1983-12-08

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, a significant part of the peace initiative of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is directed towards a universal appeal for a dialogue on peace and disarmament. The humanitarian goals that the Prime Minister had set for himself were, in brief, to create an international political climate, to make constructive proposals on disarmament and to make the world aware of the impending nuclear holocaust. The Prime Minister's peace initiative has won wide support in my riding. I was particularly impressed by the spontaneous endeavour of an Algonquin College group which, with the support of its president, Mr. Brian Ash, has launched an open-letter campaign. This letter will bear the signatures of hundreds of people and will be published around Christmas in French and in English newspapers. I should like to read that letter.
Dear Fellow Canadians:
There are over four billion of us on earth. Our political ideologies, economic systems and religious beliefs are different. But, we do have one thing in common: we do not want to be killed by nuclear weapons and radioactive fallout... we and our children WANT TO LIVE.
Therefore, we support any peace initiative aimed at lessening tensions, restoring the dialogue, and eliminating the nuclear threat among the nations of the world. We urge our fellow Canadians and people throughout the world to tell their heads of state and state publicly in their respective countries that they WANT TO LIVE without the nuclear threat.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that my colleagues in the House will join me and commend the Algonquin College for this initiative.


THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, an ex-Cabinet Minister of the Government said recently that this Liberal Government "operates on cynicism, ballyhoo and manipulation". The Throne Speech we heard yesterday is a masterpiece of ballyhoo and deception. While it was said in the Speech that an expanded shop Canadian program will be launched, one of the Government's own Ministers is urging Canadians to buy Russian-made farm machinery. A while ago the Soviet Communists shot down a Korean jet, murdering 10 Canadians, and the Russian Embassy would not even accept a note from the Canadian Government. Now this Cabinet is asking Canadians to ignore the investment in the manufacturing of farm machinery in Canada, to ignore jobs for Canadians, and buy communist-made farm equipment. Talk about cynicism!
Again it was said in the Speech that the Government "will take steps so that Canadians can be better assured of security, dignity and fulfilment in retirement". Yet this same Government has ruined the last years of hundreds of our farmers and businessmen who have spent some 50 years building up a nest egg for a decent retirement, through the cruel capital gains tax. Talk about ballyhoo!
The Liberal Member of Parliament for York West (Mr. Fleming) summed it up nicely when he said, and I quote, "If we (the Government) stay this way, we are dead". Right on! All we have to do now is to have an election so we can give this Liberal Government a decent burial.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) met officials of the European Economic Community in Brussels on December 6 in an attempt to persuade them against imposing new restrictions on January 1, 1984, which could be prejudicial to Canada's $450 million worth of exports of newsprint to the European Community. This question was on the agenda at the meeting in Newfoundland last May between members of the Canadian and European Parliaments, when Canadian parliamentarians from all Parties stressed the serious problem facing Canadian newsprint exporters in 1984 if the Commu-

December 8, 1983
nity went ahead with its plan to lower its quota for duty-free newsprint imports from Canada.
The negotiated GATT duty-free quota is 1.5 million tonnes. The proposed new quota could reduce it to as low as 400,000 tonnes. While Canada did not export to its full quota limit last year, this was exceptional and due mainly to the keen Swedish competition resulting from devaluation of the Swedish currency. However, in 1984, because of the EEC-Sweden free trade agreement, Sweden, Canada's main competitor, will be able to sell an unlimited quantity of newsprint duty-free to the Community. Several Canadian parliamentarians, and again I stress from all sides of the House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but the time allotted has expired.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech yesterday the Government said:
The maximum for advance payments for grain will be increased. Amendments will be introduced to the Western Grain Stabilization Act to make it more responsive to the needs of producers.
We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, have long advocated that just such a thing happen. We want to signal to the Government that, if it is really serious about doing something in this area, we are prepared to support it. In fact the previous Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) said back in June that when the House came back in September we could look forward to increases in cash advances. However, nothing has happened.
We would encourage the Government to do something instead of just giving us rhetoric about it. We urge the Government to do something. What that would do is signal to the industry that someone cares and someone is concerned, and it would signal that there is some hope for Canadians who want to be productive and want to continue to produce.
1 would also say to the Government that, if it is really serious about many of the other things which were mentioned in the Throne Speech, and if it is prepared to proceed with legislation which is proper, we are prepared to support it on this side of the House.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE-FUNDS ALLOTTED FOR JOB CREATION
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, further to yesterday's Throne Speech, 1 am very pleased to see the
Government is going to put particular emphasis on job creation, especially under the Canada Works programs, and many Members on this side of the House and, in fact, all political parties have been talking about the job creation situation. I am very pleased to be able to inform my constituents that our representations were accepted by the Government and that we have been able to earmark additional funds for job creation. As the House is aware, private enterprise agreed to submit projects under the Canada Works Program. In fact, the private sector's response was very satisfactory. Any number of suitable projects were submitted, but we needed additional funding.
It is also important to point out that the emphasis has been put on job creation for youth, and thanks to the establishment of a new Ministry of State for Youth which will oversee job creation activities aimed at young people as well as various existing programs, 1 believe the government has diagnosed a major problem of our economy as it affects our young people, and it was high time something was done about it. This is one of our major concerns on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, a concern that received an admirable response in the Throne Speech yesterday and I think Canadians are very pleased with the news concerning job creation and especially job creation among young people, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week 150 religious women, 140 American and 10 Canadian, attempted to visit Honduras on a pilgrimage of peace to mark the third anniversary of the murder of four American nuns in 1980 in El Salvador. On arriving in Tegucigalpa their aircraft was surrounded by soldiers and the women were not permitted to leave the aircraft. They were told to return home, even though they asked to see Canadian and American officials. On returning to the United States they attempted to find out why this happened. 1 demand to know if the Government of Canada has carefully documented this incident, and has it made representations to the Honduran Government on behalf of the Canadian people involved?
Canada has had a long history of missionary work in Honduras. There are many Canadian missionaries there, and I would be concerned about their welfare. 1 would also like to ask: What is this friendly country? Is it democratic and religious when it allows thousands of foreign troops to be there preparing for an invasion of Nicaragua? At the same time it will not permit 150 women of peace to go and pray for peace.
I ask the Government of Canada to investigate this incident thoroughly, and seriously consider whether or not we should
December 8, 1983

cut off all aid to Honduras until it changes its policies in Central America.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, this is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On behalf of the Parliamentary Group on Soviet Jewry, I appeal to the Government of the U.S.S.R. to alleviate the presently deteriorating condition of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union.
In the past three years Jewish emigration from the U.S.S.R. has been on a steady decline. In 1983 it will be less than 3 per cent of the 1979 figure, notwithstanding the tens of thousands of Jews who have declared their intention and desire to leave. There are thousands of Soviet Jews who have been denied exit visas, many waiting for over 10 years. Jews continue to be singled out and imprisoned, with Dr. Joseph Begun being the most egregious example of a man now imprisoned for no crime other than his desire to teach the Hebrew language. Members of the Jewish community have been harassed and threatened for simply attempting to pray, to learn Hebrew, or to learn about their cultural heritage.
The Soviet Union has embarked upon a campaign of antiSemitism designed to vilify the Jewish community. This campaign accuses those who desire to maintain a Jewish life or learn Hebrew of being traitors to the U.S.S.R. The recent formation of the Anti-Zionist Committee of the Soviet Public can only further serve to create an atmosphere of anti-Semitism.
We call upon the Government of the Soviet Union to permit those Jews who wish to emigrate their right to be reunified with their families, as prescribed in the Final Act of the Helsinki Accords, and to be repatriated to their historic homeland as guaranteed by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and urge that the U.S.S.R. cease its continued harassment of those denied exit visas, and curtail organized programs of anti-Semitism.


PROMISES CONTAINED IN SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the line of thought of the Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois) who expressed his satisfaction with the Government's job creation efforts aimed at young people. Mr. Speaker, of course we agree entirely with the principle that a special effort must be made to create jobs for young people. However, the least the Government can do is to be honest about what it says
Oral Questions
to Canadian young people. There is a reference to $1 billion in funding, giving the impression that this is new funding, although that is only true of 25 percent of these funds. A little simple arithmetic shows only 25 percent of this funding is new money, and if we go a little further, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure even that much will be found to be new money.
In the circumstances, this effort, which may seem very substantial, does not represent that much, because $250 million for 545,000 young people in Canada today who are out of work means that under the programs that provide $200 per week for twenty weeks, they will go back on unemployment insurance in any case, and they should at least be told these are temporary jobs and that the $250 million will help only 10 per cent of the 545,000 young people concerned. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government, first of all, to be honest with our young people and to do more for young Canadians who need our help.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to welcome the Prime Minister back from his most recent trip and to wish him well, on behalf of my Party, in any of the projects that he undertakes in regard to peace. We have offered our full co-operation, and shall continue to do so.
Before the Prime Minister departs again, however, it would be important if he would clarify a very unbecoming degree of confusion which has already emerged in regard to yesterday s Throne Speech. There is a reference in the Speech to a "$1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund" from "re-allocated and new resources". The Minister of Finance said in a subsequent interview yesterday that this would be made up of $260 million of new money, with $50 million coming from the Unemployment Insurance Fund, for a total of $312 million of new money directed to youth unemployment. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, in an interview at just about the same time, said there will be $400 million in new funds. In 15 minutes $88 million slipped between the cracks. This might not be much to the Government, but it means a great deal to 1.4 million people who cannot find jobs at all.
Can the Prime Minister clear up the confusion? Realizing that he quite properly pointed out that it is new and old money, is the fund really in the amount of $1 billion? Is the fund to be in the amount of $400 million, or $312 million, or $260 million, given the impact of the U1C contribution?

December 8, 1983
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his offer of co-operation on the initiative that the Government is pursuing to try to diminish tension between the superpowers and opposing blocs. ! am happy that he has already appointed the former Prime Minister to assist his Party in pursuing this course.
Part of the answer to his question is contained in his question. It is a billion dollar fund. That fund is made up partly of reallocated money that was already in the Estimates, and some new money, some $50 million from the Ul fund. My recollection of when it was discussed several weeks ago in Cabinet is that the total amount is closer to $330 million, or thereabouts, than the $400 million. 1 would have to consult with the Minister of Employment and Immigration to see if my figures need to be updated.


AMOUNT OF NEW FUNDING
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have a $88 million error here between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Then again, I should be thankful for small blessings. The last time the Minister of Finance touched a sheet of paper with figures on it, it cost us $200 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] (M20)


Martin Brian Mulroney: I think the Prime Minister would agree that the amounts are important because, if the fund is $1 billion, it amounts to an allocation of $35 a week for every unemployed young Canadian; if it is $400 million, it comes to $14 a week; if it is $260 million, it means $9 a week for every unemployed young Canadian who is so desperately looking for a job.
Inasmuch as it involved a pretty grave error by members of the Ministry, could the Prime Minister-and I recognize he has been away-tell me whether the new money amount is $400 million, $310 million, or $312 million as set out by the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to be repeating his former question and I answered it, that, to my recollection-it went back to discussions several weeks ago in Cabinet-it was closer to the amount of some $320 million or $330 million. The Leader of the Opposition, by a simple process of division, seems to think that it is not very much money. Yet he thinks that $200 million that the Minister of Finance had additional in his last budget was too much. Which is too much, and which is too little? What would the Leader of the Opposition put in, in view of the fact that he wants to cut the deficit, in view of the fact that he wants to spend more on defence, and in view of the fact he wants to give more money to the provinces for medicare? Where would he get the money to do more for young people, for which he says we do not have enough?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Prime Minister asks what I would have done with the Minister of Finance. I would have fired him, and his predecessor.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: While I am at it, there is the former Minister of Multicultural Affairs who says that this Government is run by "ballyhoo, cynicism and manipulation." 1 would give him the Order of Canada for truthfulness, which 1 could not give them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Now, if the Prime Minister wants any further advice I can see him after the Question Period, and I will not charge him $800 a day for it either.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


SIZE OF FUNDING
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is a disparity of $88 million between two Ministers in interviews yesterday. One is a senior Minister, and one so gently aspires to become one.


An Hon. Member:: What is the question?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Will the Prime Minister tell-

It's coming. Wait.

Will the Prime Minister indicate if the in excess of 524,000 youth of Canada who are without jobs should be looking in terms of hope to the figure given by the Minister of Finance or by the Minister of Employment and Immigration?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Leader of the Opposition is milking that question a lot of times. He asked it three times in the same Question Period-


Mr. Nielsen:: What is the answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and he blew a few of his jokes that he should have really saved for tomorrow, because 1 do not think he will be very funny tomorrow unless he has good speech writers.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Come and see. Buy a ticket and you take your chances.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be here, Mr. Speaker; I will be here. But I am just saying that the preview does not make me want to pay much for the ticket.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 8, 1983


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the Leader of the-Opposition says that he would not charge $800 a day, 1 can understand this. He certainly is not worth that.


APRIL ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In april of this year the Minister's predecessor announced that over $1 billion would be spent in 1983-84 on employment programs for youth. In the Speech from the Throne yesterday-


An Hon. Member:: I can't hear you.


James Aloysius McGrath: You can hear me all right. The fact is the truth hurts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Yesterday in the Speech from the Throne we heard that the Government would be using reallocated and new resources on a $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund to assist young Canadians in acquiring new skills and in finding jobs in the private, voluntary and public sectors. Is the $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund not the same program that was announced in April by the Minister's predecessor? If not, where is the new initiative? Where is the new money?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, no, the answer is that it is not the same program. There is no discrepancy in the figures as has been alleged by opposition Members, other than perhaps in their own minds.
Four hundred million dollars of new funds has been added to create jobs generally. Of that $400 million of new funds something like $266 million is new funds going toward job creation and training for young people, to be added to existing programs to bring those funds to an amount well over $1 billion. The Hon. Member, in referring to the announcement made by my predecessor last April and comparing it to these figures, is comparing two different things. What he is comparing-it may be difficult for him to understand-is actual expenditures for 1983-1984 to projected expenditures for 1984-1985. It is in nature of the process that projected expenditures are usually built upon as the year goes by.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Members want an accurate explanation. If the Hon. Member were to compare the proposed expenditures for 1984-1985, which constitute the over $1 billion fund, to the proposed expenditures for 1983-1984, he would find that those proposed expenditures are very, very considerably different now from those which were projected in December a year ago. There has been a very substantial increase in the foundation of government spending
Oral Questions
toward job creation generally, and to job creation for young people in particular.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get an explanation of that ballyhoo from the Hon. Member for York West. Quite frankly, I do not believe anybody understands what the Minister is saying, including him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CAREER ACCESS PROGRAM
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, let me get back to another area. Last night on television the Minister talked about the new program for young people creating 125,000 new jobs. That figure dropped 35,000 this morning to 90,000 new jobs.
We have the Career Access Program which was announced last April. This program was for $90 million to create 30,000 jobs, and did not get started until September. Now that is to be doubled to $200 million. Perhaps the Minister will explain how many jobs were created under the old Career Access Program-$90 million in expenditures-and how many jobs the Minister anticipates will be created under the new Career Access Program. Let us hear from the Minister on that account. It is a very simple question, and even the Minister should understand that.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the hon. gentleman both out of his misery and out of his ignorance. If he wants to refer to projected expenditures a year ago, the amount is something like $794 million. If he wants to compare the expenditures we are now forecasting, which are the equivalent of that $794 million last year, he will find the figure is well over $1 billion.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is the same fiscal year. It is not over yet.


John (Moody) Roberts: That is the explanation which the Hon. Member pretends not to understand. But the funding that we announced yesterday is an extraordinarily significant increase devoted to job creation. If he wants to ask that the impact is on youth employment of the measures that we placed before the House yesterday, it is that there will be an increase of between 85,000 and 90,000 young people participating in jobs next year as a result of those programs, which programs would not take place had it not been for the commitments we made yesterday.


NUMBER OF JOBS CREATED
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us how much money has been spent to date on the Career Access Program, and how many jobs have been created?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the expenditure, going by memory, so far

December 8, 1983
Oral Questions
is somewhere around $90 million. I think the number of jobs is proportionate to that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: It would be close to 60,000 jobs.


IMPACT OF PROGRAMS ON YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I want to pursue a similar point. Sixteen hours ago the Minister indicated that 125,000 new jobs would be created for Canada's youth as a result of the new programs. Eight hours later The Globe and Mail reported that the figure had been revised downward to 90,000. If this trend continues, by this time tomorrow no jobs will be created. However, the Minister will know that there are a half million young Canadians who arc jobless today. Will he clarify this point by indicating, after his job creation programs for youth have been introduced, how many of the existing 500,000 young people will still be out in the cold?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the Hon. Member's question.


James Aloysius McGrath: It was the same as mine.


John (Moody) Roberts: Then perhaps I will take the opportunity to answer both.


James Aloysius McGrath: He just repeated my question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Perhaps he repeated it with more astuteness than the original questioner.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: There is no substantial difference. The increase I mentioned yesterday of employment generally, which corresponds to the increase resulting from the $400 million injection of new funds, is somewhere close to 125,000 job participants. If we take out the $266 million or so for young people, the number of young people affected will be between 85,000 and 90,000. In response to the question about the impact of the Career Access Program so far, the answer is 64,000.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Therefore I understand that about 85,000 to 90,000 new, part-time, interim jobs will be created to replace the 500,000 young people who are presently out of work.


PER CAPITA EMPLOYMENT EXPENDITURES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who, in the 1980 Throne Speech, called for the burden of the recession to be shared equitably among all Canadians. Conspicuously absent from the recent Throne Speech were terms such as "justice" and "fairness". I wonder whether the Prime Minister would compare the money given to oil companies with the money given to young Canadians. For every $1 given to oil companies under the Petroleum Incentives Program, the Government now plans to give the equivalent of 14 cents to create jobs to the half-million unemployed young people. Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he referred to the just society?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems the Hon. Member is pretending in his question that the money is just given to the oil companies-and that is it- as a gift from Canadian people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is right; that is what I am saying.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He does not realize that investment and spending by the oil companies in the Canada Lands, for instance, has risen 600 per cent over the past four years. That has created thousands of jobs and that has created wealth for Canada. That is the difference between members of the NDP and the Liberal Government; they would throw money at the unemployed, and we prefer to create jobs by increasing industry and by increasing the development of the country. That is supply-side economics, but supplied by using the state in order to create infrastructure and to create incentives for the private sector to go out and create jobs, rather than make work programs, as the NDP would do.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think I will go back to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. 1 remind the Minister that in his statements yesterday he indicated that no more money could be set aside than the $260 million for job creation for young people because it would shake the confidence of the business community. Also I remind him that we have a half-million young people who have not only had their confidence shaken but have had their confidence broken as a result of the recession.


PLIGHT OF UNEMPLOYED YOUNG PEOPLE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Employment and Immigration really believe that by setting aside a measly $260 million of new money to asist the half-million young people who are jobless today, this will rebuild the confidence of what has essentially become a lost generation?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has probably misquoted but certainly misconstrued my comment. My comment yesterday was that it was important to maintain the process of deficit reduction in order to continue the kind of business confidence which leads to investment and job creation in the economy. Well over 350,000 new jobs were created since last autumn. That was the point of my remark; it was not applied to the needs of young people. The hon. gentleman does not seem to believe that over $1 billion spent for job creation and
December 8, 1983

job training for young people is of significant importance. 1 believe it is.


ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the Throne Speech the Government indicated:
More than $500 million, above and beyond the $13 billion estimated at the start of the year, will be transferred to the provinces in 1983-84.
Could the Minister indicate whether that $500 million, which would be under the Established Programs Financing both for health care and for post-secondary education, is new money or discretionary money, or whether it is money that would have naturally flowed to those two programs through the formula to which the Provinces and the federal Government agreed, through the Established Programs Financing?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I confirm to the Hon. Member that this is money the Provinces do not have right now. In that sense it is definitely additional money. He deliberately used many categories in an attempt to show that it was not additional money. It is additional money, the specifics of which will be given by the Minister of Finance to his counterparts later this afternoon.
As to the allocation of such funds within the provincial Governments, I hope each provincial Health Minister will do his homework and get the most out of it, because of course the cheque goes to the Treasurer.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am glad the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the Minister of Finance. At the meeting in Montreal between the Minister of Finance and the provincial finance Ministers it was reported that the Minister of Finance for Canada clearly pointed out that this was not discretionary money, that this was not new money, that this was money which the federal Government was obligated to transfer to those two programs through the agreements with the provinces. I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare why it would be the Minister of Finance who would be feeling somewhat concerned that the impression was left that it was discretionary and new money when in fact it was not? Would she say very clearly that this is money which the Government of Canada would have had to pay whether or not there was a Throne Speech?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is reported to have already answered officially and publicly, why is the Hon. Member asking me such a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Because you are in the House.
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Is it to confuse the issue deliberately, in order that we will never know where the Conservative Party stands on medicare? Is that the idea? An additional $500 million is an additional $500 million. However one wants to fool around with the figures, it is an additional $500 million that will increase the base of medicare, for years to come, by the way.


VIA RAIL
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In July, 1981, the Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, took steps to dismantle unilaterally 20 per cent of Canada's rail passenger service. The Speech from the Throne pledges to reinstate some of those services. Could the Prime Minister tell the House in what area of the country these services will be reinstated? What process will be followed in terms of the reinstatement of these services? Will the public have an opportunity for input? Will it be through the CTC, through legislation, or unilateral action by the Government? What form will these new services take? When can we except them to be implemented?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be very happy to take notice of the question on behalf of the Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am surprised at the Prime Minister. If he showed any interest in the contents of the Speech from the Throne, or in VIA Rail passenger services, he would have certainly had an answer to a very legitimate question.


TIMING OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Privy Council, the Government House Leader. Inasmuch as VIA Rail lacks the clear legislative authority, and inasmuch as the legislation has been drafted on a number of occasions and, further, inasmuch as-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Will the President of the Privy Council tell the House if in fact legislation is available to implement the changes contained in the Speech from the Throne? If so, when will the legislation be brought forward?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to inform the Hon. Member of any legislation once I have discussed with the Minister of Transport the opportunity of introducing such legislation that is necessary in the House. We usually tell the Opposition in

December 8, 1983
Ora! Questions
advance of our intention to deal with legislation arising from the Speech from the Throne. In so far as the tabling of any Bill is concerned, the usual practice is to wait until the Minister is ready to tattle his Bill. I suggest that my hon. colleague be patient. He heard good news in the Speech from the Throne yesterday. If he is a bit more patient, he will hear even more during the coming days.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. ARMOOGUM PARSURAMAN, MINISTER OF EDUCATION, ARTS AND CULTURE, OF MAURITIUS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I call to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of a distinguished visitor, the Hon. Mr. Parsuraman of Mauritius. He is the Minister of Education, Arts and Culture of that country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. This morning, a number of Ministers, including the Right Hon. Prime Minister, were informed of the fact that the storm in Eastern Canada had caused serious damage along the Gaspe coast. Properties along the shore line have suffered major damage. Hundreds of families were forced to leave their homes and even a fish processing plant was damaged.
Considering that in the Throne Speech, additional funding was announced for job creation, could the Minister allocate a special budgetary envelope so that through Canada Works or LEAP, the people of the Gaspe will be able to benefit from federal financial assistance, either in order to repair retaining walls on their property or to carry out improvements to damaged buildings, without the owners being required to pay for such assistance?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful and I wish to thank the Hon. Member for drawing my attention to this very serious problem in his riding, namely, the damage caused by waves and flooding. I am basically sympathetic to the idea of trying to do something, but I can give no specific guarantee at the present time. However, I shall look into this matter which certainly deserves our attention, and try to meet the needs of the Hon. Member's constituents.


ESTABLISHED PROGRAMS FINANCING
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It has to do with the $500 million indicated in the Speech from the Throne with respect to medicare and postsecondary education. I am glad to see that today the Progressive Conservatives understand the issue. You could not tell from the garbled analysis yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition whether he knew anything about Established Programs Financing.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member ask his qucs* tion, please?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have touched a nerve. Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister indicate, yes or no, whether the $500 million referred to in the Speech from the Throne is or is not money that the federal Government would have to transfer to the Provinces in any case in 1983-84 as a result of the existing formula and whether or not, therefore, this money does not represent any new, discretionary money for medicare and post-secondary education, and whether this is in fact a deception deliberately plotted by the Government to impress Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I have hever heard of that $500 million being a deception. If the Provinces do not know what to do with it, we will tell them. One use would be to ban user fees. They have been hiding behind an alleged lack of funds to impose user fees. There is no way they can continue to use such an excuse. I repeat to the Hon. Member what I said previously. The federal Minister of Finance is now meeting with his counterparts. Later this afternoon he will give the specifics of the additional $500 million.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON FUNDING MEDICAL CARE
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell us whether she is sincere with regard to doing anything about medicare? If so, when is she going to abandon this policy of deceit when it comes to federal funding of medicare and the need to restore the federal-provincial partnership that medicare represents, and which members on the other side are not doing anything to help by maintaining that they are doing something which they are in fact not doing?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, i can only repeat to the Hon. Member that it says very clearly in the Speech from the Throne that more than $500 million above and beyond the $13 billion
December 8, 1983

estimated at the start of the year will be transferred to the Provinces this fiscal year. This is not a deception to any provincial Treasurer. The next step for each provincial Minister of Health is to grab it.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MR. JACQUES DIOUF. VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF SENEGAL
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor, Mr. Jacques Diouf, deputy speaker of the National Assembly of Senegal.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In large measure the Throne Speech proposes to deal with the problems that the Government created yesterday, but it docs not in any way confront the challenges that are facing us today in the technological age. Up to four million Canadians will have to be retrained if Canada is going to keep up with other industrialized countries in the technological age. Where is the strategy for government, industry, labour, and the Provinces to co-ordinate this massive undertaking that will be needed if we are to modernize our human resources? Why was this left out of the Throne Speech?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that that strategy is in place. Indeed, we discussed it before the parliamentary committee. It does involve the co-operation of labour, the private sector, and government. It was that co-operation which led to the establishment of the Labour Research Institute sponsored by the Business Council on National Issues, the CLC. It is that kind of co-operation which underlies the development of the occupational projection systems which are designed to give us a more precise knowledge base about what kind of training, manpower formation and skills development will be appropriate for the future. That basic co-operation which she asks for is well in place and, 1 think, is being strengthened. It leads to the kind of knowledge which will help us to improve the design of our training program.
As she knows through questions in the House and discussions we have had in committee, there is an emphasis on institutional training, industrial training, and the skills growth fund. There is from time to time a shift of emphasis on which of those is pursued more strongly, depending to a large extent on the degree of pickup or co-operation that comes from the
Oral Questions
private sector. The basis of that strategy is in place. I do not deny that it cannot be improved on or that, from time to time, it should be looked at again, but it is in place.


THREAT TO WOMEN'S EMPLOYMENT
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister is that he has had studies and reports. What we need is not more of the same, but action. In the meantime, while he is ignoring this issue, there are one million women in Canada who face the possibility of seeing their jobs phased out because of technological change. Why does the Government persist in ignoring this problem? Why does it ignore the fact that one million more women could be without jobs in the next few years? Why does it not act, instead of just studying?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member received $400 million worth of action yesterday. She should get together with her Leader. Yesterday, before he had even had a chance to read the Speech from the Throne, the Leader of the Opposition was already condemning what he called the intrusions that he thought it would involve. Now the Hon. Member is complaining that it does not involve sufficient intrusion at all. There was action taken yesterday. She should try to understand that.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: My question is directed to the Secretary of State who, as the Minister advocate for the voluntary sector, will have noted very carefully that there are no less than seven references to the voluntary sector in yesterday's Throne Speech. One part of the speech indicates that the Government will increase its funding for voluntary associations interested in security, arms control, and disarmament issues. The Minister will be aware that these groups have been faced with harassment. For instance, there is the matter of the British Columbia division of the Canadian Mental Health Association which 1 raised with the Minister of National Revenue on November 2. In light of the action proposed in the Throne Speech, has the Government now widened its policy on allowable charitable activities, or is the Government prepared to make changes and fund these groups simply because this issue suits its purposes?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member did notice that Canadian voluntary and charity organizations are mentioned in the Speech from the Throne no less than seven times.

December 8, 1983
OraI Questions
The Hon. Member will also have noted that the question of determining what organizations could or should benefit from an exemption under the provisions of the Income Tax Act will be referred to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons, which will review this issue, hear representatives from the voluntary sector and suggest to Parliament appropriate initiatives to meet the demands of that sector. 1 therefore believe we should be confident that this initiative proposed in the Speech from the Throne will do much to meet the representations of the Hon. Member and the voluntary organizations.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will know that in the past three years, representations have been made by the non-Government sector about this whole issue. The proposed task force is welcome, but no time frame has been given. Perhaps this is yet another cover-up.


TAX INCENTIVES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question also relates to the suggestion in the Throne Speech that the voluntary sector is to be integral to government planning. The speech indicates that the voluntary sector is Canada's massive, diverse-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, on November 10, 1982, the Minister promised tax incentives. Why have there been no tax credit incentives as in the give and take tax proposals that were promised, but merely more grants to keep the sector dependent, rather than giving the sector its own strength?


Serge Joyal: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is criticizing before knowing whal will happen. When the terms of reference of this committee are known and announced to the House of Commons and the Senate, the Hon. Member will then be able to say when the committee should sit and by what date it should report to the House. As for his second question about the amendments to the tax laws, the Hon. Minister of Finance has already made certain proposals and the committee will be responsible for discussing not only the registration of organizations, but also other questions related to the tax status of Canadian charity organizations.


DISARMAMENT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with
peacekeeping. 1 would like to congratulate him on his very fine efforts in attempting to reduce tension between the superpowers at this critical period for all humanity.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: My question deals with the NATO Foreign ministers' talks. I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister of External Affairs has been able to achieve anything at those talks, particularly regarding the points the Prime Minister has been making about upgrading the January Stockholm meetings and about confidence-building measures.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did hear from the Minister this morning and it does seem that those attending the NATO meeting in Brussels have agreed that the Stockholm conference on disarmament in Europe, which is to the held in January, should be held at a high political level, and they have agreed that Foreign Affairs Ministers should be present in Stockholm for that occasion. 1 find great satisfaction in that our NATO colleagues should have accepted that need to politicize the issue. Regarding the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks in Vienna, they have also agreed that every effort should be made to provide an answer as soon as possible to the counterproposal made by the Soviets and that we would then decide at what level that answer should be delivered in Vienna. I am very happy that there has been movement on that front as well.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, Nunavut Communications Inc. is a private corporation which has at least 45 contracts with various government Departments to provide publicity and advertising services. My question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Why is Mr. Jim McDonald, the man who runs Nunavut, most easily reached through the personal staff telephone numbers and offices of the Minister of Justice? Does his company pay the Government for telephone, secretarial, and office services obtained from the Government-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is the type of question which should normally appear on the Order Paper since it is in so much detail. However, perhaps the Minister would like to reply.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has indicated, this company does have a certain number of contracts with various government Departments. It has a certain number of contracts with my Department, and Mr. McDonald is present in my Department from time to time. I have even had the opportunity of discussing problems with him when he is available, as 1 am sure have other Ministers as well.
December 8, 1983


TENDERING OF CONTRACTS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not see any conflict of interest in having one of the Minister's personal friends positioned in the Minister's own office at the same time as that friend is running a private company that is doing business with the Minister's own Department and other Departments of the Government? Were any of these contracts, including the contracts with the Minister's Department, ever tendered?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. gentleman wants information about contracts, he could get it in the usual way. The fact is that this matter is proceeding in the way in which matters are normally conducted by the Government. There are no hidden facts, and my hon. friend can discuss all of them with me any time he wishes.


USE OF GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Hon. Ray Hnatyshvn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, the point here is that a former communications officer in the Prime Minister's Office is now using taxpayers' money for his own contracting and business purposes. I would ask the Minister of Justice if Mr. McDonald is now paying a reasonable rate for the use of the Minister's facilities and stenographic help, or is he in fact getting a freebie and indulging in the worst kind of patronage?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge he is not using such facilities. He is a consultant, and he is available in various offices from time to time. He has been present in my office from time to time for that purpose, and that purpose only.


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In yesterday's Throne Speech the Government said in part that it would "continue to advance proposals to slow the steady spiral of the arms race". We welcome that, for we in this Party have already advanced proposals to slow the steady spiral of the arms race, one of our key proposals being a nuclear weapons freeze starting with the superpowers. Therefore, will the Prime Minister, in his forthcoming visits to Washington and, 1 hope, to Moscow, urge the two superpowers to declare their support for an immediate nuclear weapons freeze, balanced and verifiable, followed by massive reductions in nuclear arms? This is a peace initiative that people everywhere would like to see.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker. I believe I can at least agree with the intention of the suggestion of the Hon. Member that there should be a massive reduction. 1 would just remind her that the NATO countries announced.
Oral Questions
about a month and a half ago, that they would reduce their nuclear arsenal in Europe over a period of years by some 2,400 nuclear warheads. 1 certainly think that that should be the ultimate objective of the two superpowers in the negotiations both in START and in INF.
On the question of whether a freeze should be proposed first, I do not think that that is something that the superpowers would agree on, since they disagree on the different kind of deployment that the other has. On the objective of reduction, I agree with the Hon. Member and 1 certainly will discuss it in Washington when I go there in a short time and eventually I will in Moscow, if I go there too.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Prime Minister will address himself to the freeze. You have to stop the car before you can put it in reverse.


DEFENCE AND ARMS CONTROL RESEARCH
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in connection with yesterday's Speech from the Throne, may 1 also ask the Prime Minister whether it was his intention, in the one proposal that was made, namely, the funding of research in defence and arms control, to restrict the research and information gathering to defence and arms control or, as 1 hoped, was it his intention to have a much larger focus to include peace research, disarmament, and conflict resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the comment that the Hon. Member made at the beginning of her question, that you have to freeze in order to go into reverse, I think the hon. lady forgets that in order to have a verifiable freeze you must have as intricate a set of negotiations as you need for reduction. That is why, rather than start with a freeze, with all the difficult paraphernalia of verification to see what would be frozen, when, and in what stages, it is better to go for reduction than a freeze.
In so far as her question on the matter raised in the Speech from the Throne is concerned, it would be a wider mandate rather than a narrower one.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He will know that today interest rates are just a cousy less than 10 per cent on the bank rate. That is the seventh straight increase in rates. The Prime Minister will know that if rates continue to go up all hope of recovery will be squished. Will the Prime Minister give the country an undertaking today that he will not allow the commercial prime rate to exceed 11 per cent, and that he

December 8, 1983
Ways and Means
will do what he can to freeze mortgage rates at 10.25 per cent for one-year terms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is asking for a commitment to legislation and not allowing the banks to do certain things. Certainly the Minister of Finance has made it clear that his policy is directed toward the prevention of an increase in interest rates, and that is the whole sense of his macro-economic policy. I cannot give the undertaking that the Hon. Member suggests, nor do 1 think that his Party would support that suggestion, if ever it wanted to support anything positive, because it would involve control of the whole banking system, which is incompatible with his Party's philosophy.


WAYS AND MEANS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have had consultations with my colleagues on the other side and we have agreed to different orders. In order to establish the order of business for the coming days, it is first necessary to concur in the Motion of Ways and Means No. 1, followed by all the necessary consent to have the Income Tax Act flowing out of Motion No. 1 introduced today. That will allow Members to be familiar with the Bill and will allow us to interrupt debate on the Speech from the Throne some time next week to deal with the Income Tax Act. I will be more specific once we have concurred in the Ways and Means Motion No. 1 and when the Bill has been introduced.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we consent to the concurrence requested by the Government House Leader, on division.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, we also consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council has the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the Ways and Means Motion. By unanimous consent-


Erik Nielsen: On division, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By consent.


Yvon Pinard: that consideration of a Ways and Means motion to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, laid upon the Table Wednesday, December 7, 1983, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yvon Pinard: that Bill C-2, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make related amendments to the Canada Pension
Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, be read the first time and be printed.


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will outline the business for the coming days, but first, I should like to dispose of another motion which has been negotiated and which deals with parliamentary reform. It seems that there is unanimous consent for the adoption of this motion so I shall read it.
1 move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That a Special Committee consisting of 20 members to be named at a later date be appointed to consider whether the Standing Orders now in effect ought to be amended to provide:
(1)	That any division deferred from a Friday be taken up at 6 p.m. on the next sitting day;
(2)	That Private Members' Business be taken up between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday and between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. on a Friday, provided that the day is not a day allotted pursuant to Standing Orders 42 and 62 and that the business on a Wednesday shall be Government Orders;
(3)	That the House adjourn for a short period between Christmas and Easter in a manner similar to the adjournment provided for in November;
That the Committee have the power to recommend the adoption on an experimental basis of any new or altered Standing Orders with regard to the aforementioned matters;
That the Committee have all the powers given to Standing Committees pursuant to Standing Order 69; and
That the Committee report no later than December 16, 1983.


Erik Nielsen: We agree, Mr. Speaker. [English]


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we also agree to have this motion disposed of without debate.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 8, 1983

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the business for the coming days is concerned, tomorrow will be the first designated day of debate on the Speech from the Throne and it will be Leaders' day. Monday will be the second designated day of debate on the Speech from the Throne. On Tuesday we will start second reading debate on the Bill to amend the Income Tax Act that was introduced a few minutes ago, hoping that we will dispose of all stages of that Bill before the adjournment for Christmas. Wednesday will be the third designated day of debate on the Speech from the Throne. On Thursday we will resume debate on the Income Tax Act.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that order of business is satisfactory to us. I simply want to file a caveat at this point with respect to the Government designating next Wednesday, in effect, as a government day. There seems to be a dual interpretation possible in the Provisional Standing Orders and the Standing Orders with respect to what the Throne Speech displaces and what it does not displace. We agree to the order on this occasion because Private members' business will not be ready, in any event. We simply want to flag the matter so that it does not prevent the possibility of our raising the matter should the Government attempt to use the private members' time of the House in a similar fashion on some future occasion, which I am sure the Government would not do.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am designating next Wednesday as the third designated day for debate on the Speech from the Throne is the existence of Standing Order 42(2), which provides:
Any day or days to be appointed for the consideration of the said Order shall be announced from time to time by a Minister of the Crown and on any such day or days this Order shall have precedence of all other business except the ordinary daily routine of business.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is an exception which applies only when we have a Speech from the Throne. My hon. colleague would agree that we do not abuse the Standing Order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is an argument to be made, but I do not intend to make it at this time. I am simply filing a caveat. The Minister has just made one half of the argument. There is another half.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on government business. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council can tell us if he intends to strike the standing committees before the Christmas adjournment and, if so, when?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, under the Standing Orders, we do not have to strike these committees before the New Year. Under the new rules, the striking committee has to meet within ten sitting days following January 1. Therefore, the committees still exist and they can organize themselves, and I
Business of the House
would hope they do so as early as possible in order to allow the committees to be working.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, of course, of what the President of the Privy Council has just said. However, it is my understanding that when a session ends the standing committees and special committees end with the session. If I am wrong, it would be pleased to be corrected.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague should make a distinction between Parliament and a session. If he does make that distinction, he will understand it is not necessary for the striking committee to meet before January in order to allow the committees to organize themselves. Today, if need be, that can be done. The committees do not die; they can just reorganize themselves under the rules. Come the New Year, we will have to have a meeting of the striking committee in order to appoint members to the committees; but we do not have to deal with this before the New Year.


Mr. Lewycky:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council when the multiculturalism legislation will be brought forward and whether it is the Government's intention to bring it forward before Christmas. Could the President of the Privy Council also mention whether there will be a reconstituting of the special committee dealing with the participation of visible minorities in Canadian society? I believe he is aware of the fact that a lot of work has been done so far and that we are under some pressure to bring in a report.


Yvon Pinard: As the Hon. Member knows, the Government cares very much for ethnic groups, multiculturalism and visible minorities. I can assure the Hon. Member that what was said in the Speech from the Throne about multiculturalism will be taken into very serious account by the Government in its actions in the near future.
I will want to consult with the Minister responsible for the legislation before making public the date of tabling of any Bills, including the legislation which would be related to multiculturalism. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member not only to be patient but very confident that the Government will assume its responsibilities and make its best efforts, with the co-operation of the opposition, to allow the whole program included in the very excellent Speech from the Throne yesterday to be applied within the next weeks and months.
In so far as the committee on visible minorities is concerned, I can assure my hon. colleague that this will be done tomorrow or at the beginning of next week; very shortly.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council about the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. The present Act discriminates against spouses. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council could tell us when that Bill will come forward for amendment and can he assure us that the Act will be made to conform to the Charter of

December 8, 1983
Business of the House
Rights and Freedoms, as also promised in the Speech from the Throne?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the Hon. Member for his question. I share most of his concerns. However, at this time when we are anxious to hear the mover and the seconder of the motion to support the Speech from the Throne, I believe it would be wiser if my hon. colleague were to talk to his House Leader. We meet very frequently and it is always a pleasure for me to discuss matters with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I could be as specific as possible at that time in terms of the date of tabling legislation and the timing of any other matters related to House business. So if the Hon. Member would raise his concerns with his House Leader, 1 would be pleased to deal with House business as usual in the House Leaders' meetings, and announce on a weekly basis the business for the days to come.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could further questions on this matter be brief? It appears to me these are items to be settled in meetings of the House Leaders, if at all possible.
1 recognize the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River, but could he be brief?


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise also on the issue of House business. Some time ago I addressed a question to the House Leader concerning amendments to the Canada Elections Act which would literally enfranchise thousands of people in this country; I refer to the absentee voting procedure. He gave an undertaking at that time that he would look into the matter and would consult with the Chief Electoral Officer, then report back to the House. 1 would just remind him that that was under House business and he had made a commitment to respond.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: These appear to be matters which should be settled by meetings of the House Leaders and then a statement could be made. However, 1 recognize the President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: I will respond very briefly, Mr. Speaker. My hon. colleague certainly knows that the Chief Electoral Officer has a statutory obligation to table a report at the beginning of the second session of any Parliament. The Hon. Member has been very patient. I am sure we will be in a position to table his report very shortly.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is evident what is happening here, and 1 regret it. There is a tradition in dealing with the Speech from the Throne, where the day set aside for the mover and seconder to deliver their speeches proceeds with a minimal amount of interruption through the vehicle of Routine Proceedings. That has always been the courtesy which all Hon. Members of this House have extended to the Government. The exact same courtesy is extended on the day set aside for Leaders' day, which is tommorrow.
Hon. Members in one Party are now rising and putting question after question with respect to the intentions of the Government concerning legislation which, for the most part.
flows from the Speech from the Throne. We are not doing that. We do not want to interfere with the established tradition of courtesy in this place. 1 would suggest that Hon. Members to my left reconsider what they are doing and allow us to proceed with the speeches of the mover and seconder, to provide the traditional courtesies to those two Hon. Members of this House and allow them to make their speeches.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that three Hon. Members rising to ask questions on matters of such importance constitutes an abuse of the House. I would like to suggest to the House Leader of the Official Opposition that when we need lessons we will ask for them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair at this point would like to proceed beyond House business. The Chair has entertained a number of questions and would ask Hon. Members at this stage to defer. The Hon. Member for Churchill.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, my question is short and it does relate to Government business. It also relates to the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I suggest that the Hon. Member discuss his question with his House Leader and the matter could be raised through the House Leaders' meetings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I request the Hon. Member for Churchill to observe the usual courtesy at this point.


PETITIONS
Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, on the day the House adjourned I was given a petition which I would like to present today. It was given to me by "Families Against Testing the Cruise" and was accepted by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kiigour) and myself in front of the House of Commons.
The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that at this critical period, with a new cycle of nuclear weapons which could be unverifiable, Canada must give support to those parties in European governments who are refusing to accept the Cruise and Pershing missiles.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to cancel any agreements for testing
December 8, 1983

U.S. nuclear devices or their delivery systems. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona will present more petitions when he gets back.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member can deal only with his own.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of the speech delivered by His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of the session.
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the Cabinet for giving me the privilege of moving the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is an honour which I do not take lightly, but rather one which presents challenges, responsibility and also opportunity. It is an honour that 1 share with the residents of the riding of London West whom I represent in Parliament.
London West, Mr. Speaker, is the third largest riding in Canada in terms of population. The City of London itself, as the hub of southwestern Ontario, has offered much of the overall progress of our great country. In 1792 Colonel John Graves Simcoe chose its site as that of the future capital of Upper Canada. That did not happen, however, although the name London became attached to that particular area. Since 1854 London has been known as a manufacturing, distributing and financial centre, and today the city is home to nearly 400 highly diversified industries ranging from cereal products to diesel locomotives. London is also an ecclesiastical and education centre. The Anglican Diocese of Huron and the Roman Catholic Diocese of London have been located in the city since the 1800s. The University of Western Ontario, established in the late 1800s, now is regarded as one of Canada's leading educational centres. The city is also known throughout the world for its excellent health care facilities, and for research into and the carrying out of human organ transplant operations.
1 could spend the entire afternoon talking about the virtues of the area 1 represent, Mr. Speaker, but suffice to say 1 deem it a great honour to have this brief opportunity of sharing with you a few of the reasons I can say with pride that the City of London, Ontario, has indeed contributed to the growth of our country. It will continue to do so in the future as our country further develops, for we are still a developing country with a great future ahead of us.
A very careful study of the thrusts of the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, would validate its worthiness. Indeed, the two underlying goals of peace and prosperity are especially
The Address-Mr. Burghardt
important at this crucial time in world history. Without peace there can be no real prosperity, and conversely, without the satisfaction and security which prosperity brings, peace is always in jeopardy. One might say, and truly so, that we need a sincere global partnership to produce peace and a national partnership to produce prosperity. But may 1 respectfully suggest to the House that both peace and prosperity need global inputs, the global stature that we must work to achieve for Canada and for Canadians.
Today the acceleration of global travel and global commerce mandate that we think in terms of the global nature, not in terms of isolation. The international pressure, the pushes and pulls on interest rates, on competitive prices and competition in general, are most vivid in the planning of every modern thinking person. There is a common saying that we must put our best brains to work on the problem, but may I suggest that before we do that our hearts must be in tune with a sincere love of our fellow man, a desire to share, in a fair, just and equitable manner, the talents and resources with which we have been blessed.
Any history student will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that war was started, peace was shattered, because of greed, a drive for selfish possession. Our hearts must be in synch before our minds can be put in drive. Simply, there is no other way. When such is not the case, emotions and hostility flourish and war results. Lasting prosperity, both national and international, is predicated on the same base of sharing and understanding.
It is very easy to become wealthy in the short run. It is wise to plan to be prosperous in the long run. True success is a careful, planned, upper-moving phenomenon and, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that is the planning we see in this Speech from the Throne.
There are five thrusts that indeed challenge all Canadians to accept our responsibilities to preserve the greatest freedom and well-being for all. A fresh approach to world peace, opportunities for growth, partnership for recovery, strengthening the safety net and pursuing our Canadian identity.
1 would like to congratulate our Prime Minister for taking the bold step of trying to construct a global partnership for peace.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Editorial writers and opinion makers across the land generally applaud this courageous thrust. Just yesterday in a speech 1 heard, given as he received the McLuhan-Teleglobe Canada Award for excellence in contributing to world communications from His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, Luis Ramiro Beltran of Bolivia said, and 1 quote:
Canada stands out today as a leading country in international affairs. The second largest nation on earth has the humility to opt for peace, the integrity to defend justice, and the wisdom to further co-operation!
In an insane world that spends more than one million dollars a minute on weapons while 800 million people barely have enough to eat, the voice of Canada can be heard crying out against the spectre of nuclear holocaust.

December 8, 1983
The Address-Mr. Burghardt
This is how Canada is viewed on the world stage, Mr. Speaker. It is imperative that we continue this thrust in order to secure a just and lasting peace.
The second thrust is to encourage economic growth. Having come through a critical period of recession that hit the pocket-books of Canadians from all walks of life, we now see the underlying strength of the Canadian economy re-emerging, a sign of a new vitality in a number of sectors. The strength of Canada's economic comeback was noted recently by the British magazine Euromoney, which rated 93 different nations from the standpoint of economic growth, inflation, exports and the balance of payments in the last year. Canada's combined performance coming out of the recession was ranked first while the United States was ranked fourth.
Despite this, there is still a feeling of anxiety in Canada as we contemplate inflation, interest rates, unemployment, social security, mortgage rates and credit restrictions, just to mention a few. To this end 1 applaud the Government in providing opportunities through growth. Along with direct job creation programs, the establishment of a $1 billion youth opportunity fund that will help young people in their search for much needed jobs is a welcome sign that we truly believe in the well known phrase that today's youth are tomorrow's leaders. This fund will also encourage the private sector to provide training and work to those entering the work force for the first time.
I strongly believe, Mr. Speaker, in the work ethic of an individual trying to guarantee his or her own security. 1 believe in the free enterprise system. I also believe that I should have concern for the social well-being of my neighbour, that in fact I am my brother's keeper. Our Canadian way of life over the years has seen a coming together of the free enterprise system and the social system where, through government direction, some of the benefits of free enterprise have been shared with the less fortunate.
The same applies to national and regional concerns. Unfortunately of late, it seems to me at least that our view of Canada as a nation has frequently been secondary to regional concerns. We have lost much of that mix, that compromise of free enterprise and social concern. Some people's legitimate regional concerns have degenerated into forms of provincial patriotism which increasingly violate the need for national justice and equality.
That is why I am pleased to see that a new era of federal-provincial planning in consultation is being launched. The public debate should concentrate on how to secure economic equality and social justice for all Canadians, not on a power struggle between different levels of governments. Such a debate would allow for principled differences and accommodate regional diversities.
Just as provinces are not islands unto themselves on the national scene, Canada is not an island unto itself on the world scene. The Throne Speech alluded to an aggressive trade drive and the need to compete in the world economy. This is essential if we are not only to maintain but to improve our
position in international markets. To maintain and perhaps to enhance our standard of living, we must continue the growth we have seen in exports over the past two decades. If we stand still we will fall back as other nations gain ground. We simply cannot neglect this vital area of economic activity.
The passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act in the last session of Parliament, coupled with expanded West Coast port facilities, will greatly increase our export activity. This new legislation will not only help us to increase our exports markets, but will also bring economic benefits here at home, not just in the west but throughout the entire country. 1 know that in my own area of London industry will benefit from this much needed and courageous change in legislation.
History has shown that for a nation to retain its vitality and maintain its progress it must foster a continuing dialogue among its citizens. This leads me to the third thrust of partnership for recovery. Already the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been involved in economic consultations with provincial governments and economic sectors of the country. This dialogue must continue, involving all walks of life, so that we know what our directions and choices should be in a period following a recession where the assets from previous rapid economic growth are not available to deal with current problems.
The fourth thrust of the Throne Speech is to strengthen the safety net for all Canadians. The social security system which has been the cornerstone for caring and sharing for individuals has been, and continues to be, the envy of many other countries. Today, however, some voices are being raised suggesting that we do away with the safety net. With governments seriously constrained to keep, or even reduce, over-all spending, do we abandon our compassion, or do we find ways to meet those social and economic problems with the resources wo do have available?
The Speech from the Throne spells out the need to strengthen that safety net, to provide financial assistance for medical care, hospital care and post-secondary education through the rearranging of funds which will provide more than $500 million above moneys already estimated to be transferred to the provinces. This proves the Government's strong commitment to maintain the quality and integrity of our health services and post-secondary education.
In addition, again because of the period which we have just come through, I am pleased to support new measures to protect home owners, small businesses, the farming and fishing industries against the threat of high interest rates. The safety net also provides for personal safety and security with expected changes to the Criminal Code. It also points out the need to protect individual rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Here, Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to see that native people's rights will be addressed, in particular the rights of Indian women as they relate to the Indian Act. 1 have the opportunity of chairing the special subcommittee dealing with this contentious issue and I am gratified to see that legislation will be
December 8, 1983

introduced to remove this long-standing discrimination against Indian women.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Lastly, Mr. Speaker, what is a country without a cultural heritage'? How do we have an identity unless we know who we are? Through a new national broadcasting policy already announced by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), and through the recognition of the importance of cultural industries, we are providing a climate for creative activity. This activity will transcend all forms of electronic technologies.
Changes to the copyright laws, long overdue, to provide greater protection to the artistic community should be applauded by all members of this House. These are the kind of programs this Government must continue to carry out as we, among all the countries of the world, struggle with the changes that are coming about through technology, the changing demands of the world and the changing values of society.
Now that we have heard the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, an important document setting out the priorities of this Government, I am sure all members of this House look forward with eager anticipation to hearing from the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) tomorrow what might be his substantive and carefully thought out policies for the future of our country.
As political people we are, perhaps, all prone to think in the short term, to strive for short-term results. This again is why I support our Prime Minister on his peace mission, his global, long-term thinking and planning and his statesmanlike leadership.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Ask him when he is going to step down as Leader!


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Let us also think in similar terms, in positive terms, and let us plan in a positive manner. Let us get our initiative from our hearts and plan to have our hearts so positioned that our minds plan, and all our works derive from, such a framework. Reciprocity breeds reciprocity. Understanding breeds understanding, exposes greed and selfishness for what they are, sure avenues to war and economic disaster.
There are important, even crucial, days ahead for all of us, Mr. Speaker. We should not be pessimistic for we are the product of a proud heritage. Canada's record is one which was not achieved through compulsion. Those who built this nation were architects of freedom who dared to dream big dreams. Today, their names are on hospitals as well as factories, on universities as well as consumer products. They drafted laws for the protection of freedom, as well as blueprints for new machines. Their imprint on the Canadian character is unmistakable. And we must do likewise if we are determined to make of the whole nation everything it has the capacity to be.
The Address-Mr. Gourde
If we look at what we have already achieved together in this country, is there any reason we should fear big challenges and bold attempts? Canada has as much reason as any nation to dare the role, and more reason than most to hope for success. Let us therefore build an identity for Canada as world leader; a country that has the wisdom to care and the ability to prove it.
It is particularly fitting that the thrusts and objectives of the Speech from the Throne are in harmony with such philosophy at this very festive and holy season. Let us work together to build a great future for Canada in peace and prosperity, a future in a global world that cherishes the lives of our children and generations to follow.
1 thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I now move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Gourde), that the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit, upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
We, Her Majesty's most loyal and dutiful subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members seeking to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken, since the rules of our House provide for a ten-minute question and answer period?


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, there have been many times when I have had occasion to speak in these august surroundings on subjects of local or more general interest. However, in the course of my short parliamentary career, today's speech will be the most important one 1 have, as yet, made in the House. Having been called upon to exercise this privilege and to do so on behalf of all my constituents, 1 would like to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for asking me to move the address in reply of the Speech from the Throne, and I think that the honour that has been bestowed on me also extends to all my constituents.
Yesterday 1 was also very pleased, as were the Members of all parties here present, that Madam Speaker has returned to this House and, Mr. Speaker. I may add that you yourself, as Deputy Speaker, have been a worthy substitute, because there have been a number of times that you were addressed as Madam Speaker.
Traditionally, and 1 would not wish to break with such a tradition, it has been customary to deal in this speech with topics of particular interest to the constituency. I would say

December 8, 1983
The Address-Mr. Gourde
that Canadians always have a better understanding of the circumstances of fellow Canadians in other Provinces when they are given a detailed description of the daily experience of our constituents. The riding of Levis, as most people know, borders on the impressive St. Lawrence River, and is situated across that river from Quebec City. Events that will take place in 1984 with the arrival of the tall ships will, I am sure, arouse the enthusiasm of the people of Levis. People tend to talk about "Quebec 84", but it is a fact that half of the observation site is located on the south shore facing Quebec City. The people of Levis will no doubt benefit from the publicity around this extraordinary international event, and the Canadian Government is already involved, in that it has provided financial support for the 1534-1984 Corporation and Destination Rive-Sud, and 1 wish their promoters every success.
The riding I have represented since May 4, 1981, as a result of a by-election, is a major growth area, demographically speaking, and appears to rank second, in this respect, in the Province of Quebec. Towns which a few years ago were quite small, such as Saint-Jean-Chrysostome, Bernieres, Saint-Nicolas and Saint-Etienne, have now all been incorporated and have a very young population. Levis is a mainly urban riding, although there are a number of large farming operations in the southern part which many Quebec farmers would be proud to own.
It is not easy to describe a riding like Levis, since its position on the South Shore directly opposite Quebec City would lead us to believe that it has a full range of resources. Actually, there is farming, there are three industrial parks, three major industrial entities which alone employ more than 5,000 workers. There is a major regional hospital, educational institutions that enjoy a considerable reputation in Quebec such as the College Levis and the Levis-Lauzon CEGEP, and there is also one of our major financial institutions which everyone has heard of, namely, the Mouvement Desjardins.
It is quite true that the people who pioneered on the South Shore had to work hard to make this region one of the major growth areas in the Province of Quebec and in Canada. Their healthy chauvinism has put considerable weight in the balance, in the David-and-Goliath relationship between the South Shore and the North Shore in the Quebec city area.
Today, I would like to discuss some of the topics that caught our attention in the speech made by his Excellency the Governor General yesterday. The Governor General stressed the development of a consensus among business, labour and Government. Our Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has been active in this respect and has succeeded in opening the way toward such a consensus. In fact, the last budget was largely the result of consultations, and the same process is already under way in connection with the next budget. Neither Government nor labour nor business alone can guarantee Canada's prosperity. Together, in a spirit of co-operation, they will be able to succeed. The Governor General proposed the formation
of task forces in areas where the Government intends to stress this new spirit of co-operation.
The Throne Speech included a similar proposal for co-operation in the shipbuilding industry. I find this reassuring, and 1 am, in fact, very pleased. Canadians are aware of the problems besetting this vital sector of our economy. Recently, the Canadian Government announced it had let a large number of contracts for the construction of ships in Canada, for a total cost of approximately $4 billion over a period of about twelve months. Unfortunately, the tenders made by Lauzon Shipyards were often well above the offers made by the lowest bidder. Last Thursday, we heard that Dome Petroleum intended to get rid of Davie, but Davie cannot be allowed to disappear. It is the major private sector employer in the Quebec City area, and any more or less long-term drop in activity would be a disaster, not only for the riding of Levis but for the entire Quebec City area. Although the Canadian Government has let a contract for the construction of the CN Marine ferry worth $121 million, another contract worth $13 million for refitting the Nipigon and other lesser contracts, the shipyard is now operating at about 50 per cent of its capacity. It has been unable to get contracts, either from the Canadian Government or the private sector. Nevertheless, this Government has done everything it possibly could, and in fact, further major contracts are to be let in the months to come. I am sure that company management and employees will do everything in their power to compete successfully on other public tenders.
In my riding, when the shipyards are busy, business is fine. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the present Member for Levis, like his predecessor, should bring up this subject time and time again. The Canadian Government has shown it is aware of the need to modernize our shipyards, and for a number of months, projects have been submitted to the Departments concerned. Early in the spring of 1982, an agreement seemed imminent on a major project for expansion and modernization, but the incredible collapse in Dome's financial situation snuffed out any hopes we might have had.
Today, a far more modest project is being planned. We support the principle and hope that Lauzon will soon have a shipyard that is more modern and better able to compete on the national and international scene. On June 29. the Government tabled a ways and means motion, and 1 realize now that the same notice of motion was again tabled yesterday. This ways and means motion provides for assistance to shipbuilders, and I am convinced that the motion will be supported by the Official Opposition. In addition, we hope it will be adopted in the next few days since a member of the Official Opposition gave his consent, and I am sure he did so on behalf of his party.
Elis Excellency recommends consultations among interested parties in the maritime sector. I am pleased with that because,
December 8, 1983

as a result of a recent seminar sponsored by the CNTU, I committed myself to have all interested parties hold a multipartite meeting to try to find a comprehensive solution to the problems facing that industry. On October 31,1 wrote to the Prime Minister, to the Quebec Premier, to the Ministers of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce of both levels of Government, to the Minister of Supply and Services, to management and labour spokesmen, to mayors, in short to everyone interested in quickly calling a meeting where the participants would seek jointly a common solution which, in my opinion, faithfully reflects the spirit of the Speech from the Throne we heard yesterday.
His Excellency also pointed out that the Canadian Government wants to protect our health care system. Several provinces have implemented user fees or have already announced their intention to do so. In Quebec, Mr. Parizeau did nothing more than mention the possibility of such action.
The public at large has often voiced its concern about the serious erosion of the health care system. The phenomena which are peculiar to that erosion include the practice of extra billing by physicians, the implementation of user fees with respect to hospital care, emergency treatment, out-patient care and day surgery. According to what we have heard so far, the major objective of the new legislation would be to maintain the health insurance basic principles and amend the existing statute so as to clarify vague definitions which might lead to misinterpretations.
The Government has already announced that the purpose of the new legislation would be to set moderate and practical penalties to be imposed after discussion and consultation with the provinces concerned. As a Government, we acknowledge- 1 speak on behalf of the Government-that health care is a provincial responsibility, but if we are to offer financial assistance to the provinces, we can make certain conditions and establish general principles. It is not true that user fees for hospital services will reduce unnecessary medical appointments or needless requests for care, since patients are admitted to and discharged from hospitals by the physicians themselves. Everyone knows that hospital expenses account for the lion's share of health care funds.
Secondly, a questionable situation cannot be remedied by a social injustice. Those who believe that levying a tax on illness would reduce the number of medical appointments conveniently forget to consider the disadvantages. Should a significant segment of society be deprived of free health care because a small minority abusively strain the system? The Canadian Government has made its choice and universal care will be protected throughout Canada. When it comes to health, people are not labelled as being short, tall, poor or rich. There are only Canadians. The present Liberal Government will lead the fight, and I will be proud to carry our colours in that fight.
Another important aspect of yesterday's speech is the consideration given to help for young Canadians. The situation in
The Address-Mr. Gourde
which they find themselves today is the result of the trying times which all Canadians have lived through in recent years. Fast technological changes, the anguish caused by the nuclear threat, the wars raging in many countries around us, the damage caused to our environment, the waste of our natural resources, the fear of an energy shortage, and finally, the recent economic recession, all this overwhelms our young people so that they cannot foresee any possible future and feel they are at a dead end. Reality for them seems a long journey between school, unemployment, an unsatisfactory job and finally social welfare. Those who have a job are happy to have it whatever the working conditions and worry only over the prospect of how long it will last. Aware of the fact that a diploma without practical experience is of little value, some young people decide without much conviction to extend their studies, while others simply give up to join all the others who cannot be classified as unemployed, as students as welfare recipients or as workers. This situation creates a feeling of helplessness among young people, for whom the rate of suicide is now four times higher than it was forty years ago, and this does not include the figures on unsuccessful suicide attempts, nor the cases of young people looking to alcoholism, drugs, prostitution or other means to escape the hard realities of life.
It appears that about 677,000 young people are now unemployed, which is about half the total number of unemployed in the country. The Quebec Youth Summit held last August, which was attended by 800 participants from every walk of life and served as a consultation forum for young people, proved beyond the shadow of a doubt in view of the impressive list of 230 resolutions passed at the Summit that our young people who seem to form a very mixed group are determined to overcome their plight. This privileged forum resulted in a new collective awareness of common problems and the will on the part of young people to claim their due by taking the means necessary to achieve their aim. The resolutions show that young people want to be autonomous and responsible and that they do not want to be taken in charge, but they want to be given the necessary tools.
The General Council of the Liberal Party (Quebec Section) recommended last March 26 that we support the efforts of the party's Youth Commission to create a ministry for youth. Members on this side of the House have regularly raised the problems faced by our young people, especially with regard to employment, both in the House and in caucus, over these last few years. To examine this whole issue and suggest solutions, a task force made up of Senator Jacques Hebert, the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) and the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) was established, and their recommendations were endorsed by the Quebec Liberal Caucus at Delage Lake last September.
At a time when society as a whole seems overwhelmed by the problems of young people who more than any other group are the victims of the recession, of the upheaval of traditional

December 8, 1983
The Address-Mr. Gourde
values and the disruption of social structures, it is very good to see in the Speech from the Throne that the Canadian Government intends to show leadership and support the efforts of young people who want and rightly so to become full fledged citizens. We are therefore very happy, and young people will certainly be happy to learn that a Minister of State for Youth will be appointed, which shows our political will to give priority to matters concerning our young people.
However, we have to admit that in the past the Government of Canada has taken many generous and often efficient steps to assist young people. Several departments, especially the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Secretary of State, and the Department of National Defence have each in turn introduced programs in various fields: training, skills, labour, the voluntary sector, exchanges, leisure, amateur sport, etc. Finally, young people were at a loss, confronted with numerous programs and administrative problems which often resulted in a lack of response to the programs made available to them.
By setting up a Ministry of State for Youth, the Government hopes to remedy those deficiencies. The first objective of the ministry will surely be to consolidate, coordinate, and promote all programs under its responsibility.
There can no longer be any doubt that the Government is serious about youth employment, with $1 billion to be injected to help young Canadians to acquire new skills and find a job. The Government had to take immediate steps to restore the confidence of our young people. Several measures are under consideration. The Speech from the Throne suggests some important ones, more especially the establishment of a National Voluntary Service. Launched in 1968 in a speech delivered by the Hon. Gerard Pelletier, then Secretary of State, this initiative has since been considered favourably by Members of Parliament. On the other hand, the interest shown in the Katimavik program which has been quite successful among the young people sent in all Canadian provinces where they do some useful work in the community for nominal rather than financial earnings leads us to anticipate the success of the National Voluntary Service. However, Parliament should be careful in implementing this service and to this end should pursue goals that fully meet both the economic needs of young Canadians and their requirements for work experience which should be compatible with their skills, so that everything does not stop with the termination of their service period and so that they may easily resume their normal place on the labour market.
The Canadian Government will offer young Canadians who are eager to know more about their country something similar to the Eurailpass system which is available in Europe. The success of the Hospitality Canada Program has shown that our youth is interested in this country.
To sum up in a non-limiting way, the Throne Speech announces the appointment of a Minister of State for Youth, a $1 billion program to help young Canadians acquire new skills and find jobs, besides the other measures 1 have just listed.
Mr. Speaker, quite a number of measures will be implemented for the benefit of farmers, small and medium businessmen, homeowners, as well as law reform. It is my view that over the next few days my colleagues will have an opportunity to stress those specific aspects of the Throne Speech, and certainly in a 20-minute speech it would be difficult to recapitulate that legislative menu which is quite substantial.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) was stunned by so many initiatives to deal with the current circumstances. And I am sure this House is anxious to hear whatever positive and intelligent reaction he will indicate in his speech. All the initiatives that were announced by His Excellency The Governor General merely make up the framework chosen by the Liberal Government to promote the development and security of Canadians.
This Government is offering Canadians the means-and I am reminded of what our well-known entertainer Jean-Marc Chaput says, that the heart is an engine while the mind is a brake-this Government is offering the means to achieve our national goals, but the key to their success is the wholehearted support of Canadians. As far as I am concerned, I have Canada at heart and I will work wholeheartedly for the successful implementation of those initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to second the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for London-West (Mr. Burghardt) and support the Throne Speech delivered by His Excellency The Governor General.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the rules of the House, the Chair must ask whether there are Hon. Members who are seeking to ask questions at this point.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say with regard to the Speech from the Throne tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Mulroney the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Evans the House adjourned at 4.04 p.m.

Friday, December 9, 1983