried for my country. I am worried because we are getting nothing meaningful from the tired, cynical and discredited Liberal Government. I am worried because we get nothing from the Tory Opposition. We get no definite alternatives except for a few simplistic Reaganite policies, which three and four years ago proved to be failures in both the United Kingdom and the United States and were rightfully abandoned. Canada needs a commitment to provide a decent quality of life to each and every Canadian through peace on the international scene and security at home. Sadly, neither the Government nor the Opposition offers this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake? If not, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell).


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne. Canadians for the most part are probably unaware that we have just started the second session of the Thirty-second Parliament and that on November 30, 1983, we closed the first session of the Thirty-second Parliament, which began

December 12, 1983
in April, 1980 and was the longest session of Parliament in Canadian history. It was an historic session because in those three and a half years, we have seen a world recession that took many Canadians by surprise. No one Canadian, 1 am sure, could have predicted at the beginning of 1980 how deep that recession would be. During that session, Parliament was presented with 200 Bills and it passed 150 pieces of legislation.
I might say that during that session, some great legislation was passed, beginning with the Constitution for Canada. The Canada Act brought the British North America Act to Canada with an amending formula, which may not be perfect but which allows Canadians to amend their Constitution. The Constitution also incorporates a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which will have an effect on Canadians for many years because Governments, both federal and provincial, as well as individuals and businesses, can now be challenged for violations of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
During the past session, we also implemented the National Energy Program. With this major government initiative, Canada should achieve energy self-sufficiency by 1990. Major oil and gas explorations are presently taking place on the East Coast because of this program. This economic activity has been good for Nova Scotia and 1 hope, with proper direction from industry and Governments, that program will continue to be developed and will bring a new prosperity to the East Coast.
Along with these two major endeavours of the Government, the six and five program was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) a year and a half ago. Canadians rose to the challenge of reducing inflation in Canada, and today the level of inflation is at 4.9 per cent. During this same period of time, Canada has seen its export trade increase. The Crow rate was reformed to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain. We on the East Coast in particular hope to see a continuation of the expansion of the fishing industry. 1 will return to that matter in a few moments.
Canadians everywhere are concerned with existing world tensions. I recently attended a school poster competition in one of the areas which I represent. The children in the elementary grades had been asked to draw posters indicating what peace in the world meant to them. Children reflect what adults feel. All of those posters reflected the need for peace.
1 am glad that the Speech from the Throne addresses the direction that this Government will take toward global peace, and 1 am pleased that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has launched Canada, through his personal initiatives, toward a goal of restoring the political will necessary for serious dialogue between the East and West on nuclear disarmament. As the Speech from the Throne so clearly states, Canadians need to continue to look for a global partnership for peace in order to ensure a national partnership for prosperity. We can only have that prosperity if the world is also working toward prosperity in a peaceful way.
The Speech from the Throne has been called an action program. It has been called a program which seeks to consolidate the gains of the past three years; a program to reduce inflation; to develop a new and more modern competitive
The Address-Miss Campbell
industrial base; to train the labour force for future jobs; to maintain the social safety net; and to protect and extend the rights of Canadians.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this debate also allows an opportunity for Members of Parliament to talk about the concerns which exist in their constituencies. My constituency. South West Nova, is in the southwestern end of Nova Scotia, and like many constituencies across Canada, it is a rural area. The largest town in the area, Yarmouth, is approximately
8,000	people. Yarmouth is a gateway to the United States for Canadians, and a gateway for Americans to visit Canada. The area has many years of experience in dealing with Americans. Early in our history the southern end of Nova Scotia carried on a great sailing trade with the Boston states. Today we maintain a ferry which goes between Nova Scotia and Maine year round, and during the summer a second ferry goes between the two areas. South West Nova is very dependent on the sea, but not only for trade, as we also have a good fishing industry.
1 have concerns about the over-all direction of the fishery on the East Coast. What assurances do we have that the two new companies will operate more efficiently than the old companies? My first concern, after the restructuring Bill, is the additional guarantees of more quotas to the fleets of these two companies. Mr. Speaker, these companies had tremendous supplies of fish in the past and will continue to have that supply; yet they could not market this supply efficiently. Why give them additional quotas to make them viable? Why not see if the operations can be managed properly with the supply they presently have?
The Kirby Task Force was a mistake in my view, because we had to wait two years for the solution and the solution should have been attended to two years ago. The Governments-and I add an "s" because provincial Governments are involved-should have helped those plants which could be efficient; they should have formed new ideas for the excesses Dr. Kirby talks about which existed either within the fishing industry or elsewhere; they should have separated the offshore fleet from the companies and have allowed the fleet to stay within its share of the total allowable catch but let it fish to onshore capacity. This would provide for better distribution of the resource both in terms of catching and in terms of marketing.
If this had been done two years ago, there would not be the problems of additional quotas for the two super-companies. Extra redfish in the Gulf and northern cod could be auctioned by this fleet throughout the Atlantic provinces to the processing plants.
The Nova Scotia inshore fishermen who have been able to market all their catch will not be protected by either Government in the new agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal Government. There will be no assurances written into the agreement for the inshore plants' supply of fish. In fact, the independents and fishermen who have survived the last two

December 12, 1983
The Address-Miss Campbell
years will not get additional increases in fish quotas, but the two new supercompanies will. They will be guaranteed access to the quotas for five years. My concerns arc real Mr. Speaker. Where will the fishing industry be in five years? Will the federal Government and the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland still be required to deal with the problems of the offshore groundfish industry? I may be pessimistic, Mr. Speaker, but my concerns reflect those of my constituents and other areas of the East Coast.
South West Nova is also a very good farming area. We have good dairy farmers, some beef farming and fruit farms. We have some of the best mink producers in Canada. We have an active hog industry, and we also have a very real involvement with forestry. The area has been protected to some extent from the recession because our local industry is based on primary resources and we have been able to sell our goods. However, Mr. Speaker, all these industries are seasonal and we are forever looking to acquire longer attachment to the work force for the people who make their homes in South West Nova. Because of the seasonality of employment we are perhaps an area, like many other areas in rural Canada, heavily involved in the unemployment insurance system and the need for job creation. I welcome the additional funding for employment programs, particularly the programs directed toward youth, which we heard about in the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to mention one employment program introduced this past summer by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts), which I think will be very beneficial for the people of Nova Scotia and, in particular. South West Nova. That is the Local Employment Assistance and Development Program better known as LEAD. It begins on April 1, 1984, and it is designed to respond to persistent local unemployment and economic problems that are communitywide in scope. The objective is to increase the number of permanent jobs by enabling community representative organizations to plan and carry out employment development activities that relate directly to the community's own objectives. Eligible communities include those with a population of less than 50,000 which would meet the following criteria: have an employment problem which is persistent and more serious than in the general area; have potential for increased employment; and have demonstrated a capacity for planning an economic development.
An important element of the LEAD Program is the community based sponsorship. Potential sponsors must demonstrate that they are representative of the whole community and not just of a particular segment. Another important aspect in the development of a community development plan is outlining the steps necessary for overcoming persistent unemployment in the community and how the LEAD program will assist in their implementation.
The LEAD Program will have two components-a project component and a corporation component. The project component provides funds to carry out specific activities related to, (a), enabling a community to prepare an analysis of its current position and a plan for reducing the level of unemployment,
called a planning project; (b), strengthening a community's economic infrastructure within the framework of a local development plan, called the infrastructure project; and (c), creating businesses through community plan development in harmony with regional development strategies, called the enterprise project.
The corporation component has the capacity to provide funds to LEAD corporations which, in turn, provide local businesses with planning technical and professional resources. Corporations will also invest in local businesses so as to result in the creation of new continuing jobs as part of an accepted development plan.
To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a very good program and I am looking forward to seeing communities throughout my area get organized and come forth with representative organizations which will plan and carry out employment development activities that relate directly to the community's own needs and will create permanent jobs.
When one considers the incentives presently under the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion offered to individuals who wish to start a manufacturing or processing business in areas such as South West Nova, one hopes that a combination of the LEAD Program and the Department of Regional and Industrial Expansion will be encouraged to work hand in hand to create permanent employment.
The DR IE Program offers incentives to businesses which wish to modernize or expand. This in itself is very different from the old DREE Program where the grant was for one time. In my view, over the past years this Government's programs have begun to take into account the rural nature of Canada and rural areas such as Southwest Nova.
To return to the Speech from the Throne, I am glad that a new Canada Health Act will be introduced during this session. It should clarify the objectives of Canada's health insurance system and ensure universal access to health care across Canada. Let me point out that we do not have user fees for hospital services in Nova Scotia. The people of our Province should make sure that we do not incorporate such user fees. Medicare should apply to all Canadians, not only to those living in their own Province but to Canadians who visit or wish to move to another province. I know that extra billing for medical services is creating concern. It is going on in Nova Scotia. Medical practitioners in recent years have seen their incomes reduced because of inflation. However, medical fee schedules are a matter for provinces and medical societies to negotiate. Apparently they are not doing this. Provinces may contend that they tolerate extra billing because they do not have enough money to compensate doctors adequately. I ask those provinces, have they really looked at their spending priorities? Perhaps they should state what funds are needed and raise them through general taxation. Introduction of the new Act should bring forth good public discussion on medicare and I look forward to that.
December 12, 1983

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in the Speech from the Throne on the single pensioner and the fact that the supplement for single pensioners will be increased is needed. The GIS did not take into account the single pensioner living alone and with expenses similar to those of the two-income pension family. I am glad to see that this injustice will now be remedied for the more than 700,000 single pensioners in Canada. This Government has produced good legislation over the last three and a half years. We have seen the programs and they have been for the benefit of Canadians. The Speech from the Throne gives the direction for this Government to follow. The future is there for all Canadians, and 1 am sure all Canadians will work to make Canada better.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the Hon. Member. I listened with considerable interest to her comments, especially as they applied to the fisheries legislation, the restructuring Bill as it was called, Bill C-170. At the time this Bill was debated in the House, examined in committee and brought back to the House for third and final reading I distinctly remember moving two amendments which would have dealt very closely with some of the concerns the Hon. Member expressed today. One dealt with accountability, which would have protected the investment by the Canadian public in this massive monstrosity, this controlling company being established in Atlantic Canada, and the possibility of a second one to be established now in our native Province. 1 ask the Hon. Member why at that time she did not speak out forcefully, as she is endeavouring to do today in support of my amendment?
Second, I would like to know just what happened between November 25, I think it was, when that Bill was given third and final reading, and the present time to make her change her mind and literally condemn the Government, as she is doing, in one breath for bringing in this type of Bill which is restrictive on private companies, and then in the second breath sort of congratulating the Government on the words in the Throne Speech. This puts her in a very contradictory position.
1 would like a further explanation of what happened to her when she got home and the independents contacted her, because obviously something has occurred which is putting her right in the middle of the fence, which is a very awkward position to be in.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is most unfair. He is well aware of the questions I asked witnesses in committee, the speech I made on second reading, and my answer to one of his proposed amendments. 1 have no qualms as far as my constituency goes about my feelings on Bill C-170. However, everyone in this House knows that sometimes there are more powerful forces than one Member of Parliament. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) comes from Central Nova, a small fishing constituency, and he said that they would pass the Bill in one day. We have the NDP, which said at first it was supporting the Bill. At the last minute in the House NDP Members came up and said no, they could not support it because of the banks. My concern was
The Address-Miss Carney
that 1 could not find five Members to stand up and vote on that day because there was an agreement among the parties not to have a vote. I have no qualms in saying that, yes, 1 can represent the concerns of one area in Canada, but there are 281 other Members in this Parliament to be considered. Whether it is a province or a Member of Parliament, I think that is what democracy is, where at least the concerns can be registered.
As far as the Hon. Member's question as to what has happened since is concerned, not too much has happened since. At the last committee hearing, we heard the Deputy Minister from Nova Scotia say that, yes, he wanted guarantees on fish resources written into the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal Government. We also know that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia want these agreements or they would not be sitting down. There were other ways this could have proceeded. The provinces want these resource allocations for five years to protect the two new supercompanies. That, to me, starts the whole ball rolling where people ask what the Governments are doing in saying how much quota is needed when those companies being restructured have not even been able to manage the quotas they have had for the last number of years. Why did we have the problem to begin with, the soft markets and so on, if they could have marketed good quality fish, all the fish that was out there? Do they need more now in order to make them economically viable? I do not feel that should be written into the agreement.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the Throne Speech today I was relieved that the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) took his extension of time to talk about energy policy. I thought that up to that point in the speech he gave the House he was on the campaign trail. He spent most of his speech discussing the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) made in the House last Friday. I can only say that if his comments on the Leader's speech are typical of what he hopes to say on the campaign trail, we can understand why the polls in Quebec show the Leader of the Opposition head and shoulders above the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as a potential Prime Minister of Canada.
I was also interested in the Member for South West Nova's (Miss Campbell) comments just now on the number of grants and job creation programs that she has in her riding. Some of us on the Opposition side are not in such a happy position. For instance, in my Canada Works Program this year the grant allotment for my riding was cut by more than half. Instead of the $330,000 we received last time, we were cut to $147,000. This is in one of the largest urban ridings in Canada. It is the headquarters of just about every volunteer or cultural organization in British Columbia. It was credited with an unemployment rate of 5 per cent, which is ridiculous considering the high unemployment in B.C., particularly among youth, many of whom live in my riding. It is ridiculous to try to cope with $4 million worth of applications when you receive a grant of $147,000 I can only conclude that the Liberal Members of this

December 12, 1983
The Address-Miss Carney
House are more fortunate than the Opposition Members when it comes to using taxpayers' money.
Returning to the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he cannot talk about his energy policy because he cannot talk his way out of the devastation that the National Energy Program has caused this country. It has lost jobs throughout western Canada and in Ontario and Quebec. He cannot talk about all of the orders that they have lost in Ontario and Quebec because the energy industry in parts of the country has been shut down.
For the last few weeks I have been crossing the country speaking with people in the energy industry, provincial premiers, people in the industry and workers who have lost their jobs. I have seen first hand what the Minister does not talk about. That is the small towns which have been so badly hit, the new shopping centres which have bankruptcy and store closing signs in their windows, and the empty houses that are standing abandoned or unsold because the energy boom was snuffed out by this Liberal Government. I have spoken with people who have lost their homes and lost their businesses through the activity of this Government. I have also spoken to industry. The Minister failed to discuss the impact of his policies on the drilling industry, which is one of the ones which is truly Canadian. If you want to look at a segment of the oil patch which is truly Canadian, it is the drilling industry. We have developed a lot of ability to build our own equipment and our own expertise. The drilling contractors I met with told me that in 1983, 210 rigs were drilling out of an available western Canadian fleet of 463. This is an average utilization of only 45.4 per cent, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the rate of utilization required to break even is 55 per cent. These people have been operating under those low levels of utilization now for two or three years. I was struck by a comment one of these people made as we sat around the table. He was talking about how the industry had been worn so much into the ground that they were having to cannibalize some of their rigs. He said to me, "We are a proud industry and we don't like to do that". The reason they have to do that can be laid on the doorstep of the Minister for Energy, Mines and Resources.
I talked to the premiers about the energy wars that were inflicted on the country by the actions of the Minister with the National Energy Program. While we discussed the issues that can separate a federal Conservative Government and some of the provincial Conservative Governments, which are tough issues which will not be easily resolved, we have unanimous agreement that at least when a Conservative Government sits down at the table with the premiers it will be without the knowledge that one level of Government in this country is trying to savage the other, which is the case under the present regime.
In addition to the fact that the Minister said very little about energy policy today, I would like to point out that the Throne Speech said very little regarding energy. It said:
Energy policy must continue to command the attention of Canadians. The framework for achieving our national goals of energy self-sufficiency and increased Canadian ownership was put in place with the passage of the National Energy Program. It now forms an integral part of the long-term planning of
energy companies, large and small. Petroleum Incentive Payments, in particular, encourage both new sources of supply and enhanced Canadian ownership. The Government will continue its strong commitment to the NEP in order to ensure that our goals are reached.
That of course, Mr. Speaker, is hogwash. If there is one area where the National Energy Program has totally misfired it is in seeking the three goals stated. I will be discussing what the Auditor General has to say about that in a moment. The goal of self-sufficiency has been retarded by this Government simply because exploration activity has been diverted from those areas of the country where we know we have oil and gas reserves and where we have resources like the tar sands. It has been diverted, at great costs, to areas of the country where we do not know whether we have oil and gas reserves. That slippage of time has meant that the whole goal of self-sufficiency has been retarded.
In terms of Canadianization, as 1 described earlier in my discussion with regard to the drilling contractors and some of the other Canadian supply and service companies, the NEP has hammered the Canadian side of the industry. It is well known that the people who have benefited the most from the NEP have been the multinationals. I also want to point out that, in terms of the goal of fairness, the NEP has been very unfair. It has pitted region against region. It has hurt industries. In terms of some of the component parts like the back-in, it truly has had an adverse effect on investment climate, ownership and other aspects which we consider when we talk about fairness.
What the Minister did say today was limited to a few elements. He said he was going to talk about the confiscation under the NEP, but in fact he did not talk about it. He says that the Opposition parties do not understand the back-in. Well we do all too clearly, Mr. Speaker. We understand that it is straightforward confiscation. 1 often use the example of a lottery. What the Government is saying there is the same as if it said to Canadians, "You go and buy five lottery tickets. If you win on one lottery ticket we will give you 25 cents and we will take 25 per cent of the pot. We will not pay you for the four that you bought on which you did not win, but we want a share of what you did win, without paying all the costs involved". He did not discuss that. He talked about the back-in in terms of Newfoundland. He talked about the back-in in terms of Nova Scotia, but he failed to say that the back-in provision in NWT and where it applies in the Yukon has very little to do with Canadian control and a lot to do with the desire of the Minister and his Department to run northern Canada under the thumb of the bureaucrats in Ottawa. That is one of the most sensitive points in northern Canada today. Seeing their resources, their lands and all their activities again run out of Ottawa instead of out of the Territories or out of the industry is a very sore point indeed.
The Minister talked about PIP. He talked about superdepletion being an unfair way of rewarding companies or as a tax incentive program for companies. We have more imagination than that, Mr. Speaker. It is correct that the old program introduced by the Liberal Government did not allow Canadian companies to participate, but that is a problem of lack of
December 12, 1983

imagination on that side of the House, not on ours. He talked about Saskatchewan and said that drilling is up in Saskatchewan. That is just ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. The reason that drilling is up in Saskatchewan has nothing to do with this Government. It has to do with the incentive program brought in by the Province of Saskatchewan, which in July, 1982 introduced new programs in which wells are exempt from provincial royalties during the first to the fifth years of production. This has resulted in the number of province-wide rigs increasing to 51 during the first week of September compared to 15 a year ago. This is an initiative of the Province of Saskatchewan, certainly not of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It tells us how little he has to boast about when he has to take credit for a provincial initiative.
He talked about stability. That is laughable in an industry which is reeling from chaos and is being brought to its knees by the National Energy Program. He says that stability is what the industry wants. I would say that what the industry wants, as it has told us over and over again, is a Conservative Government. That is the opinion of the industry both in the West and in central Canada whose order books have shown the lack of orders from the energy industry because of the National Energy Program. It has been noted in central Canada that a lot of the economic health of many towns and industrial sectors in Ontario is linked to having a healthy energy in the regions.
The Minister talked about the Beaufort and suggested that a Conservative government would reduce, cut back or abandon exploration in the Beaufort. Again, exploration in the Beaufort and our commitment to northern development is very well known. I have travelled and lived in the Northwest Territories.
I have travelled extensively in the rest of the Arctic. 1 should point out that the only MPs representing the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, at least the Mackenzie and the Yukon, come from this side of the House. The other MP from the other part of the Northwest Territories was elected as an Opposition Member but chose to make the error of joining the Government side.
The Minister also talked about our Leader closing down a town. I presume he was referring to Schefferville. I would like to make the point that the Minister has shut down the country as a whole.
In view of the remarks made by the Minister I would like to deal briefly with employment in mining towns in the North. 1 would like to refer to one particular case where an entire town was closed. One labour union local said that it was stunned by the news and first heard of the devastating news on the radio or by word of mouth. Local 1561 of CUPE stated that it was given no time to prepare for this unnatural disaster. The work-force of 830 miners and ancillary workers were put on notice on December 3 that as the following June, a seven-month period, the mine was closing and their jobs would disappear. They state that the work-force of 830 was actively encouraged to leave. Who would not leave under those circum-
The Address-Miss Carney
stances? Employees were offered severance of four weeks' salary for the first year of service, which is a month's stay, and two weeks' severance for each additional year of service. Before I forget, the name of the town was Uranium City and the employer was the federal Government through its Crown corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Ltd.
I would like to quote what the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in the House on the closing of Uranium City, as reported at page 13726 of Hansard on December 4, 1981. He said:
As my hon. friend knows, mining is non-renewable. Mining at Uranium City is in an area where ore is declining. There has been a decline of the quality of the ore by something like 40 per cent; plus there has been a decline in the price by 50 per cent. Two other mines under private ownership in the area have closed in the last few years. Eldorado has tried to continue the operation of this mine as long as possible.
1 have made personal examination of the issue. Unfortunately, I have had to come to the conclusion that the Eldorado decision was the right one in the circumstances.
Anyone who does his homework understands that when ore bodies run out, the economic activity is reduced.
I would like to quote from a letter from the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) to the Leader of the Opposition when he was President of the Iron Ore Company. It is worth reading what she said into the record. He said:
Firstly, I have noted with great interest your company's compensation and relocation program for the workers affected by the closure of your Schefferville operation. I think that your actions in this regard are commendable.
She went on to say:
I would like to assure you that your efforts in diversifying the economic base of Schefferville are of high interest to me and that Energy, Mines and Resources Canada will do what it can to support your efforts.
I would like to move on to what the Auditor General said today about the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, in the comprehensive report on the Department's activities. I think it is important to note that, over-all, the Auditor General told us that there had been no comprehensive review of the goals of the NEP. He said that the 40-odd programs that make up the NEP, which amounts to billions and billions of dollars, are not being assessed in terms of whether they are reaching the three goals of self-sufficiency, Canadianization and fairness. These are goals which, as I previously pointed out, arc not being met. In fact, they have been constrained by the National Energy Program.
In terms of the Petroleum Incentives Program, the Auditor General points out that there will be no evaluation of that Program until 1986 when it is scheduled to end. He pointed out that billions and billions of dollars will be spent under this open-ended and "demand driven" program. Yet there has been no attempt to evaluate even its success ratio. It seems appalling to Members on this side of the House that no attempt is being made to determine whether the ratio of discoveries of oil and gas reserves compared to the footage drilled is in line with the traditional industry experience. The reason the Government does not want to do that kind of evaluation is simply that it will find out that it is far out of line and that decisions for

December 12. 1983
The Address-Miss Carney
the PIP grants are made much more in terms of amortizing expensive equipment than geology.
There is a damming indictment of the Canadian ownership charge. The Auditor General states in his report that he could not find anyone in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources who was taking responsibility for the Canadian ownership account. Yet this account attracts approximately $1 billion in revenue every year. It was the Canadian ownership account, which is being paid by the taxpayers through the purchase of gasoline, that was used to pay for Petro-Canada's acquisition of Petrofina. The Auditor General stated, "It is unclear to us who has prime responsibility for the Canadian ownership account". In the lock-up today he told us that he could not find one civil servant who would accept responsibility for watching the money.
He also pointed out that there is a weakness in managing public funds in regard to the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. This was a SI.7 billion acquisition, yet the Auditor General, states that he has been unable to ascertain whether "due regard to economy has been demonstrated or achieved in respect of the $1.7 billion acquisition of Petrofina because of the lack of evidence of a pre-acquisition evaluation." He pointed out that he had asked for this information in 1982 and during the audit of EMR in 1982-83. His department asked for this information again in the subsequent year and was repeatedly told by Petro-Canada that it is none of the Auditor General's business. Unfortunately, this kind of evaluation of assets is very important because it would tell us in fact whether there was $1.7 billion worth of assets in Petrofina at the time it was acquired. We know from the market at the time that a great bonus was paid for the acquisition of Petrofina. I suggest that as taxpayers we are entitled to find out what was the actual value of the assets that were bought and what their value is now.
I would also point out that the Auditor General commented on a very unusual bridge financing arrangement offered to Petro-Canada. Simply stated, Petrofina was involved in a transaction which led to a gain by Petro-Canada of $60.7 million in a tax deduction. If any other company had been involved in a transaction such as that, it would owe the Government of Canada $60.7 million. However, Petro-Canada was exempted.
It was also pointed out by the Auditor General that the foreign shareholders of Petrofina were allowed a capital gains tax exemption which was not available to Canadians generally.
1 could go on, but my time has run out. However, 1 do want to underline that the Minister failed to come to grips with some of the problems outlined by the Auditor General and he failed to discuss the necessary amendments to the National Energy Program which are required if we are to have a healthy energy industry in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, answers, comments? Debate.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this most recent Speech from the Throne comes at a time when the world is emerging from a particularly difficult recession, the worst in the last 30 years, and one which has caused great pain and suffering to all the OECD countries.
On October 3, 1 and other Members of this House were at Strasbourg for the OECD debate and we heard the Secretary General of the OECD say that conditions for economic recovery in the OECD countries are more favourable today than they have been for several years. At the same time he warned that economic performance and outlook are not entirely reassuring, particularly because:
Our inability to provide employment opportunities for millions of people who would like to work is unacceptable on economic, political and moral grounds.
In addition, Mr. van Lennep, the Secretary General of the OECD, pointed to "unresolved questions" in the areas of finance and trade. He went on to say that converting the recovery into sustained growth required steadiness and international co-operation in the areas of monetary and fiscal policy.
In the Speech from the Throne, we have that same emphasis on steadiness. We have no dramatic changes of policy, but we do have an appeal for global partnership for peace and a national partnership for prosperity. The Speech from the Throne concentrates on the main concerns of Canadians: jobs, peace, economic growth and opportunity, personal and social security and a confident sense of Canadian identity. The speech seeks to respond to the grave economic difficulties of the past three years, but specifically by direct job creation, mortgage payment protection and regular consultative mechanisms with business, labour and the provinces.
As we are beginning a new session of Parliament we have had available to us a particularly interesting report from the Economic Council of Canada called "On the Mend", the 1983 annual review. Some of the data in that report are particularly useful as we look back over the past 20 years and as we look at the tremendous shocks our economy has suffered in the last two or three years and then try to proceed to chart a way to go on.
Looking back over the last 20 years, the Economic Council's review put a lot of stress on safety nets that Canadians have built: social assistance, unemployment insurance, health insurance and pensions. Although this last recession, from which we arc now emerging, has been painful and has left many Canadians unemployed, at least there have been safety nets which Canadians have put in place over the past 20 years which have protected families from some of the worst distresses involved in being unemployed.
Over the past 20 years, too, Canadians have been spending more on secondary education and post-secondary education, whereas traditionally Canadians had on average less years of formal education than Americans. That situation has now been corrected. We now have a work force better educated, more travelled and more familiar with change. This will be a tremendous asset in the future. We are certainly in an era that
December 1 2, 1983

is calling for very rapid change and great flexibility in the work force.
Although family incomes stalled during the recession, they have increased greatly over past decades. In fact, a 47 per cent increase occurred during the 1965 to 1975 period. This, of course, is due in part to women entering the work force, but it is also in part due to the growing economy. Canadians have become accustomed to a growing economy and were naturally very distressed during the past 2.5 years when what had seemed to be a very reasonable and dependable expectation did not materialize.
There are some other interesting figures in a brief prepared by the Bank of Montreal which was recently presented to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Economic Prospects for Canada. In that brief the writers say:
Canada's potential is great. But realizing that potential will prove elusive unless Canada is prepared to make the adjustments required to become increasingly competitive in an increasingly competitive world economy.
This brief also pointed out the very substantial Canadian progress between the years of 1948 and 1981 when real GNP increased by about 450 per cent, employment went up by more than 200 per cent, and real per capita personal income, after taxes-probably the best measure of Canadian living standards-rose by about 250 per cent.
Canadians have become accustomed to a gradual improvement in being able to rely on higher expectations and on greater equality of opportunity. The question is how to manage this as we come out of the recession. The Economic Council of Canada put tremendous emphasis on two elements, increased trade and increased productivity. These two elements also received attention in the Speech from the Throne with some very specific measures to improve our trading performance, crucial to Canada since, as a trading nation, 30 per cent of our GNP is directly related to trade. Also, the question of productivity received a lot of attention, as it should. 1 think that with most Canadians we are still struggling for a definition of what we mean by productivity. I was interested to note that even during the OECD debate in Strasbourg when a Canadian Senator asked an OECD official for a definition of productivity, for an explanation of why productivity was lagging in all the industrialized countries of the world, that definition was not forthcoming. To many people productivity seems to mean working harder and attempting to squeeze more work our of the worker without rewarding him. That kind of definition makes no sense in our times. Productivity has to be looked at in a very broad way. If we are to engage labour in improving productivity, it certainly must have a human face and there must be rewards for workers. Improving productivity has to mean increased investment. It certainly has to mean efficient plant, because the best worker in the world cannot produce with obsolete equipment and cannot remain competitive with obsolete equipment. It has to mean good labour relationships. It has to be a situation where a worker can put forward suggestions, because the person doing the job usually has very good ideas about how to do it better. Workers need to feel that if they can find ways of increasing productivity, they are also
The Address-Miss Nicholson
opening up for themselves possibilities of more interesting and more worth-while jobs and possibilities of more autonomy.
Finally, we are not paying enough attention in the debate on productivity to occupational health and safety. People still become concerned about the number of days lost to strikes and forget that we lose far more days of work in our country as a result of accidents, industrial injuries and industrial-related illnesses. In my constituency office on any Saturday, I can see a man who is proud, who has worked hard all his life and who wants to work, a man to whom it is extremely important that he provide well for his children, but a serious accident has rendered him unable to work, has taken away his self-respect and left him struggling on the meagre allowances of workmen's compensation or Canada pension disability, as the case may be. The human costs of this are tremendous. The economic costs to Canada arc also high.
I was glad to see that the Speech from the Throne made a firm commitment to introducing amendments to the Canada Labour Code concerning health and safety. I also hope that in the course of that debate the speeches of Hon. Members will stir up an increased sensitivity to and awareness of that problem in Canada.
At this time, OECD has projected that the Canadian economic recovery will be strong, that inflation will decline further and, obviously, that as inflation declines interest rates will come down. The firms which are now coming out from under a crushing burden of debt are able to start to consider expanding and so reducing our terribly high unemployment figures. Canadian growth is expected to be about average among OECD countries in 1983 but the highest of the seven largest countries in 1984. Inflation is expected to fall further in 1984. The strength of Canada's economic comeback was noted recently by a British magazine, Euromoney, which rated 93 different nations from the standpoints of economic growth, inflation, currency strength, exports and balance of payments in the past year. Canada's combined performance coming out of the recession was ranked first, while that of the United States was ranked fourth on that particular measure. Comparisons with other countries are perhaps reassuring up to a point. They are worth making in order to encourage us to continue, but they certainly can never be used as a reason for not doing more, particularly in the field of job creation.
The Speech from the Throne put more stress on job creation, particularly for young people who have suffered during the recession. Furthermore, the Speech from the Throne placed much emphasis upon peace, because unless we have peace in our times, the most brilliant economic insights and attempts will avail us nothing. Perhaps there are many different views on the best ways to achieve this. Those who prefer to concentrate their efforts on reduction of one particular kind of armament versus another have strongly-held views. Those of us who consider that the best way to achieve peace is through international negotiations and through diplomatic and political measures in international forums have another point of view.

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. A. Hamilton While we disagree on the methods, there is surely no one who disagrees that the most important problem facing Canada and the world at this particular time is to bring about peace and to reduce spending on arms. When one looks at the spending on armaments compared with the spending on aid to under-veloped countries, the contrast is appalling.
The Speech from the Throne also emphasized an increase in aid to underdeveloped countries. This is something Canadians have always supported for humanitarian reasons, and rightly so. However, it must be remembered that, as well as for humanitarian reasons, as underdeveloped countries start to improve their situation, become trading partners and become able to buy our goods, there are also clear economic advantages to Canada. The debt burden of some Third World countries presents great concern to the industrialized world. The question of direct investment in Third World countries has often been recommended as one way to assist. Of course, energy costs remain very high for some Third World countries which are more particularly vulnerable to past OPEC shocks. Also, some Third World countries where people have barely enough to eat are spending their meagre resources on armaments. The sooner we have sensible, well-negotiated, agreed upon plans for arms reduction, the sooner the whole world can move forward together toward a better future.
In Canada we have traditionally relied upon the private sector as the engine of growth. We continue to rely largely on the private sector to create jobs, but we have also expected that those who benefit from economic well-being in our country will be socially responsible and will be pleased to share some of the fruits of their success with those less fortunate so as to increase opportunities for all.
The Speech from the Throne maintained the Government's commitment to the social security network and to medicare because, while what everyone wants is a job and independence, there is no escaping the fact that people get old, frail and sick, and that in a civilized society there must be ways to protect such people.
In conclusion, the Speech from the Throne is not a dramatic document, but these are not times for drama. It is a logical, progressive and coherent statement of what needs to be done to maintain our traditional commitments, accepting the facts that we are coming out of a very harsh recession, that the mood is generally one of cautious optimism, and that there are measures which will enhance and push forward that trend which is also an international trend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments, answers? Debate.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have been around here for some time. This is the first time 1 have ever spoken in a speech from the Throne Speech debate, so it is my maiden speech. I want to make one or two comments about the debate thus far. After we heard the Speech from the Throne, we knew that an election was
being planned. On Leader's Day we had a good example of a contrast between Irish irony and Irish humour on the one hand and of the dialetics of Middle Age on the other. I would like to get down to some serious matters which the previous speaker mentioned and which should be emphasized.
At this moment in our history, the greatest single problem on an economic side that faces our country and every other country is the fact that we have an interest rate level that is destroying not only individuals, but small companies, big companies and countries. In this moment of financial crisis in the world, our Speech from the Throne should direct its attention to this major question. We begin to participate in a debate that is going on all over the world with only one exception that affects us, that is Canada.
When I read the speeches and articles and when I talk to people all over the world about what the problem is, it always comes back to the fact that there is no chance for a revival of the Third World countries, and certainly no chance for the revival of most of the western world countries, as long as we continue with this outworn nonsense that interest rates should be used to protect us against inflation. Interest is inflation. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) had read the speech that I delivered here two weeks ago today on mining tax changes, he would have read my statement that over most of its history, the biggest cost for the oil and gas industry has been interest. That is how the Big Seven, the big oil companies of the world, have controlled the oil and gas industry. Only they have enough reserves of earned income to pull through those periods.
The oil regulations that the Minister spoke about in effect turned our oil reserves over to outsiders. He honestly thought, on the advice of those who advised him, that he was pushing a pro-Canadian ownership policy. The only reason, and the only good thing about the PIPs Program is the fact that you pay people to explore to find no oil. If they ever find oil and gas, they are in trouble. That is the way it works. I am not going to waste my time on that argument at this moment.
1 want to get back to the question of interest rates. There are several ways of handling this. I will just speak of one way to tackle the inflation that is still with us. The debate is going on that we should raise taxes and interest rates to stop inflation from coming again. This debate is going on at the high levels of government and the Department of Finance. We have a clash between the Minister and some of his top civil servants. The civil servants are divided on the issue. We know there are debates going on in the Department of Finance. Why not in this House? Why is this debate not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne?
Many remarks were made about policy, asking the Opposition to bring forward policies. My God, I have been in this House the last two years and I have seen policies put forward over and over again. I have seen cases where the government side listened. Go back to interest rates on farm production, farming, the export industry, research and all the rest of it and read the debates of two years ago. They are all there.
December 12, 1983

Just recently, and this is dated November 25, the spokesman for this Party got a great headline by saying: "Crosbie likes Party's policy mystery". 1 read through that article. Listen to what he said:
Mr. Crosbie says that if he were finance minister tomorrow he would keep the deficit on its target of $30 billion or so but would cut taxes to do so, not raise spending.
What is that but policy? This is not the only thing. The budget of 1979 was released by the same hon. gentleman. 1 have read this quote into the record before and I will read it again. It is taken from a special edition of The Public Interest. The heading is: "The dissolution of the Keynesian consensus" by James W. Dean, It was dated in the fall of 1980. 1 quote:
On December 13, 1979, the Government of Canada fell. For just six months the Conservatives had governed with a parliamentary minority, and they were defeated on a vote of no confidence. The issue was their first budget-a budget that rejected Keynesian economic policies, replacing them with radically different recommendations. Unemployment and slow growth were to be fought not by increasing the federal deficit but by reducing it.
This was a turnabout in what the Conservatives had recommended in Opposition just a year before.
Their turnabout mirrored that of much of the economics profession throughout the English-speaking world. It was the decade's last dramatic reflection of a dissolving Keynesian consensus. This paper traces how that dissolution came about.
That is not new in Conservative thinking. I now pick up a document 30 years old, the official Conservative policy. 1 will read part of it as follows:
It is a program that means spending money to make money. Besides providing jobs and justice for all groups and regions it will provide greater revenue that will enable us to lower present rates of taxes and pay for additional services to the people at the same time. It is the heart of the P.C. Party's answer to the needs of the people.
For 30 years we have been trying to put forward something that was exactly the opposite to what the orthodox economists in Canada were saying and what the officials in our Government were saying. We even set up under the Government that took over in 1957 the Economic Council of Canada so that different advice would be coming into the Government instead of just from our own department. Everybody remembers the then Governor of the Bank of Canada being the last one to resist and this Parliament asking that he resign. Now all that is history but it is still fact because the debate goes on in every other country but this one. The whole world is hanging above the edge of a knife. I think of the conversations that are going on between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. One is pleading with governments to tangle with this problem because we cannot let these 80 nations of the Third World sink in the mire in which they find themselves without hurting ourselves. It all returns to interest rate policies. 1 will not say anything more about that.
In the United States, the debate goes on just as furiously as ever. An article in Maclean's magazine of December 12, 1983, in referring to the economic adviser to the President of the United States, reads as follows:
The Address-Mr. A. Hamilton
-he declared that he will remain at his post until his scheduled departure next summer. Feldstein insists that tax increases are necessary to reduce the deficit. Otherwise, he says, the treasury's borrowing needs would compete with the private sector in the capital markets, pushing interest rates higher and aborting the recovery.
That is the orthodox view. Reading on, we find that the President's advisers have repudiated that and will still be driving hard for lower interest rates.
The summer 1983 edition of The Public Interest, when referring to the 1981 budget in the United States, reads as follows:
The Reagan administration's cuts in tax rates, halting though they were and counteracted by tax increases mainly for social security-were first denounced as "wildly inflationary.''Then the tax cuts were blamed for "huge structural deficits" ... and thus stifle any prospective economic recovery.
This is the criticism levelled by all of the media in Canada and most of the media in the United States at the Reagan administration. The article continues:
And from the beginning critics attacked the Reagan program for favoring the rich by shifting the tax burden onto the poor.
The record, of course, has been quite different.
The article is now referring to 1983.
Inflation has plummeted. Interest rates have dropped, despite regular increases in the projected structural deficit. And perhaps most startling to conventional economists, the tax burden actually shifted toward the "rich, as government revenues rose smartly in precisely those higher income brackets where the deepest real tax cuts were achieved.
Let me quote the following figure loudly and clearly:
A movement out of tax shelters after the top rate dropped from 70 to 50 percent resulted in an 11 percent rise in tax payments from higher incomes in FY 1982. As measured by quarterly "estimated" and non-withheld tax receipts, tax payments of top earners rose from $76 billion in fiscal 1981 to $85 billion in 1982In all of the comments that I have heard around this House about Reaganomics, no one has ever given the results of this program. The program of reducing taxes from 70 percent to 50 percent was intended to be a gift to the rich. What happened? The rich did not have to look for tax havens. They are quite ready to pay a 50 percent tax, which to them is quite reasonable after paying 70 percent for all of those years. Who got the benefit? The tax collector got the benefit to the extent of $9 billion.
This is not a new phenomenon. In the Kennedy budget of 1963, the taxes were reduced on a number of items. President Kennedy did not live to see it, but by 1965 President Johnson was able to announce to the world that the Kennedy budget took a $9 billion deficit and reduced it to a $10 billion surplus in a one-year period. He was able to say, wrongly as it turned out, that they could now afford both the Viet Nam war and the social programs.
1 shall conclude this part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we should look at the facts. Let us quit listening to these fantastic statements. The facts tell us that by reducing taxes, and we do not know how much it helps, to a certain degree we do bring in more revenue and we are able to afford these other programs.

December 12, 1983
The Address-Mr. A. Hamilton
The second item I would like to have seen discussed intelligently in the Speech from the Throne is the question of unemployment. Unemployment can be seen as a social phenomenon or it can be seen as an economic phenomenon. We all look at it as a social phenomenon because it satisfies our humanitarian instincts. As a result, we have programs of handouts here and handouts there with temporary jobs, thereby destroying the will and self-respect of the people we are trying to help, much in the same way as foreign aid destroys the countries to which it has been given.
There is another way to look at unemployment which appeared many years ago at the Economic Council that was put up as opposition to the type of advice we were getting from the departments. We can look at unemployment as an asset of the labour force, human assets willing to work, do something and make money. Once we begin to put the economic test to unemployment and look at it as an economic phenomenon, then we begin adjusting the system. It is so easily done. We not only provide jobs but we make everyone happier and more wealthy. Even the tax collector gets more money.
We are moving away from the large scale corporations with scientific management from the Harvard School of Business. These corporations have let us down badly. The economy of large scale business is gone and the only ones who will be able to use that economy for the next two or three decades are the Third World nations which have huge labour supplies.
What an opportunity there is here. All of the figures since the war show an increase in the service industries, and the service industries of the future will be the knowledge industries. All these young men and women can do many things. Not only will they be learning at the same time they are working but they will be making money for their country and they will have pride in themselves. 1 could go on and give you the details of that concept, Mr. Speaker. The concept of building things with our new high-tech combined with low-tech requires that these young people learn the whole time they are working in a flexible industry. The marketing and servicing of these products will require many more people than the producing of them.
Our future is not black. It is a future of hope. Handouts are not the answer. The answer is to look at the opportunities that exist to make money. In that way, we maintain the pride of the people who are engaged in that work because they are growing in knowledge, their pocketbooks are full and they feel good inside because they are helping other people.
Look at our own country. Every time we encourage people to insulate their homes in order to keep the cold air out, we are keeping out the fresh air. Look at the work that can be provided for people, not only in this country but in the whole world, by providing cleaner air in our homes. Who leads the world in this knowledge? Canadian entrepreneurs do.
Every province in the country with one exception has laws to stop the recycling of water. With the knowledge that we have had for 30 years, there is the opportunity to build the equipment which is not capital intensive that can give us not only clean air but can give us clean water in our homes at a much
reduced cost. We can get cleaner and better air and water than the air and water we get from the old sources.
Ten years ago, 1 got up in the House to ask the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources if he would not tell the people of Canada about a certain development that had been made by the scientists of the federal Government and the Ontario Research Council who were working together. He knew what I was talking about because I used the code name of the development. He said: "You tell them, not me". This same gentleman is now the head of a royal commission which is examining the future of Canada. I wonder why he did not tell the people of Canada what an opportunity there is to have clean air and clean water in their homes. Every home, whether a private home or a tenement, should have clean air and clean water and renewable energy. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker.
I say bluntly and flatly to the House that with our knowledge of handling our forests, our agricultural areas and our fishing reserves, we could double or triple our production and do it more cheaply. We could employ more people to produce more wealth than we have ever dreamed about by using the knowledge that we have. All it would take is for this knowledge to be turned over to the people and let them get together to put it in io practice. The little guy would make money and we would all make money.
There has been some talk about peace in the country during this last year or so. Let me put it bluntly, Mr. Speaker: Peace cannot be achieved by conferences. Peace is only obtained by people working and trading together. I see Governments all over the world, including Canada, organizing their departments to put trade together with foreign affairs. There is mpney to be made this way; everyone would be better off. The fastest way to bring peace about would be to get the Russians to agree with the French and Germans. This could be done by showing them how they could make money out of their waste, but nothing is achieved unless there is a will. Mr. Speaker.
Let us get back on track in Parliament and return to the days when we tried to get at the question of trade through UNCTAD. Better still, let us take all these new Canadians who come here from all over the world and those Canadians who have a little bit of backbone and put them into the business of establishing trading companies where they can move tremendous amounts of goods from one country to another without the interference of Government. We should tell them that if they take a risk and run for the first five years or so with a negative cash flow, there would be no taxes payable if they were expanding trade. These groups of half a dozen people or so would bring in billions of dollars of trade at very little cost to the participants. It does not have to be bilateral trade, it could be trilateral.
I plead with Hon. Members not to think that we can win peace unless we are prepared to trade and work with others.
December 12, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions, comments or debate.
May I indicate to Hon. Members that the Chair is obligated to put the motion at 5.45 p.rn. 1 do not see any Hon. Member standing for the purpose of debate. Is it the wish of the House that 1 call it 5.45 p.m. and put the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being 5.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Section 3 of Standing Order 42, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the subamendment. Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Blaikie, moves:
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,".
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
It being 6.16 p.m., this House stands adjourned until II a.m. tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Tuesday, December 13, 1983