1983-11-15

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for having taken high-handed and anti-democratic actions in this session and for having proceeded, without a mandate and through the imposition of closure, to abolish the historic Crow Rate, to impose measures relating to taxes on petroleum and natural gas, to cap old age pensions, to create Canagrex, to limit increases in family allowance payments, to change income tax laws, and to increase public debt through additional borrowing and calls upon the Government to seek a mandate by calling a general election without delay.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Government has put democracy in this country on trial. Canadians are terribly concerned about where this country is going. In a very few years they have seen Canada reduced from a first rate power to one on a par with newly emerging countries. They have seen a nation with an economy in balance, a nation with high employment, reduced to one with a deficit which is so high as to cause concern even in the IMF and cause wonderment about this country's ability to manage its own affairs. They have seen a country that was pulling its weight in NATO and highly regarded for doing so reduced to one which is no longer trusted in the NATO Council.
[DOT]	(mo)
The recent episode in Grenada showed the whole world how the present Government is regarded. Canada was not trusted by the Caribbean nations because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Government of this country have gone out of their way to show softness on Marxism and an affinity for Communist governments which is neither appropriate nor safe in a democratic country like ours.
The Prime Minister went to St. Lucia in the Caribbean last February and stated that Marxist governments would continue to receive Canadian aid. I took him up on this in the House and he repeated the statement. That statement was one of the reasons given by the Prime Minister of St. Lucia as an explanation of why Canada was not consulted about the action taken in Grenada. This Government has admitted it was not consulted about the intervention in Grenada, although its
likelihood was the subject of front page stories in the London Times and Observer, as well as The New York Times in its Sunday edition of October 23. Obviously Government Members do not even read the newspapers. Not only did the Government not know about the intervention, but it apparently was not invited to the consultations which took place following the gruesome murder of Maurice Bishop and several members of his cabinet, along with dozens of innocent civilians the previous Wednesday.
In spite of the fact that Canada has been a major supplier of aid to the Caribbean and that we have a long historical involvement in the area because of its Commonwealth membership, this Government neither took the trouble nor showed any interest in being informed as to what was happening.
We had a famous statement by a junior Minister of State for External Affairs a few days after the grizzly events of October 19 on Grenada when he said that after a "decent interval" Canada would likely recognize the gang which gained power by murdering the incumbents. This was a curious concept of Commonwealth parliamentary government on the part of a chief spokesman for the present Government. Is it any wonder, Sir, that the Government, this one, was not consulted? As a matter of fact, it was not Canada which was not consulted; it was this Government which was not consulted, because of its ideological bias which is only too well known.
We had another example of the same kind of bias in the recent pilgrimage of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) when he visited the Middle East and appeared totally oblivious to what had. been going on there, what was going on there, and what that struggle is all about. Praising the Syrians for their involvement in Lebanon, an involvement based on maintaining a state of instability in the country with guns, tanks and rockets, while there were
7,000	Soviet troops in Syria and the Soviet has poured in billions of dollars in weaponry, was a new height in naivete even for this Government. Or was it naivete? There are a good many Canadians wondering about that question today.
These, Sir, are but a few examples, along with the highest and most persistent unemployment in history and the apparent inability of this Government to distinguish between our friends and allies and our enemies, which have given rise to a growing concern among Canadians as to the direction in which this country is being pushed by the present Government. The spectacle now of the Prime Minister, in a last minute bid for popularity, knocking at the doors of Europe and Asia, portraying himself as some sort of new messiah of world peace, rather than allaying the confusion in our own country, merely serves to increase this concern.

November 15, 1983
Supply
No one can be critical of any sincere and genuine effort toward achieving peace in the world. Such a purpose enjoys universal support. But when, with great fanfare, at a Liberal fund raising dinner, the Prime Minister unveils a master plan for peace, he invites cynicism. No wonder this place, this Parliament, is becoming totally irrelevant in the minds of Canadians. Liberal tactics, Liberal practices, mean announcements not to this House of Commons but announcements to Liberals only, an action described in this morning's written media at best as contemptuous and at worst as downright sleazy.
[DOT] (ms)
It is interesting to note, Sir, that of the five proposals-first, a big five summit conference; second, banning high altitude satellite weapon systems; third, expansion of the non-proliferation treaty; fourth, new initiatives in Geneva; and fifth, restricting non-verifiable IBMs-two of these are aimed directly at the capacity of the United States to mount a deterrent against nuclear attack. On the question of reducing conventional forces in eastern Europe, the Prime Minister has not revealed his solution to the 40,000 Soviet tanks stationed there.
These are hard, practical issues that must be resolved before peace proposals, however attractive on paper, can be taken seriously. While in an abstract way it is commendable for the Prime Minister to pursue solutions in finding peace for the world, there remain serious questions at home, among them the highest unemployment rate in our history for which many Canadians would prefer to see this Government produce some answers. The Government has failed dismally to do so and has instead gone on imposing long-distance solutions with little relation to the problems at hand.
That is another reason for the lack of confidence shown in the polls, a lack of confidence so serious that the only solution at the present time is for the Government to call an election. The Prime Minister of course does not want an election because not only is he worried about the support of the electorate, he cannot even count on the support of his own Party.
Many Liberals across the country are deeply concerned about the manner in which this Government has attempted radically to change the shape and direction of our traditional objectives in this country, our purposes and our institutions, changes in the House of Commons which do not go a yard beyond the knowledge of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. It is 581 days today that this session of Parliament has been sitting, and there have been 16 closure motions in one session-all records, all destructive of tradition.
There is one tradition though in this country, ever since Confederation, and that is an election once in every four years. But 1 dare say, having regard to the difficulties the Liberals perceive themselves to be in now-de facto are in now-they will cast that tradition aside as well.
By allowing interest rates to rise to unprecedented heights, this Government not only tolerated a record unemployment level, it created it. Because he did not dare lead this country into European style socialism by the front door, the Prime Minister has been doing it by the back door. He has created a bureaucracy in this country which an Auditor General has termed a parallel government, a government within a government. He has created a Frankenstein apparatus employing more people outside the Government than are employed within the Government of Canada. He has created an apparatus responsible directly to himself and his Cabinet with no responsibility to Parliament for day to day operations. He has intervened in every aspect of private and public life as no Government has done in the history of this country.
The National Energy Program puts the petroleum industry in a straitjacket, has creamed off profits and put them in the coffers of the Government. It has destroyed the confidence of investors, confiscated 25 per cent of the frontier lands, driven out over $4 billion in 18 months and cost Canada the Alaska highway natural gas pipeline and the tar sands project because outside investors were afraid to work with this Government. It has now entirely frozen development in my own riding of Yukon. Not content with this it set up CIDC and took over 1,400 service stations at a cost of $2 billion. Canadians are continuing to pay for this although all of the obligations have been met. This is the way this Government has been operating and is why Canadians are nervous and confused. Only an election can clean up the mess and clean out the mess.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We have had evidence of former Liberal Ministers being granted favours. We have had friends of the Prime Minister appointed to high places. We have had mismanagement in Crown corporations and agencies to the point where Canadians are not receiving the services they pay for. We have had a series of unexplainable episodes in Air Canada indicating mismanagement or carelessness in an organization where pleasing the Government has become more important than doing a job. This is why Canadians are uneasy and want an election.
In this House we have had the traditional Crow rate, one of the guarantees of Saskatchewan's entry into Confederation, swept away because of the Government's decision to impose a paper solution on the West. This Government does not care about the West, nor does it care about the East. Its major concern in central Canada appears to be the big contributors to the Liberal Party. They are the ones who have been doing all right under this Government.
To show this Government's contempt for Parliament and the people Parliament represents, it has run this session on for 581 days without a Throne Speech and with no indication of its plans for the future. It introduced two abortive budgets and one it failed to follow through on. It has brought in imposed solutions to the problems it created and those solutions have added to the confusion and uncertainty in the country.
November 15, 1983

In each case its policies have been so obviously self-serving that it has only been able to put them through with closure. It went back on its promises to old age pensioners and retired public servants. It shoved the changes in the Crow rate down the throat of western grain producers. It went back on its undertakings to the Provinces to pay 50 per cent of hospital costs. At the same time it spent money like water to support a hoard of Crown agencies which it itself created and which have not yet been approved by Parliament.
It is significant that when the Government took over Cana-dair four years ago it could have met all of its obligations of $40 million, yet it is now in a deficit position to the tune of over $2 billion. This is directly due to mismanagement by this Government.
The result of this Government's action on the Crow rate is that the western grain producer is now called on to pay for railroad modernization which should have been undertaken years ago out of current revenues. This was not done. The Government will pay enormous subsidies to the railways and extract a proportionate amount from western grain producers in order to compensate for the payments being made to the railways. The Government decided in its usual half baked way to highball through. There is no doubt Canadians will be paying for total confusion in transportation until such time as a Conservative Government can take office and clean up the mess.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to put an end to this Government and the endless misery that it has caused Canadians. Canadians from coast to coast want an election now. There is an unmistakable message. Canadians have had enough of back door socialism, enough of tinkering, enough of experimentation. They have had enough of lost jobs. They have had enough of bankruptcies. They have had enough of the flight of investment. They have had enough of the stagnation in industry. They want this Government out.
The present Government has reduced Canada to a level nationally and internationally reminiscent of the 1930s. It has done this in order to carry out the Prime Minister's ideological proclivities and to enable its members to keep their own jobs. Having heard the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Regan) trying to explain the Government's position on Grenada two weeks ago and also the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the Middle East, one would have taken them for members of Socialist International.
Canadians have shown in poll after poll that they are fed up. Not all of the Prime Minister's posturing and preening on the international stage, which he loves so well, can change the realities of a situation which has left Canada bereft of policy and leadership. Canadians want a chance to make a choice. They want to put Canada back to work. They want the Trudeau Government out.
They want a new Progressive Conservative Government in its place so that Canada can once again begin to realize its full potential so sadly neglected for too many years. If the NDP
Supply
believe in what they say, they will be supporting us all the way on this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Questions and comments? Debate.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great pleasure to have the opportunity to listen to the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He is one of those individuals who very rarely hides his particular point of view under the sheen or camouflage of what would be considered to be the niceties of parliamentary courtesy.
It is important and useful to have this debate today because we now find out what is at the core of the views of Members opposite. We no longer have the shining images in front of us. We are getting down to the basic goods which are the kind of bar room biases and right-wing rhetoric which they are trying to sell as an alternative to this Government.
We all came to the House this morning with a resolution in front of us dealing with a number of specific issues. What we have heard instead is a great catechism and litany of all the particular prejudices that the Hon. Member for Yukon could drag out from the very depths of his soul. But 1 think it is worth examining some of these presumptions simply to find out if an election would, in fact, solve the problem that the Hon. Member says it would.
Presumably, an election is meant to offer a choice, not simply to criticize the other side. Let us examine what the choices are. The Hon. Member first initiated a major attack on the position on Grenada taken by this Government. His point was that we were not consulted and that we were objecting to the actions taken. Well, the question we must ask is, what was the position of the Conservatives during this period? Where did they stand on the issue? I saw their spokesperson, the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), on television the other night when he was asked where he stood on this issue. He said: "It is a little bit this way and a little bit that way; we do not stand anywhere on this issue". What kind of choice has been offered regarding that particular problem?
The Hon. Member says that our position was based upon some deep attachment to Marxism. That must be the same motivation for Margaret Thatcher's government whom we also know must have a deep attachment to Marxism if she is to take the same position as this Government. Our position raises very serious questions about invading a sovereign country against the rule of law. Great Britain took the right stand when it raised that issue but Members of the Conservative Party did not have the guts to do that because they do not have the guts to take stands on any issue.
An election should offer a choice. What was the choice that the Conservatives offered us? They did not offer any choice. They said: "We are not sure we like what you are doing but we do not have anything to offer in return." That is the real question. But what are the alternatives?

November 15, 1983
Supply
The Hon. Member for Yukon goes on to say that our position in NATO is totally without credibility. If that is the case then 1 would ask Members of the House why it was, when the Prime Minister undertook his mission of the past week, that the major leaders of those countries not only invited him but welcomed him for that kind of discussion.
NATO itself is an organization not dedicated to war mong-ering or to sabre rattling, as the Hon. Member for Yukon would like to believe to be the case; it is an organization dedicated to maintaining peace in this world. Those countries recognize there has to be collective security but at the same time they recognize that initiatives have to be taken for arms control and disarmament. Again, I ask the question, where is the Conservative Party on the issue of arms control and disarmament? Where is that Party's proposals, ideas and initiatives?
What do we hear from them as to what kind of solutions the Conservatives would bring to perhaps the most serious, significant issue that faces mankind? Have we heard the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) give us his plan for peace? Have we heard what kind of proposals he would raise to reduce world tensions and reduce the enormous agglomeration of arms buildup? Not a word have we heard, Mr. Speaker. Not a peep. Not a single sentence has been uttered in terms of the proposals which the Progressive Conservative Party would offer Canadians in searching out ways of dealing with the matter that affects every Canadian deep inside of how we reduce world tension. At least we are trying to do the right thing. We are not hiding behind a barrage of right-wing rhetoric; we are trying to take initiatives that will help people secure some feeling that somebody is doing something. We are not simply allowing a willy-nilly escalation of the arms race; we are trying to use the position of credibility and confidence which this Prime Minister has built up over the last decade and we are trying to develop that position around the world. W'e are being received and accepted in doing so.
Surely if the question were asked by Canadians as to who has the kind of right and reason to pursue arms control, either the Hon. Member for Yukon or the Prime Minister, we know what the answer would be. At least people recognize that the Prime Minister has won that confidence by his initiatives overseas, not by the kinds of fits of silliness that we have seen displayed by the Hon. Member for the Yukon this morning.
We have also heard about the failure of this Government to deal with unemployment. We recognize and have recognized over the past several years what a serious and tragic consequence that has been. We have also recognized that it is a problem that has faced every single country in the world. We have not been immune to the economic recession that has taken place worldwide. The real issue is that we try to do something about it.
All the Hon. Member for Yukon would have to do is to open his ears from time to time during Question Period and listen to the kinds of initiatives that have been taken by this Government. In the last budget we had $2.4 billion in new capital
recovery projects which affect every region of this country regardless of who represents the region. The Hon. Member might be prepared to listen to the initiatives taken under direct employment. It was the government of which he was a Member that abolished direct employment programs. What would have happened to this country if the program of the so-called Conservative Party which abolished direct employment programs had been allowed to be maintained during that period of recession? Who would have helped the hundreds of thousands of people who were given work, support and useful activity through the Canada Works programs, the community development programs and the work sharing programs? What about the billions of dollars that were spent to give people that kind of support when they were out of work?
This group across from us would not have helped. They say they do not believe in that. They are the great free enterprisers. They were going to let the market take care of the problem. We saw how the market took care of it. It simply abandoned those people. This Government is not prepared to abandon those who are unemployed. We did not abolish direct employment programs; we brought them back into place. Thank God we did so that the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who were faced with unemployment in that market system were given.some support by this Government.
The Hon. Member for Yukon mentioned this "terrible travesty" of the National Energy Program. We saw the statements by his leader of this last week that he would get rid of it. He would abolish it. Does that mean he would go back to world prices, that he would ask Canadians to pay the full world price?


Mr. Epp:: Read the speech.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is that what the Conservative Party is going to offer people in an election, that they will pay even higher energy prices? Is that what the Leader of the Opposition was stating last week in Calgary? We are not too sure because the Leader of the Opposition said one thing in Calgary but seemed to change his mind when he got to Edmonton. By the time he got to Edmonton he said: "No, I am not going to abolish it". Then one of his backbenchers here in Ottawa had a different story, which simply means the Conservatives are like a vaudeville team. You hit a new town, you play a new act. It has a different tune and a different song, depending upon the crowd you are playing to.
We would have liked to hear from the Hon. Member for Yukon this morning, in his diatribe against this Party and this Government's energy policy, what his Party stands for. What is his energy policy? Is it to get rid of the National Energy Program and have world prices?


Erik Nielsen: It is to get rid of you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Is it the sell out to the multinationals? Is it to do away with the Canadianization program?


Mr. Forrestall:: Let the people decide.
November 15, 1983


Lloyd Axworthy: Is that what his Party is standing for? If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, why do the Conservatives not say so? Why do they not have the guts to get up and say so?


Erik Nielsen: Have the guts to call an election.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why does the Leader of the Opposition keep changing his tune every time he hits a different town and why does he not stand up and say what he believes in?


Erik Nielsen: Call an election.


Lloyd Axworthy: He says call an election.


An Hon. Member:: What are you waiting for?


Lloyd Axworthy: I thought this resolution couched in the words of the Hon. Member for Yukon is meant to say that we have forgotten Parliament. Has the Leader of the Opposition forgotten Parliament that he has to go to Calgary and Edmonton to give his particular panegyric on the energy program? Is he afraid to come into the House of Commons and tell us where he stands? Is that the problem with him? Is it that the Conservatives do not want to use Parliament as their forum for discussion and ideas? Here is the Hon. Member for Yukon saying that the Prime Minister has avoided Parliament.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


Lloyd Axworthy: Now we are finding out that the Leader of the Opposition also avoids Parliament. The Conservatives cannot have it both ways. 1 suppose it is only natural that leaders of parties are going to go across the country and make policy statements. I am not being critical of the Leader of the Opposition; goodness knows, I would not want to. 1 know how sensitive he is to criticism and how closely he takes it to heart. I would not want to comment on that. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition has the right to make statements in Calgary and change his mind in Edmonton. The fact of the matter is he is showing the same disregard for Parliament, if we use the logic of the Hon. Member for Yukon, as he is castigating the Prime Minister for so doing. What is this debate all about?


Erik Nielsen: It is the Government that is accountable.


Lloyd Axworthy: What is this kind of criticism being levelled at? Is it that political leaders are not supposed to go across the country and talk to groups of people and make their own statements?


Erik Nielsen: Governments are accountable.


Lloyd Axworthy: If that is the case, we would like to see the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament more often telling us where his "Government" stands.


Erik Nielsen: It is the Government that is accountable.


Lloyd Axworthy: Let us go on to some other issues. The Member for Yukon has raised the spectre of the Crow. He said this Government has brought in this piece of legislation without any consultation in the West, that it is going to
Supply
destroy western Canada with total disregard for Parliament. That is pretty interesting, Mr. Speaker. It was three years ago that two major farm organizations, the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition and the Western Agricultural Conference, asked that the Crow be changed and said that the real issue in western Canada was the failure to provide for a proper capacity to move grain to market. The kind of threat that we were looking at was the inability of this country's export market to be able to ensure its customers delivery on time at a decent price, and a government must take action to make that come about.
We could have followed the advice of the Conservative Party, which was to take no action at all, to freeze the program. This would have meant that by 1985-1986 we would have had a railway system that could not carry those goods to market. We would not have been able to sell those goods to the customers we have. We had a policy from the Conservative Party of "do nothing", of freeze. That was the word the Conservatives used. Do you know what a freeze is, Mr. Speaker? It is being frozen in position, afraid to make a decision.


Erik Nielsen: Like Munro has done to the Yukon.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what we had from Hon. Members of the Conservative Party. They were scared of making a decision because they knew there was no unanimity in their ranks as to what the position should be. Their only recourse was to oppose and be obstructive. That was their only recourse. It was not that they had a position; it was not what they were prepared to do to deal with the looming crisis in the railway system. They were going to say; "Let us continue a few ad hoc items; we will buy some more hopper cars here and give a few more subsidies there". What they were afraid of doing was attacking the fundamental, central problem, which is that every bushel of grain that was moved was losing money for the mover of that grain.
That group which says it believes in the market economy should at least have a minimal understanding of economics. One does not invest money in something one loses money at doing; if one makes an investment, one at least has to receive a proper return.


Erik Nielsen: What about Canadair, de Havilland and Maislin?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member for Yukon, that great parliamentary advocate, was also the author of some of the most extensive series of obstructions Parliament has ever seen.


Erik Nielsen: Who, me?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Hon. Member indicated that the Government could not bring in a Throne Speech. Which Party was responsible, along with their friends in the corner, for delaying Parliament and holding up parliamentary debate day after day after day? Which Party was responsible for not letting Parliament get to the proper business of the House? We were not

November 15, 1983
Supply
even allowed to debate the Bill because we were engaged in the gymnastics of parliamentary obstruction, the major product of the particular evil genius of the Hon. Member opposite.


Erik Nielsen: Oh, come on.


Lloyd Axworthy: Of course there is a certain cant in all he says. We heard the Hon. Member for Yukon say today that Parliament was being abused, that we were using closure when we should not. All we were doing was what a responsible government should do-make decisions, run the affairs of the country and attempt to overcome the obstructions of Hon. Members opposite.
I would like to quote the words of a self-acknowledged parliamentary expert who, in writing to another self-acknowledged parliamentary expert, said: "Having said that, our understanding of a parliamentary democracy does not allow us to agree with you that a majority government, however bad, does not have the right to govern in accordance with established tradition and precedents". Guess who that parliamentary expert was?


Erik Nielsen: "Established tradition and precedents"; that is the key.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will give the House one guess. Who was it? It was the Hon. Member for Yukon who indicated that the Government had the right to decide and should not be obstructed by the minority. That is the question. If we allowed the House to be so convoluted and overturned by the sort of parliamentary terrorism we faced in the Chamber day after day, we could not continue with the business of the nation and the affairs of the House.
1 cite, for the basis of my argument, the very words of the Hon. Member for Yukon when he indicated that the Government must decide. That is what we were doing. We were trying to make a decision in the House which would not only bring about a major expansion of the railways but also address the very issue the Hon. Member said we were not addressing- the question of unemployment. We recognize full well that the way to get the engine of the economy going is by providing some stimulus, some investment and some incentive for the private market to begin to work.
We have not heard lately from the Leader of the Opposition on the subject, but when he first came here he said that his objective was jobs, jobs, jobs. One can understand, when it came time to debate the Crow legislation which talked about over $16 billion of direct railway investment and over 300,000 new jobs and also about the development of new products and markets from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, that we were surprised the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues did not rise and say: "Let us get the Bill passed as quickly as possible". We were particularly surprised because the Leader of the Opposition had just returned from the byelection in his Nova Scotia riding where 800 workers are working today because of payments to the railways under the Crow legislation to build new hopper cars, which is part and parcel of our railway program. Also I was surprised by the lack of gratitude
of the new Leader of the Opposition. We were putting people in his riding back to work with our legislation. He allowed the debate to continue on and on without any resolution, until we were required by the dictates to bring the debate to a head with time allocation and reach a decision. If we had not been allowed to do that, what would have happened to the 800 workers in Trenton, Nova Scotia? They would not have had future contracts for work.
The same is true of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). His workers in the steel industry are looking forward to massive production of steel rail for railway expansion. They were faced with the possibility of that work being frustrated.


Mr. Deans:: That is not true.


Lloyd Axworthy: Similarly, Members of Parliament from British Columbia, when we were looking at new capital investments in that Province alone of $4.5 billion and at providing over 100,000 jobs, rose and read petitions from people in Saskatchewan. Their own people wanted work which we were prepared to provide, but they read petitions from another Province. I admire their sense of national dimension, but 1 suspect that perhaps some of their constituents have serious questions about how well they were being served during the debate on the Crow rate and whether they were getting full value from their Members of Parliament.
We were not misusing Parliament. We were using Parliament as it should be used. First we were using it as a forum for debate and ultimately as a place where a decision must be taken. It is my belief that Canadians want decisions to be taken. That is why the motion before us today is frivolous, irrelevant and makes no sense.


Erik Nielsen: Let the people decide.


Lloyd Axworthy: We suggest to Members of the Opposition that the Government at least has the willingness and courage to make decisions, not hide behind the kind of rhetoric we heard from the Hon. Member for Yukon this morning.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. Would he mind explaining whether he has in fact spoken to either or both the steel companies in Hamilton, the Steel Company of Canada and Dominion Steel Foundries, with regard to obtaining orders over and above what they presently have as a result of the changes to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates? If he has, would he then admit what both steel companies have said publicly that they do not anticipate obtaining any additional orders for steel directly as a result of the changes passed in the House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. First, let us look at what is happening now. As the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain would know, there are several hundred hopper cars now being made in the City of Hamilton as a result of the railway legislation. We are talking about an investment program in the next eight years in Ontario alone, particularly in the metal fabrication area-
November 15, 1983


Ian Deans: Hamilton, Hamilton.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the point. If the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has the slightest ounce of patience, 1 will come to the answer. We are talking about an investment of several billions of dollars in his Province alone which will provide in the range of hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, the point is that they must bid for the work. They must show they can make the product. They have to come forward with the sourcing. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, as a good Member of Parliament and as a good constituency man, should go back and talk to the same steel companies.
1 remind him of one of the important amendments which was made to the Bill in committee as a result of the efforts of the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael). That amendment requires the railways to source their purchases in Canada as a primary judgment of their performance. If they do not follow that sourcing responsibility, it will go against their performance obligations and allow the Government and the Minister of Transport to withhold payment. At the same time we will not compel companies to bid or to make proposals. We are giving them the opportunity; it is up to the companies themselves to take advantage of that opportunity and to show they can make the product. It is up to the companies to make bids for massive amounts of new rail, locomotives, cars and rolling stock which will be required during this major period of expansion.


Ian Deans: I think the Minister indicated that in fact I am correct, that the steel companies will not receive benefit directly as a result of the changes to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates. That is their statement. They themselves have done the analysis; they themselves know that they will not obtain additional orders.
The point the Minister makes, Mr. Speaker, is that National Steel Car is building hopper cars. Is the Minister aware that yearly, for as far back as I can remember, National Steel Car has been receiving orders for hopper cars; that in fact, in the current year, the orders are fewer in number than they have been in any previous year; and that in fact they are getting less work and not more?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are trying to point out to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is that the work is there and it is being shared with Hamilton, with the Transcona shops in Winnipeg, which I am sure would interest his colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), with Trenton in the constituency of the Leader of the Official Opposition, and with the City of Sorel. There were major orders, not only for hopper cars but for coal cars as well to help move those products. Surely the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, who has participated in this Crow debate for many weeks, would understand that there would be no further orders, no expansion and no development
Supply
unless that legislation had passed in order to provide for continuity and certainty for the railways.
The time had come to end the ad hoc, capricious, year by year financing. We were reaching a stage where the issue was not simply a matter of having more hopper cars but a matter of not having enough steel rail to move those hopper cars on. We had to expand that capacity to make sure that there would be a continued development of new product and new rolling stock which would benefit the companies in his city.
I would invite Members of the NDP to begin to look at the possibilities for sourcing rather than giving up and surrendering before the legislation is passed. I make the offer in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, that we are quite prepared to meet with them to show them what their opportunities are.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask a question of the Minister. In his rather loud speech, the Minister said they were going to expend some $4.5 billion in British Columbia because of the passing of the Crow Bill and that that money would create 100,000 jobs. As this work will go on for several years, can we take it from that that there will be several hundred thousand man-years of work created in British Columbia because of the passing of the Crow Bill? Will that $4.5 billion be provided by the railways or by the Government? When will the hiring start and when will it end? How many jobs can we expect to be created in British Columbia through this Bill in the next 12 months? Will the 100,000 jobs be filled this year, next year or the year after? What is the time frame?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Hon. Member was not more involved in the debate during the course of the examination of the legislation because many of those questions were answered and the answers are on the record. However, perhaps I may be allowed to give him a quick summary.
First, the work is dependent in large part on the starting dates and we are looking at jobs beginning in the construction area. With the passage of the Bill this fall, the CPR, for example, is prepared to initiate work on the Beaver tunnel, which I think will create close to 1,000 new jobs. We hope that that construction will begin as soon as possible. The CPR has been awaiting the passage of the legislation because it could not proceed until that Bill was passed and it was certain of its financing. There are also a number of double-tracking initiatives that will be going through.
The second area is product sourcing, and as I pointed out to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, one of the obligations of the railways under this Bill is to source in the country. The opportunities exist both in basic supply of traditional construction materials as well as in a number of areas that have not yet been explored. Let me give as an example the area of electronics. The railways estimate that some $700 million worth of new electronic signalling transmission equipment will be required. The Government of Canada is now working with the railways and with a consortium of companies in Vancouver, Calgary, Saskatoon and Winnipeg to see how

November 15, 1983
Supply
they could bid on that new electronic equipment, because up to this point in time all of that equipment has been sourced offshore.
Again, it comes back to the same thesis. Much of the work itself will depend on how effective it is for the manufacturer and the business community to respond to those initiatives. The person-years that we are talking about are spread over four or five years of construction, but I suggest that they would be weighed more heavily in the front end-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a supplementary question. 1 believe he was just about to answer my question, which was how many of these 100,000 jobs we would see in the next 12 months. He has located 1,000 of those jobs. That still leaves 99,000 jobs.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, 1 think 1 have already said that the project itself will be spread over a period of eight years. Perhaps the Hon. Member who represents a constituency in British Columbia is not interested in having those people working over a period of eight years. Of course, the jobs will not all be created in the first 12 months. That will happen over the life of the project.
The fact of the matter is that those construction jobs will, in large part, begin over the next 18 months. Unfortunately, major construction starts were delayed this fall because of a delay in the passing of the legislation.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister and I heard him refer to hundreds of millions of jobs. 1 take it that was a slip of the tongue and that he meant hundreds of thousands of jobs. However, I would assume from that statement that the Crow legislation itself could, according to the Government's estimates, lower the rate of unemployment by 25 per cent. Since there are two million people unemployed, the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs would lower the unemployment rate by 25 per cent. I wonder if the Minister would table in the House the precise areas where those jobs will be created and in which Provinces, for what kind of industries and the precise numbers of jobs that will be created. What is the exact estimate of the number of jobs that will be created as a result of the passage of the Crow legislation? Would the Minister table that information in the House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite refreshing to see that, ail of a sudden, Members of Parliament on the Conservative side from British Columbia are beginning to take an interest in the Crow legislation. All of a sudden, after all of the long months of debate, they are coming awake to the fact that it will be of major benefit to their Provinces. I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a little late. Where were they during the debate when we needed them to help get this Bill through?
The information that the Hon. Member requests is already available on the records of the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) rises on a point of order, but I should advise the House at this time that the period allowed for questions and answers is over.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister was in the House during the debate on his own legislation, he would know that I spoke on the Crow legislation several times.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to make it clear to the House that we substantially agree with the criticisms contained in the motion put forward by the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition and we will, of course, support the main thrust of the motion. 1 say that so that there will be no doubt in the mind of any Hon. Member about where we stand.
1 would like, however, to say that I must confess to having some difficulty in taking the criticism of the Conservative Party seriously. I have looked back over the course of the last two years. I am firmly convinced that the Government has failed to act reasonably in almost every single area of concern to the majority of Canadians and I am prepared to level criticism at the Government for the hamhanded way in which it has dealt with the economy, its neglect of people who are unemployed, its inability or unwillingness to come to grips with high interest rates and its general attitude toward the concerns of the Provinces.
However, I find it very difficult to accept at face value the criticisms being levelled by Hon. Members of the Conservative Party. They have come forward on every side of every issue raised in the House since 1980. They have attempted to be all things to all people on every single area of policy since the House was called into session after the election in the winter of 1980.
It is hard to accept that Members of the Conservative Party are serious about doing anything to try to improve the disaster that has been created as a result of Liberal mismanagement. If you sit as an observer and watch the Tories in action, you cannot help but wonder just what they stand for. They have a spokesman not only for every issue, but a spokesman for each side of every issue. If, for example, you want to see high energy prices, if you are part of the lobby group that is looking for high energy prices, you go to the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). He will gladly speak for you. However, if you are a consumer concerned about high energy prices, eager to keep the price down so that you can pay for it with your meagre wages, speak to the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). He will gladly get up and speak on your behalf.
If you are in favour of testing the Cruise missile in Canada, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is your man. He will get up at any time and explain how we must have this
November 15, 1983

continued escalation of nuclear warfare weapons. If, however, you are one of the groups in one part of Canada or another that is opposed to the testing of the Cruise and you do not want to see it go ahead, just get yourself on the mailing list of the Hon. Member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean). He will be glad to speak for you.
If you think there is some need to cut Government expenditures, contact the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), the slasher. He will be happy to tell you of all the wonderful cutting that the Tory Party is going to do. If, however, you think that the Government should be spending more in some areas, you can contact the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney). He will point out that there are many areas in which he is in agreement with the Government as to spending more.
If you are for six and five, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) is your man. If you are opposed to it, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead is your man. If you would like to see the Public Service slashed because you think there are far too many in the Public Service and some of these people just have to get out of there, the Member for Prince Rupert-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I am sorry. I will settle for Prince Rupert, but I meant to say the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). The day he takes office, he is going to cut
60,000,	the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) supporting him all the way.
If you think that maybe we ought not to take that approach, that it is too harsh, that maybe we should recognize the worth of the Public Service, if you were to chat with the Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) I am quite sure he would be glad to point out the value of the Public Service and the good work it does. You do not have to worry too much. If you are on that side of the issue, there is a prominent or sometimes not so prominent Tory who will gladly speak on your behalf.
If you think that high interest rates are just the thing, that that is what we really need, see the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). He knows about these sorts of things. He said that the high interest rate policy of the Government is the only way to go. He said that we have to follow the high interest rate policy if we want to come to grips with inflation. However, if you think that high interest rates are driving people out of their homes, causing people to lose their nest egg and suffering has befallen the people of the land, the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will be pleased to rise and rant on your behalf.
Let me go on, because this is what worries me about the Tory motion. If you are a moderate in foreign affairs and you think there should be a particularly Canadian approach, that we should establish our own policy, go through the process of dialogue and find a common ground, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will be glad to rise and speak on your behalf with passion.
Supply
However, if on the other hand if you think jacked up diplomacy is the way, march on and trample them underfoot, cut off all dialogue and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, again there is the Member for York-Peel. He is your man. He will be glad to speak for you.
I could go on. I suspect I could take a whole day and go through the Conservative caucus one by one. You would find on every single issue, no matter what position you take, no matter what side of the issue you are for, no matter how adamantly you are opposed, a Conservative happily standing up to speak for you.
Some people may say that is democracy, that that is the democracy of the Conservative Party, that it shows they really do understand the nation. However, what would be their policy if in office? When you come right down to it, who would win the tug of war? Which of the various Members speaking for the Conservative Party actually enunciates the policy they would pursue? That is the key question that must surely be in the minds of the majority of Canadians.
Canadians are sick up to the back of their throats with this Liberal Government, and quite rightly so. Canadians have seen this Liberal Government for what it is; hard hearted, incompetent, incapable, posturing at all times. However, sick as they are with that bunch, how could any clear minded individual possibly go out and support this rag-tag bunch from the Conservative Party? How could anyone do that?
1 have said this before, I think it is true, it was true when I said it the first time and I would not say it again if it were not still true: the Conservative Party have more positions than Masters and Johnson. They do not know what they stand for. All they stand for is getting into government. All they stand for is getting rid of the Grits. I want to get rid of the Grits as well, but I want to put in place a policy that makes sense for Canada. I want to give Canadians a clear and unequivocal choice. I want to afford Canadians the opportunity to vote for something and not simply against something. That is the choice that Canadians will ultimately be forced to make. Are they going to vote simply against a very bad Government as exemplified by the Liberal Government of the last two years? Will they vote against it by voting for a pig in the poke, some kind of take a chance and let us hope that things work out all right?
The Conservatives will not tell us what they are going to do. They ask Canadians to give them a chance and maybe they will be surprised. My God, maybe they will be surprised. 1 do not believe it is unreasonable to think that the Tory attitude is not at all unlike the attitude of their Conservative friend in British Columbia, Bill Bennett. If the Conservatives were ever to form a Government, and heaven forbid it should ever happen, I would expect to see them follow the exact same line of that heartfelt Premier of British Columbia, that man of compassion who does not respect order, tradition and people's rights, who tramples all over them at every turn and does not give a damn about the impact of his policies. That is their Conservative friend in British Columbia. That is what the
28876

November 15, 1983
Supply
public of Canada will risk getting if it elects a Conservative government.
There are positive things which should be done in this country. What we must do for starters is come to grips with the interest rates being charged by the financial institutions. We must bring that interest rate spread down to a level which will ensure that the people of Canada will be able to purchase the goods they need for themselves and their families. We must bring that interest rate spread down to a point at which small businesses will be able to continue to provide the services which they have historically provided. We must decide now that that is a priority. But neither the Liberals nor the Conservative are prepared to take that measure.
We must begin now to build homes in this country to meet the needs of the people at prices they can afford to pay and, in the process, put people back to work. We must begin now to establish a new transportation policy in order that we not only can build for the future, but can assure that the port facilities inland and on the coast are modernized and capable of meeting the requirements of the next generation. We must start now to make sure that the agricultural implements industry in Canada is refurbished and regenerated so that the farmers of Canada will be able to stay in the forefront of competition.
Let me say now, Mr. Speaker, in order that I do not miss the opportunity, that I intend to move the following amendment just to show the kind of positive things one should expect to see from a new government in office. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the motion be amended by deleting the period after the word "delay"and substituting the following therefor:
"in order that a new government receive a mandate to implement the following program for job creation and economic development; the establishment of lower interest rates and the restoration of traditional interest rate spreads between loans and savings, the introduction of a major housing construction program, the implementation of the Auto Task Force Report, the revitalization of the farm implements manufacturing sector, the upgrading of all vital transportation systems including inland and coastal ports and a new commitment to reforestation and forestry sector development; and the full restoration of public sector and collective bargaining rights.
That is the kind of thing which the Canadian public have a right to expect to hear from those who vie for office, from those who want to govern the country.
There are other things which must be contained in a program for the revitalization of Canada. There are other direct policies which must be supported, not by one or two Hon. Members but by all Hon. Members of whatever party forms the government. We must develop a mining equipment manufacturing industry in this country because it makes no sense that we should be so rich in resources and so poor in the manufacturing of mining equipment. We must utilize in our own interests western Canadian coal and the creation of electrical power in Provinces which are now purchasing it from outside the country. We must develop in Canada a forestry machinery industry because, again, it makes no sense for a country so rich in forestry resources not to have available the most technologically advanced forest machinery industry.
We must complete the East-West pipeline in order that Canadians can be self-sufficient in energy and we can create in Canada a self-sufficiency which will allow us to develop industrially over the course of the next 10, 15 or 20 years. We must work at developing an import substitution policy for Canada so that Canadian manufacturers large and small can be given a direction in which to look to replace those manufactured products which have been brought into this country from offshore which we ourselves could be manufacturing.
There are in this country people who are dedicated to putting those kinds of policies in place. There are people who would like to see full employment in Canada, who would like to see the youth of this land given an opportunity to go to work rather than leaving school only to find there is no work for them in any part of the land.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the public of Canada are not going to receive those kinds of policies from either the Liberals-no matter what they do in terms of their leadership-or from the Conservatives, because the Conservatives are not dedicated as a team to developing a single set of policies which would make sense for the future of the country. The time will come, Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives will be asked to stand up and be counted on these issues. There will be a time when the public will say to the Conservative Party: "You cannot be on every side. You cannot speak with a forked tongue forever. You simply must say what it is you truly want to see happen."
1 suggest that the only Party in Canada which is prepared to make those kinds of categorical statements, and to back them up with action, is the New Democratic Party. I would welcome an election. I would welcome the opportunity to take on this bunch of two-faced, double-talking individuals who refuse to offer constructive opposition and intelligent alternatives to this washed-out Liberal bunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair has received the text of the motion put forth by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The Chair, however, would like to take the text of the motion under advisement and should be in a position to make a ruling on it before one o'clock, I am sure. Are there questions or comments?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I must say that was an entertaining speech. It reminded me of the 1980 election campaign, which I remember with some pleasure. The Leader of the New Democratic Party was going around the country at the time when the Soviets were moving into Afghanistan. He was saying that Canada had to strengthen its role in NATO. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) was saying that the Leader of the New Democratic Party did not understand the New Democratic Party policy on the matter of NATO, that we needed to withdraw from NATO. I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether that Party has ever solved that policy issue within the Party and actually decided who the real leader is.
November 15, 1983


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party, we have no difficulty in deciding who the leader is. The one thing we do not have any problem with is the leadership of our Party. It is interesting to watch how the Conservatives squirm when the word "leadership" is raised. Those Hon. Members, including the Member who just asked the question, devoted two years to undermining the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head. They worked very hard to undermine the credibility of their own leader. You would never find that happening in this Party.
1 want to say to the Hon. Member that if he does not understand the difference between long and short-term policy, then that probably is quite clearly the reason why he asked such a foolish question.


Mr. Evans:: Mr. Speaker, I was also intrigued by the passion in the speech given by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). However, I did notice that one of his key platform planks would be a major reduction in interest rates, especially the spreads between the rate on savings and the rate to borrowers. Does he not understand, Mr. Speaker, that in this country and the United States one of the main problems in bringing down those spreads-especially as it affects the United States-is the huge size of the federal deficit? That is the problem.


Erik Nielsen: Who is responsible for that?


John Leslie Evans: We are not going to have lower real interest rates so long as the United States is going to borrow $200 billion or $300 billion a year to finance a deficit, for example, for defence expenditures.
That is on the one hand. On the other hand, the Hon. Member went on to say that not only would interest rates be brought down under NDP policy, but there would be an expansion of spending for housing and subsidies for new machinery and equipment for the agriculture and forest industries. In all these areas there have to be subsidies of some kind to encourage that kind of production. In the automobile industry, the task force report would be implemented which would mean the cost of foreign cars to Canadian consumers would go up. There would be less consumption because those subsidies have to be paid for from somewhere. If consumers cannot finance those expenditures, then the Government is going to increase the deficit further and does that not fly in the face of the notion that interest rates have to be brought down?


Ian Deans: That certainly is a convoluted question, 1 must confess.


John Leslie Evans: It is a convoluted position.


Ian Deans: No, the position is clear. The traditional interest rate spread has been about a third of what it now is. The reason is the wrong-headed policies of the Liberal Government and the Bank of Canada. If the Government wanted to assume
Supply
responsibility for interest policy in Canada, it has the ability to do so.
As far as the other matters are concerned, would you prefer to pay out $1 billion a month for Unemployment Insurance payments or would you prefer to put the money into creating jobs? It is $1 billion a month now, and with the policies you are following now there are few new jobs being created and we have reached a point where in the last StatsCan reports the numbers of new jobs have gone down substantially compared to the last five years. If you continue you are going to have the overwhelming majority of young people unemployed, those who are supposed to be coming into the labour force. You are going to end up having to raise Unemployment Insurance levels, the cost of unemployment will continue to rise at a dramatic pace as it has over the course of the last 18 months. All of that to keep people unemployed. Surely it makes more sense, if you take into account the cost of keeping people on unemployment or welfare, all of whom would like to work, that the money be redirected and people given jobs instead. If you are telling me that you cannot do that, then I suspect that is one of the good reasons why you ought not to be in Government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to that rather circuitous route the Hon. Member's speech took, touching every station on the loop. 1 followed with interest the smorgasbord amendment he submitted to the Chair. In the event it is not found acceptable, I am curious whether the Member and his Party, reunited again since the Constitution debate, are prepared to vote in favour of this motion before the House or are they going to vote again with their friends across the way?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Member the benefit of the doubt. I assume he was not here at the beginning of my speech. Either that or he suffers from a serious deficiency. I said at the very beginning of my remarks that we would support the motion and that the motion was substantially correct.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I did not hear you say that.


Ian Deans: The fact you did not hear it is neither here nor there. It is quite clear that the thrust of the motion is supportable and we will support it. We find it deficient in certain ways and we have attempted to improve upon it, but there is no doubt in my mind that that bad bunch over there ought to be gone. I am just afraid this bad bunch over here is no better.


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Is there still time?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. The Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) rose at just about the same time and there are a few minutes left.

November 15, 1983
Supply


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, in his speech the Hon. Member did not mention bilingualism. I wonder what he thinks about the position taken by some Members of the Progressive Conservative Party, especially the Member for Simcoe-North (Mr. Lewis), the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and their leader, the Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. To me that question is hardly acceptable because the Hon. Member, by his own admission, refers to a topic which was not raised by the previous speaker. The provisional orders provide that questions and comments must be related to an Hon. Member's speech. The Chair finds it difficult to accept that question but in any case I will give the Hon. Member the benefit of the doubt.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the situation in the Progressive Conservative Party. It is all very confusing. [English]
The problem with the Conservatives, as in all things, is that they would like to be on both sides. Unfortunately it will require many people to explain what it is like when you are on both sides of every issue.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in support of this motion. I feel very comfortable about participating because things which have been seen to be normal in the country over the last 15 years have again been brought together this morning in the House. The Liber-al/NDP coalition is again complete.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Alive and well.


Erik Nielsen: Alive and ill.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have not heard a better defence of this Liberal Government's record than that given by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr, Deans). In fact, if the Liberals have any sense left, they should hire him as their speech writer or, possibly even better, as their campaign manager. It was so interesting to watch the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain talking about this bunch and that bunch, because he did not know in which direction to point any more. Whenever Canadians want a change of Government, and the polls show this now month after month, year after year, the NDP would take a Liberal Government every time rather than a Conservative Government.
The NDP say the Government is a bad bunch and I agree. But it was their motion which brought the Liberals back. The NDP have tried to be the people with a 14 per cent solution, the people who represent the West. They tried that in Mission-Port Moody. What happened there? Oh, they are quiet! Why are they quiet? The NDP went literally on their knees to Mr. Barrett, the former leader in British Columbia, and asked him
to run. But he had been defeated so many times he also knew not to do it. So today we have the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) here. Why? Because he represented the people of Mission-Port Moody. That is why the NDP does not have that seat. Even the NDP, no matter what kind of convoluted mathematics they want to use, know that 14 per cent is not a government. Oh, those Liberals, Mr. Speaker!


Erik Nielsen: Jake, they are consulting now.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to allow them whatever joy and pleasure they might want between now and the election because they are at 5 per cent in Mission-Port Moody. Even the Rhinoceros Party could do better, but maybe they have got more qualifications. The point is that when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) gets up and tries to speak as a western Canadian and calls it prejudice, he is saying that the majority of Canadians, who in poll after poll have said a change of government is needed and necessary, are prejudiced. He is saying they do not know what is good for them and that they should rethink their position.
The point is that the democratic process in Canada today needs a change of government. What are some of the words we have heard over the last years? I refer to an article that appeared in The Winnipeg Sun last Sunday written by Peter Warren. He writes:
What this country needs along with a good 5 cent cigar-
I might have some question about that.
-and chicken in every pot is a federal Government that erases a number of words from its dictionary. Words like "mandatory, obligatory, prohibited, no choice". Probably and hopefully history will recall the most distasteful underlying belief of the Trudeau Liberals was the general thought over 15 years: "We know best what is right for the people".
That is the underlying philosophy of this Government. The Minister of Transport through the Crow debate said time after time: "This is good for you in western Canada. You farmers are wrong to be opposed to the changes to the Crow rate. You Chambers of Commerce are wrong to be opposed to the Crow rate. You commodity groups are wrong to be opposed to the Crow rate changes." Mr. Speaker, in the last Throne Speech 581 parliamentary days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that because the Government did not have sufficient representation from the West, western Canadian Members had an obligation to represent the views of the West and the Government would listen. If that is an example of the Minister of Transport listening, we do not need that type of listening from the West and from this Government.
The Government went even further and said that it would not change the Crow until there was sufficient and adequate consensus in the West for change. Mr. Speaker, the Crow rate changes are not only economic or only extra capacity of rail. It was part of the fabric of the social milieu of western and prairie Canada. They said they would have consensus. Mr. November 15, 1983

Speaker, today the Minister mentioned two groups who were in favour. If he checks the record he will find that even those two groups left that consensus.
Why are we to believe this Government, Mr. Speaker? It is interesting to look at what the mandate of this Government is.
I went back and looked at the election promises of 1980 because that is a mandate. That is what the Government said they would do and what they were in favour of. Let us take a look at their record and see whether or not they have fulfilled what they themselves said they would do. First they said that energy prices would never rise as high as the Conservative Government's. They said they would never have an 18-cent per gallon tax-


John Leslie Evans: We said excise tax. Be honest.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let us ask Canadians what has happened to the price of energy since 1980.


John Leslie Evans: Excise tax versus price. Be honest.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What has happened to the price of energy? The Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) is now saying they did not say the price of energy was going to be lower only that the tax was going to be lower. Is that what he is saying? Only the excise tax was going to be lower. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the record. They say only the excise tax would be lower. Everything else would be higher. I understand that.
Mr. Speaker, they said that energy would be lower. Every Canadian knows it is higher. They said that interest rates were too high and they would bring them down.


Erik Nielsen: Or resign.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) said he would resign. He is a principled man. I accept that. What did they do? We have the highest interest rates in the history of Canada. How high were they? Oh, no answers. Twenty per cent plus. That is what they said was their mandate. They said they would lower unemployment which was unconscionably high.
Mr. Speaker, I give the Minister of Transport the record of the highest unemployment rate in the history of this country. The Government said unemployment would go down. They said lower inflation. Inflation has come down and I will give the Government the amount of credit they deserve in bringing down the inflation rate. It is very interesting to look at the inflation rate.


John Leslie Evans: How much credit is that, Jake, according to you?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You can define that for yourself.


Erik Nielsen: About that much.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will tell you how much that is Mr. Speaker. They said six and five. I accept that.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Chair finds that there are more interruptions than usual. I think we ought to listen attentively to the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Erik Nielsen: It is hurting them.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, even though I accept those interjections. When somebody gets stuck generally they squeal.
If the Government were sincere on the matter of six and five, and let us give them the benefit of the doubt that they were, why are they then asking Canadians to pay for rates of increase in excess of 12 per cent of Government spending? Why does the Government not realize that if it is really in favour of six and five, it must also live within the restrictions it has placed on other Canadians? We accept those restrictions but why do they not restrict themselves?


John Leslie Evans: You are in trouble with that one.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, they were going to control spending. They were going to control the spending of Government. They said they would keep it within the nominal growth rate of the GNP. The record speaks for itself. It obviously has been again a promise not kept.
I have no doubt that Canadians want a change of Government. They want a change of Government because of the kind of representation they have been getting from the Minister of Transport. Some very interesting things are happening in that Minister's riding. We have more Members in that riding today and we are getting more money in that riding today because they are girding for the battle. The Minister of Transport holds a seat which Manitobans are going to do everything possible to turn into a Conservative seat and allow the Minister of Transport to go back to the things he does best.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is very interesting to be at meetings in Winnipeg South or Winnipeg-Fort Garry and see people who never before were involved in the political process saying they want to get involved. This Minister is not representing western Canadian viewpoints to the Cabinet and in the House of Commons. In fact, it would seem that the voice he is raising is more to get delegate votes for a possible leadership run than to represent the views of western Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Gimai'el would get more.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, earlier I used the words "mandatory" and "no choice". Members opposite must know that the added increases on the cost of the Crow are going to have serious effects on many farmers in western Canada. How can the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, as a so-called self-ordained westerner, say that this is good for western Canada when in fact the Government had a mandate and a responsibility to put in the extra capacity without needing to change the Crow rate? In fact, this was happening beforehand. The Hon.

November 15, 1983
Supply
Member talks about hopper cars, but when were many of those hopper cars brought in? When the Hon. Member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) was the Minister of Transport the very large increase in hopper cars took place. This was not accomplished by changing the Crow but by sitting down with the railways and the prairie Governments. As a representative of the federal Government he asked them how to solve this capacity problem. Great steps were taken in that respect.
I want to deal with some other issues raised in this motion. Another reason people in this country feel a change is needed is the economic mismanagement of the Government. Today, as a result of the Government's economic mismanagement, roughly 25 cents of every tax dollar collected now goes to service the debt. I found the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre rather interesting and 1 agreed with his views in the way he formed his question. However, the fact remains that the Government has a very serious debt problem. It is not only very serious because of its size and the drain it is causing on the general accounts of Canada, but in my view it is jeopardizing the very social programs which Canadians want to keep in place. That is very serious.
We can be very partisan in the House-and I have been- but I want to say to the Government that we look forward to seeing the Canada Health Act. We want to know what programs the Government will propose. In light of the economic reality we face in Canada, we want to know how the programs which are now in place-which we want to preserve and strengthen but also take cognizance of the realities that we as Canadians must face in terms of the demography of the country-will be able to meet those two objectives in view of the economic mismanagement that we have seen during the last 15 years and which is now seriously jeopardizing many of those safety nets.
While we can talk about many issues which have a public profile, such as user fees, extra billing and opting out, the real issue we must face is the ability to maintain and enhance programs in light of this Government's economic mismanagement over the last 15 years. That is the point. I welcome the proposals from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for meeting those two realities.
If Canadian business people or Canadians generally were paying 25 cents out of every dollar just to pay interest on a debt, I know what their bankers would be doing. Their bankers would be calling them in and would want to look at their financial statements. That is what Canadians must be worried about today with respect to the Government.
I want to say to the Government in all seriousness that the greatest negative legacy it is leaving behind is that its economic mismanagement is jeopardizing that which Canadians believe to be right and properly part of their collective protection or safety net in our society. The Government cannot dispute that because those are hard facts. A report on pensions is to be tabled approximately in the middle of December. Pensions are a very serious issue without doubt and we have
had a task force on pensions and have had a green paper. In my experience and I am sure in the experience of every Member of the House, one of the most critical problems in this respect concerns widows, especially those between the ages of 55 and 65 who do not have a safety net to fall back on. How do we address this question of pensions while keeping in mind again the economic reality that we face as Canadians as a result of the economic mismanagement of the Government?
We can also talk about the maintenance of health care. The Minister has said that the federal Government has not withdrawn its share of funding in any way. However, when we look at the demography of Canada and the demands in that system, the Provinces which have primary responsibility in that area recognize the need for alternate care, preventive health care, home care and community based care. Where are the Minister's plans? How will we address those questions in view of the economic mismanagement of the Government? Those are the legacies being left behind.
While we can be partisan in the House, and I can possibly be as partisan as anyone in this place, the point is that the Government's legacy is that it has spent money on things for which Canadians today and in the future are being asked to pay when the very fundamental and essential issues which have not been dealt with are now in jeopardy. That is the Government's legacy.
Therefore, this motion calls upon the Government to do the honourable thing and that is to call an election. It is the respectable thing to do. The polls have indicated that many Canadians are absolutely convinced that there is a need for a change in Government. Some have said that my leader and this Party will form the next Government of Canada. I believe that to be the case. But we are not only a Government in waiting, Canada is waiting. The country is waiting for a change. The country is waiting to have confidence returned and to bring optimism back to it. It is not only the Progressive Conservative Party but Canada that is waiting. The NDP do not want a Conservative Government in Canada to the extent that they will do whatever is in their power to return the Liberals and form a coalition and make deals with them.
I will leave this point with you, Mr. Speaker, and with Canadians. I say that Canada and Canadians are waiting. When Canadians want a change of Government, when democracy demands a change in Government and the democratic system must be cleansed, Canadians cannot afford the luxury of voting for a third party, because the experience in Canada for having a third party has always been the return of the Liberals. Therefore, I say that Canadians are waiting for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) to take his rightful place as the Prime Minister of Canada and to bring back to Canada the hope and the potential that should be ours as Canadians.

Mr. Pierre Gimaie! (Lac-Saint-Jean): It was an interesting speech, Mr. Speaker, even if some Opposition Members insist on referring to speeches I made in the House. I am not
November 15, 1983

ashamed of the fact that I tried to define what a Liberal is, and I shall do so again, because a Liberal, unlike what was said earlier by the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), a Liberal has a purpose in life, he knows where he is going, not like Progressive Conservatives who cannot decide on common goals and don't know which way to go.
1 am getting to the point sure, the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) likes to bring this up time and time again. He is delighted to have someone tell him what Liberals are like, and although he has been watching them for over twenty years, he still cannot understand why the Liberals have remained in power as long as they have, because to him, a Liberal is not someone who works, but someone who comes here to make pretty speeches for the people of Canada. However, that is not so. The Progressive Conservative Party may be doing just that, but we work here and represent our constituents. To get back to what the Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said earlier, he was referring to the Government's election promises. The party in power today said during the election campaign that it would double railway tracks in Western Canada. Work on this project would have started long ago if the Hon. Member's own party had not followed its obstructionist policy for two years. They have prevented us from carrying out major projects, and as a Western Canadian, the Hon. Member ought to know that the West was developed thanks to the railways. When this Government wanted to introduce double tracking, the Hon. Members representing the people of Western Canada prevented us from doing so. Yesterday, the changes in the Crow rate were adopted, and they will now be implemented because we have a Government that wants to introduce these changes. No thanks to them, but to the Government.
Since the Hon. Member spoke at length about Medicare, my question is: What does the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) think about what is being done by some premiers, some governments in provinces like Alberta which is all true blue Tories and nothing else? What are they doing to help the poor with Medicare? What about Ontario? It has the highest insurance costs, not including extra billing. Is that supposed to help the poor? When the Hon. Member mentioned Government borrowing, in all fairness he should have told Canadians that 90 per cent of this money is borrowed from Canadian, not from foreign sources, so that the interest is paid to Canadians and not to foreigners. We can therefore say that this country is not getting poorer and poorer, on the contrary. Enough of these misrepresentations!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be glad to respond to the Hon. Member. I thought he was on very interesting ground when he spoke of what a Liberal was. He has spoken on that topic before in this House. If I recall his comments earlier, he said that a Liberal is all things to all people and he would even be a communist if he had to be a communist.
Supply


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Communists are Conservatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I see Hon. Members rising. Are they rising on points of order?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's speech, as always.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Perhaps if we had some order the Chair would know what is going on. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary was rising on a point of order.


John Leslie Evans: No, with a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. I never said a Liberal was a Communist.


Erik Nielsen: Why did you not say so? The Hon. Member is on the record.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Hon. Member would go back into the record of Hansard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Chair is willing to recognize the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai-el). However, since he has made comments and asked questions, does the Hon. Member want an answer or is he rising on a matter of privilege?


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I am rising on a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Let the Hon. Member answer my question. I never, I repeat never said a Liberal is a Communist. Let him learn to read or, even better, learn French.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Provencher will be allowed to reply.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, as I was trying to say earlier to the Hon. Member, if he would read the record of Hansard which has his words, not mine, in both official languages, he would find that his definition of a Liberal-


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: I rise on a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: A matter of privilege? Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to explain where his privilege lies?


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, my privilege lies in the fact that the Hon. Member is attempting to report words I spoke here in the House. He is not reporting them correctly, probably because he failed to read the French version or because the

November 15, 1983
Supply
English version was not reported to him correctly. 1 would ask him to answer the question and to stop his erroneous reporting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order! I do not think there is matter of privilege. There is obviously a difference of opinion, but I have seen or heard nothing in what the Hon. Member for Provencher has said or done to justify the Hon. Member rising on a matter of privilege as he did just now. He is merely engaging in debate. It is a matter of a difference of opinion. The Hon. member for Provencher.


Mr. Beatty:: Take it up with the Editor of Hansard.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to respond to the Hon. Member. Again, for the third time, if he would check the record of Hansard, which all Members accept as the official record of words spoken in this House in both official languages, he will find his own words recorded.


Erik Nielsen: They leap out.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am sure there are Members-


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: What did I say?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -on this side who are going to be digging out those words and the Hon. Member will probably hear quite a bit about them today. I would simply say to the Hon. Member that what he said was that a Liberal must be all things to all people, to embrace all kinds of viewpoints and all kinds of philosophies. Then he said: "And even if necessary, if it is a communist position, a communist philosophy, so be it a communist philosophy or position".
I know the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) is sensitive on this issue.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He regrets having said what he said.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, he regrets having said what he said. I also hear there was quite a debate in the Liberal caucus about this.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am saying he is sensitive. We will allow the record of Hansard to quote the Member exactly. I accept the record of Hansard. I just suggest that he accept his own words and the recording of same.
The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean mentions the matter of medicare. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the whole question of health care in Canada has to be addressed from the perspective of the economic reality Canadians face because, as I said earlier, of the economic mismanagement of this Liberal Government, and the ability to maintain those services which we on this side of the House and all polling shows that Canadians universally want to see retained. People want to see universal medicare.
The Hon. Member mentions the Province of Alberta. He checked the record? I am glad he raised this question, because
if he will check with the Province of Alberta he will find the greatest amount of spending occurs today for health care per capita in that Province than anywhere else in Canada. In fact, over $1,100 per capita is spent on health care in Alberta. I will not go through all the other Provinces but let me tell the Hon. Member some Provinces spend as little as $600 per capita on health care. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean did not raise that. I want to point out to him that in some of our Provinces today over 50 per cent of total provincial budgets are federal transfer payments. Are those Governments mean spirited when they ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to sit down and examine these questions and also to examine how they can maintain a universal health care system with accepted national standards? Those are the questions the Hon. Member should address. Let us address them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The question period is now over.
The Chair is now prepared to rule on the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). The Chair earlier expressed some reservations. I am prepared to rule unless Hon. Members wish to comment at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bring back Stanley Knowles!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It is with regret that I must inform the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain that I cannot put his amendment to the House. It is out of order as it attempts to introduce a new proposition rather than to clarify or further explain the motion. I refer the Hon. Member to Citation 437(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. It reads:
An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice.
I also refer Hon. Members to Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition at page 387, which reads as follows:
The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability, or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question.
I would refer the House also to page 389 of Erskine May's Nineteenth Edition which reads:
The effect of moving an amendment is, rather, to restrict the field of debate which would otherwise be open on a question.
It is with regret, therefore, that I must reject the Hon. Member's motion. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain is rising on a point of order?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that I moved the motion prior to the end of my speech and would have been able, had the ruling come immediately, to have moved a subsequent amendment, I wonder whether I might be able to do that now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. First, the Chair sees the clock. It is one o'clock. Perhaps we could take up that matter after the Question Period concludes at three o'clock.
November 15, 1983

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, over the past ten years a few Canadian universities have developed a successful, cost-effective, rehabilitation program in several penitentiaries. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has already killed this program in Quebec, Ontario, and the Prairies. He is about to transform the one in British Columbia into something quite different from the successful program it has been. Meanwhile, Canadians are being misled into believing that the university programs will be continued. In fact the educational tinkering of the Solicitor General will result in their disappearance. The Canadian Association for Adult Education recently sent an analysis of the matter to Canadian university presidents.
Also, the Solicitor General proposes to make students pay part of the cost despite the fact a study has found that this will put an end to the programs and to the human and social benefits involved. The Solicitor General has been advised by virtually the entire educational community that he is making a serious mistake. He completely ignores the advice. Why, especially in the field of education in which the federal Government is not particularly competent?
Enlightened Canadians believe that one of the primary purposes of penitentiaries is education or re-education. In view of the arrogance and stubbornness of the Solicitor General regarding this mandated responsibility, I suggest he consult with the Department of the Secretary of State, or with experienced provincial educational officials, with the aim of modernizing his dated approach toward penitentiaries and rehabilitation.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 21, I wish to censure the United States Environmental Protection Agency for its position on asbestos products, because the mere fact of announcing its intention to regulate or even ban such products will be harmful to, and seriously affect, our markets. Consequently, the Government of Canada ought to censure officially the position taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Furthermore, the Government of Canada should do the following: express to the U.S. Government its concern about the EPA and its methods; repeat that asbestos cement products, asbestos paper and asbestos vinyl are harmful neither to consumers or asbestos workers; and advise Canadians that the Government of Canada will ask the U.S. authorities not to implement the plans announced and published by the EPA.
Mr. Speaker, I have been living in an asbestos producing area for fifty-eight years, and 1 must be one of the healthiest Members of this House, for which I am thankful.



THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I must admit that I was looking forward to hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tell the House about his pilgrimage to Europe to discuss his peace initiatives. Unfortunately, these days, any important speeches made by the Prime Minister seem to occur at Liberal functions. Much as I like to hear good rhetoric, I would really feel most uncomfortable attending a function designed for the good Grits of our country. Therefore my absence is understandable, as would be that of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) who has already stated his abhorrence at receiving invitations to Liberal functions.
My point today is that the Prime Minister should not have chosen a Liberal fund-raising event to disclose details of his efforts to help the cause of peace in the world. Until yesterday, when I heard the news that once again Members of Parliament were the last people to hear important information, I respected him for his efforts. Now it appears quite evident that the Prime Minister is taking the opportunity to add another feather to his cap among his Liberal cohorts. This is definitely not the proper way to go about such matters.
I agree with a daily publication when it indicated that the Liberal movers and shakers got feeling a little cocky and light-headed about all the good press received from the Prime Minister's peace initiatives, that they had to gloat, and that they had to use it to make their troops feel good. The fact that

November 15, 1983
the Prime Minister failed to make a statement to the House and chose instead to speak to a Grit fund-raising bunfest leaves only one conclusion, that the whole exercise was designed to enhance his shrunken political stature.



WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal use of closure to impose Bill C-155 on an unwilling and deeply resentful western Canada underlines how far the Government has strayed from the democratic principles of consent and accountability. We in the New Democratic Party make no apologies for all-out opposition to a Bill that is unwanted, unfair, and undemocratic. We point with pride to a saving of more than $15 million for western Canadian farmers by delaying the freight rate increases which would have been imposed on August 1. We condemn the Government for advising the railways to break the law by ignoring the 60-day filing period for rate increases and imposing higher rates on January 1, 1984.
The Government's action on Bill C-155 was wholly typical. No mandate was sought by the Government to change the Crow rate in the 1980 election. Representations made by electors and elected representatives in the House of Commons were ignored. These representations included 30,000 signatures on petitions filed by the New Democratic Party, and another 7,000 signatures from organizations and individuals who favoured the New Democratic plan to keep the Crow rate and upgrade the railway system.
The then Minister of Transport admitted on May 16 that he had received more than 38,000 signatures favouring Crow retention, and only 69 favouring Crow change. This Act is a testimonial to a Government that puts people last.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Globe and Mail, Monday, November 14, it was reported that the Leader of the Official Opposition, in a speech he made in Edmonton last week, mentioned the fact that my constituents did not know me.
First of all, I would like to say to the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) that it is not fair on the part of someone who claims to be the future Prime Minister of Canada to give the impression that Quebecers are idiots by saying that they vote for people they do not know.
My second comment is that at least I run in the riding where I was born and where I have lived all my life.
Third, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition talked to people in my riding, they were probably from Schefferville, the town he himself closed down, so that these people are now trying their luck in the Lac-Saint-Jean area. They probably do not know me yet because it was not so long ago when the Leader of the Official Opposition fired them and made them leave town, but they will know me pretty soon, because I am working with my colleagues and the Government to improve their living conditions. I can guarantee one thing, and that is, that there will never be a Brian Mulroney in the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean to take away their jobs or their town. Never, Mr. Speaker.



REMEMBRANCE DAY


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise while Hon. Members' memories are still warm after the many ceremonies held this past weekend at cenotaphs across Canada to honour veterans of two world wars and the Korean war. Radical elements of the anti-Cruise missile protest movement had the shabby disrespect to drag the Royal Canadian Legion's symbol of remembrance, the poppy, through the political mud on November 11.
I am sure most thoughtful Canadians who quietly protest Cruise testing in the country would agree with me that Remembrance Day is not now, and never will be, political; the poppy is not political. But these diabolically political and professional protesters simply do not recognize the difference between their peace symbols and the poppy:
In Flanders Fields the poppies blow between the crosses, row on row ....
We are the dead.
John McCrae's poem signifies to me, that the poppy is a symbol of remembrance for the fallen. It is definitely not meant as a "peacenik's" peace symbol.
The poem continues:
Take up our quarrel with the foe . . .
To me, Mr. Speaker, that does not mean quarrelling among ourselves in a free Canada. What these unruly protesters fail to remember is that had so many valiant men and women not fought and died for freedom, these peaceniks would not have the democratic freedom to protest against anything at any time.
To hundreds of thousands of veterans across the country the red poppy is the symbol of the blood that was shed in the name of freedom. The poppy must remain the sacred symbol of remembrance of the dead in Flanders fields.
November 15, 1983



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at this time there are hundreds of families separated due to the recent crisis in Poland. Individuals who have been granted permanent residence in Canada anxiously await reunification with their family members who are still in Poland. Many of these families have been separated for two to three years and, as a result, are undergoing mental anguish, particularly in the case of the children who are deprived of proper family security.
Many of these individuals have exhausted all legal avenues open to them to bring their families to Canada. Today, ten such individuals are in their ninth day of a hunger strike in front of the Polish consulate in Toronto, and close to 1,000 petitioners have already indicated their support for this protest.
Family members in Poland have met all Canadian immigration requirements. However, they are being continuously refused the appropriate exit documents by Polish officials, which would allow them to be reunited with their families in Canada. Each family has encountered an average of four to six refusals of these exit documents from Polish authorities.
I appeal to the Canadian Government on grounds of human compassion to continue to make successful representations to the Polish Government on behalf of all of these families and other families when the husbands, wives and children want to live together and not be separated.



EMPLOYMENT


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, economic development planning in Canada is non-existent under the present Liberal Government. The priorities of Canada's most important economic sectors, which are the fisheries, forestry, mining and other resource-based industries, are being totally ignored by the Government. Instead, the Liberal Government is focusing all of its energy on devising band-aid, short-term, make-work, job-creation schemes.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) is now the key player-and I repeat, the key player-in economic development strategy. The Liberal Government has charged the Minister with the duty of obtaining the biggest political boom for the taxpayer's buck.
Federal visibility is now the only criterion for government assistance. Consideration of long-term goals in resource management is a thing of the past. If there is a place for a huge plywood sign to announce the Liberal Government's contribution, then there is a place for federal dollars. That is the way it is seen by the Government opposite.
Oral Questions
Billion dollar band-aids only mask the problems. The real cure, Mr. Speaker, is a new government that is committed to job creation through the encouragement of private sector economic development.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, northerners have long sought justice on issues of taxation, food and fuel costs, jobs, and access to federal programs. The voice of the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) has been silenced, and the voices of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) speak in favour of user-pay and market economics, and are now promising to fire at least
60,000	public servants.
A case needing consideration by the House is that of Mr. Smith, a federal employee who is working and living in Resolute Bay. He, along with other workers, is forced to live in a barracks-style doghouse while there are plush, empty rooms available for supersivors, visitors, and government VIPs. According to the federal Government and, to date, unchallenged by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), the reason for this atrocious situation is, and I quote, "it is not practical or desirable to have supervisory and operating staff sharing the same living areas".
Perhaps the Minister will find time to investigate the matter and explain to the radio operators, meteorologists and electronics technicians why the federal Government is running a class system in the North. Perhaps he can explain why the gym, movie house and library at this base in the Arctic Islands remain closed. Canadian northerners would all like to know why certain employees get special privileges, certain northerners get some privileges, and most get nothing.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that the Prime Minister might be prepared to make known to the House the substance and content of the various communications he has had with the President of the United States in regard to peace proposals. Would the Prime Minister now be prepared to do so in the House of Commons?

November 15, 1983
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am happy to answer questions asked by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition about my exchanges with various leaders, but 1 have no general statement to make.


SUBSTANCE OF CORRESPONDENCE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister yesterday, we were discussing the written communications the Prime Minister had, to which he has made frequent allusions in various speeches, including the social speech in Montreal. Inasmuch as reference to those written communications was made in Montreal, I was wondering if the Prime Minister might feel it appropriate that the substance and content of written messages back and forth might be tabled in the House of Commons today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the matter of whether I have referred to communications or not is completely irrelevant. Communications between heads of Government on various matters are often referred to but never made public. The substance of my message, as is known, was the subject of peace and disarmament. Once again, I am prepared to answer questions on the initiatives that 1 am attempting to take, but if the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that he be shown the text of a letter sent to a President, or to any one of the other leaders, the answer is that that is not customary and I do not propose to do so.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we recognize full well that it is not customary, but given the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday, we thought that the Prime Minister might like to take the House into his confidence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps he might like to do so, inasmuch as he summoned as much national support as possible for his initiative.


STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES OFFICIAL ON TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for the United States of America, Mr. Dam, apparently said earlier today that the Government of the United States would have no objection to the correspondence being made public provided it was all right with the Government of Canada. I would again ask the Prime Minister, in light of these circumstances, if he would feel free, inasmuch as he is leaving the country shortly on another major trip, to take the country into his confidence to the extent humanly possible, and tell us what has been going on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Official Opposition really wants the House to be taken into my confidence, he simply has to ask questions
about what I have been doing. He can read my speeches and my statement. However, in so far as tabling letters, or making letters public between myself and other leaders of Government is concerned, that not only is not customary, Mr. Speaker, but it would be breaking every diplomatic rule.
When one writes a letter to another head of Government, one does so in the confidence that the letters will not be made public. Under some circumstances it might be useful after the event to make such letters public. That might arise in this case, but until I finish my consultations, Mr. Speaker, the least 1 can do is respect the confidence that people expect of me, just as would the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He once made a great fuss because part of some private exchange between us had unfortunately been made public. He did not like that. Why did he not like that? Did he not want the House to be taken into his confidence? Did he not want his own Party to know what he was saying? There are certain rules of civility between leaders of Government about which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition will have to learn.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT IN HOUSE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the point raised by the Prime Minister, I objected in writing because a member of his staff violated a clearcut undertaking given by him to me. That is why I objected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as the Prime Minister raised the word civility, there is another word that goes with it, confidence. If he has been relieved of the burden of confidentiality by the Government of the United States with regard to communications between the two of them which affect Canada, and initiatives that he is making on our behalf, and we have already stated that he goes with our good wishes, 1 would have thought there would have been a little more cordiality and civility coming from the Prime Minister, beginning with some information to the House of Commons. The people of Canada are being kept in the dark. You have to pay to go to a Liberal dinner to get any information. That is unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Without wanting to intrude on the calm that bedecks the back benches of his Party, given the sensitivity of this kind of issue, will the Prime Minister be making a full statement to the House of Commons on this complex and important issue prior to his departure on another extended trip overseas? Will he do that before he leaves?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers to a clear cut undertaking
November 15, 1983

between himself and myself when we had that conversation. I repeat, there is a clear cut undertaking that one does not make public exchanges of letters between heads of Government. If the President of the United States wants to make his exchange public, and we can find out from the ambassador if he wants to make it public, that is fine. However, I do not intend making my letters public, the ones that I sent to the various heads of Government, because there is a clear cut understanding that that is not the way we are operating. Even when 1 met the leaders last week, we undertook not to go out and make a detailed report of what we had done. We are waiting for other members of the alliance, the other powers involved, to see what we are talking about. Perhaps later, if there are some possible results, we will make them public, but certainly not now.
Once again, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks he has an undertaking from the American President to make his letter public, that is his affair of course. I do not see how he could possibly have that undertaking, but he says he seems to have it from someone.
As far as discussing the subject and making a report in the House of Commons are concerned, today is an opposition day. If it is so important I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition has not made a speech himself, why he has not made the subject of international relations and peace-seeking the subject of the opposition day. The Leader of the Opposition smiles. His Members are smiling as well. It would be interesting to know what they think about international relations. They have not chosen the subject. It is their day.
I repeat, I am happy to answer questions. As a matter of fact I was surprised that the Opposition Party did not ask any questions in the week that I was here after I made my Guelph speech. A lot of people commented on it. The Leader of the Opposition commented on it outside the House, but it did not seem worthy of the attention of the Opposition. I did not know they would suddenly be interested, but suddenly they are. Good. Let us have a debate on it.


RESPONSES BY NUCLEAR POWERS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am astounded and dismayed that the Prime Minister would adopt such an argumentative and defensive tone with regard to an entirely legitimate question put forward, one which reflects the concerns of millions of Canadians. Inasmuch as he will not divulge the correspondence, and I acknowledge that there may be good reasons for that, will he at least tell the House if anyone has responded to his letters? We were informed in the Montreal speech that he communicated with the leaders of the five nuclear powers, inviting them in that regard. Have they responded to his letters? If so, were the responses encouraging and positive, or were they otherwise? Has there been a response to his initiatives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition first comments that there have been no answers to legitimate questions. I put it to him that,
Oral Questions
except for this last one, there have been no legitimate questions. The Leader of the Opposition has been asking for documents which he knows he should not have. I am happy to answer questions about the MBFR that I discussed, the Stockholm conference that I discussed, the five power conference that I discussed, the asphyxiation premise that I discussed. There are no questions on this. It has all been in the papers.
If the Leader of the Opposition has questions, I will be happy to answer them. Do not let him say that I am not prepared to talk about the subject. The only question he has asked me is the recent one as to whether I have had answers from the various leaders. Yes, I have had some answers from some leaders, some verbal and some written.


CYPRUS-DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE BY TURKISH CYPRIOTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, at his August 30 press conference in Athens, Greece, commented on the situation in Cyprus. As the Prime Minister is udoubtedly aware, there has been a declaration of independence on the part of certain Turkish Cypriots on that island proclaiming a new country with respect to the northern part of Cyprus. What is the official response of the Government of Canada to this declaration of independence, and when in fact was the first time that he learned that such a declaration was going to be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the official position of the Government of Canada is that it recognizes the Government in Cyprus which already exists, and with which we have good relations. It is a member of the Commonwealth, and we continue to want to have good relations with that Government. Insofar as the declaration of independence of a part of that country is concerned, we regret it. The Hon. Member asks when we first heard of it. I first heard of it this morning. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs can elaborate as to the exact moment we were informed of it.
The Hon. Member, being the official critic for External Relations, would know that the possibility or the threat of a declaration of independence by the Turkish part of Cyprus has been mooted for quite a while, certainly for some months. That is why we very strongly encouraged the initiative of the Secretary General of the United Nations toward a compromise between the communities in Cyprus which are in conflict. It is not something that had been unheard of. We regret that the compromise proposals put forward by the Secretary General were not given a chance to succeed before this event happened.


STATUS OF CANADIAN PEACE-KEEPING FORCE-SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether there has been any

November 15, 1983
Oral Questions
violence on the island? Specifically, have any of the 500 Members of our Canadian peace-keeping force been involved? Does the Government plan any reappraisal with respect to keeping the peace-keeping force on the island, bearing in mind it is up for renewal in December? Finally, can he tell us what number of Canadian nationals are on the island and whether they are in any danger?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, insofar as the peace-keeping troops are concerned, they are there under an agreement with the United Nations. To our knowledge, there is no violence taking place. As the Hon. Member would know, the declaration of independence has taken place on the northern part of the island where the Turkish troops already were. There is no new conflict or no different situation of fact between the various parts of Cyprus. This is merely a new legal situation, with one part declaring its independence.
The Hon. Member asked about the number of Canadians. There is no danger that we know of at this time to the Canadians. There are some 2,000 dual nationals, some 200 resident Canadian citizens, and perhaps about 500 Canadian tourists. There are, of course, 515 troops who are members of the approximately 2,300 U.N. troops. We provide a little less than a quarter of those troops.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister of State for Economic Development said, and 1 quote, "Unemployment has always been at the top of the Government's priorities." Just about a month ago the Minister of Finance in his economic review acknowledged that the Government's own restraint policies had contributed to the depressed levels of economic development. Would the Minister please explain to the House what appears to the rest of us to be a pretty clear contradiction?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: I am a bit puzzled, Mr. Speaker, because I believe the Hon. Member has suggested that one of my colleagues has made one statement and another colleague has made a second statement. 1 believe it would be more appropriate to ask those Ministers, rather than myself, to clarify their positions.


John Edward Broadbent: You are the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


John (Moody) Roberts: In any case, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the Minister of Finance made the statement which the Hon. Member has attributed to him. There is not that difficulty of reconciliation.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I made the naive assumption that the Minister of Employment and Immigration had some kind of responsibility for job creation and, therefore, he might be interested in the contradictory views expressed by two of his colleagues. I point out to him that the Minister of Finance did in fact say what I just attributed to him.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO CREATE MORE JOBS
John Edward Broadbent: To get on with the substance of the matter, Mr. Speaker, considering that the restrictive policies of the Government, as the Minister of Finance himself acknowledged, have contributed to a turndown in the rate of consumer spending, which means fewer jobs, will the Minister now tell the House if the Government plans to continue to take $400 million a year away from taxpayers in increased taxes? And will it re-establish the $300 million cutback in job creation which the Minister announced just a few weeks ago? In short, will the Government abandon its restrictive policies which are killing jobs, and do something to produce more badly needed jobs for Canadians?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as is often the case, the assumptions behind the Hon. Member's questions are inaccurate. I do believe that the policy of restraint which this Government has advocated and promoted has, in a variety of ways, kept down costs in Canada. It has contributed to the competitiveness of the Canadian economy and, therefore, supported and created jobs within Canadian society and the Canadian economy. Moreover, there has been a considerable growth in the Canadian economy, largely stimulated recently by strong consumer spending, which denies one of the other assumptions in the Hon. Member's question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister simply does not know what he is talking about. The rate of consumer spending is now going down, not up. The fact is we lost 45,000 jobs a month ago, in the Canadian economy. We are not producing more jobs. The reality is that some 21 per cent of our young people are still unemployed in Canada. The over-all effect of all this, as everyone apart from the Cabinet knows, is that the Government has failed to come to grips with the serious issue of unemployment.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW JOB-CREATION MEASURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, who said he was going to produce action ever since he assumed his current responsibility, will we get a Bill next week. Will we have some action in terms of new measures before Christmas? If we do not, if we have to wait for a new Throne Speech at Christmas time, there will be no impact from government action until the Spring. Canadians want some action with respect to the economy from the Government, and they want it now.
November 15, 1983


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be helpful, if the Hon. Member goes back into traction, and if he did acquaint himself with the facts. He declares that I do not know them. He either does not know them or will not express them. The fact of the matter is that the economy has created over 350,000 jobs since last November. The fact is that we are going into recovery. The fact is that the impact of my colleague's budget is beginning to be felt now.


Mr. Nowlan:: It certainly has been felt, since the day he brought it down.


John (Moody) Roberts: There are positive signs for the economy. The Hon. Member does not want to recognize that they are there.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can the Minister confirm that serious structural defects, namely, cracks in the engine mounts, have been discovered in the CF-18, Canada's new fighter aircraft, and that just after a few hundred hours of air time four out of 20 of the aircraft so far delivered have had to be grounded? If this is so, can the Minister tell the House who is responsible, and what his Department is doing about it? And when we can expect these very expensive aircraft to be made available to our Forces in fully airworthy condition?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been some cracks found in some engine mounts on aircraft which have flown in excess of 300 hours. I am advised that such a finding is not abnormal-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Blais:: -given the newness of the aircraft. They are minimal in nature, Mr. Speaker, and are being addressed.


ARMING OF CF-18 AIRCRAFT
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister also confirm that, according to the contract, the airframe is supposed to last 10,000 hours, not 300 hours? Can the Minister also inform the House as to the state of airworthiness of the aircraft, and of their equipment, in view of the fact that by next summer two of the CF-18 squadrons are supposed to be deployed? According to our sources, these aircraft will have insufficient weapons to allow them to fulfil our role in NORAD. If they are flying, they will be flying without weapons unless something is done to address this problem. Can the Minister indicate whether in fact this problem will be addressed?
Oral Questions


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that problem is being addressed now and will be rectified. In terms of the engine mounts themselves, Mr. Speaker, the needed engineering changes will be incorporated within the aircraft which are now entering the production line. There is, as I indicated to the Hon. Member, a fix being put in which will remedy the problem which he has identified.
I want to identify as well, Mr. Speaker, that, as the Hon. Member well recognizes from the briefings he has received, the CF-18 is performing beyond any of the specifications. We are very satisfied with its performance. I want to reiterate that this particular defect is being addressed and is of a normal nature within the developmental phase which is encountered within the CF-18 program.


UNITED EMPIRE LOYALISTS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. However, in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. On October 11 of this year I inquired whether the Minister intended to contribute funding for the United Empire Loyalists bicentennial in Ontario during 1984. The Minister of State indicated that details would be made available during the week of October 17. This, of course, was over one month ago. I would like to know if the Government intends to make a statement in the House of Commons, or in the near future, on whether there will be funding available to the United Empire Loyalists' bicentennial in Ontario during 1984.


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I do indeed remember the reply given by my colleague, the Secretary of State. He is away from Ottawa for a few days. However, I shall try to get the information so that it is available to the Hon. Member later this week.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When we were debating the third reading stage of Bill C-155, the Minister, in support of the Bill, said, "We are talking about 300,000 jobs. We are talking about benefits spread from one end of the country to the other." A few days before the Minister made his speech extolling Bill C-155 and the great benefits which would come from it, the CPR in our home town-his as well as my own-was laying people off at the Weston shops. Would the Minister take up with the CPR the

November 15, 1983
Oral Questions
question of why it is laying people off at a time when it is supposed to be hiring more people and expanding its facilities?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North has now become aware of the major advantages of the Crow legislation for industrial expansion across Canada. 1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member that in our home town, Mr. Speaker, the CPR is presently investing $15.3 million in a new diesel shop in the Weston area-I am sure we will be glad to invite the Hon. Member to the opening-and establishing a new communications and control system, and, working out of Winnipeg, establishing a new telecommunications line between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg. 1 will be sure to inform the Hon. Member when that work is completed. Those are just a few examples of the kind of major job-creation activities we are getting as a result of the passage of the Crow legislation.


REQUEST THAT LAY-OFFS BE CANCELLED
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, we are of course pleased that CPR is expanding, but surely the Minister can understand the concern of workers who are being laid off. This is the largest corporation in Canada, a multibillion dollar corporation. We know it will take some time before the so-called benefits flow to the company, but surely it can afford to carry the few workers it laid off until the expansion gets started. I urge the Minister to take up with the CPR the idea that it act in a humane way and not lay people off at this time.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a good point in the sense that any company, Crown corporation or private, should be very sensitive to the question of how individuals and communities are affected by changes, either in the marketplace or in the technology with which they deal. That is a subject I intend to take up in meetings with both the railway unions and companies.
In the particular instance the Hon. Member is talking about, what he is really highlighting is how important it is that we get the Crow legislation working now. We have been delayed overly long by opposition in this House, primarily from the Hon. Member's own Party, which has delayed a lot of investment plans. This meant we could not go ahead and get the kind of job creation we hoped to get at an earlier period.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and it relates to the report of the Special Committee on Indian self government. In asking this question I want to thank the Minister for his positive comments and response so far to that report.
Is the Minister aware that while discussions are going on concerning the future of his Department, that Department is in the process of negotiating long-term agreements for the acquisition of computers? This procurement is estimated to cost somewhere around $20 million. Will the Minister tell the House what steps he is going to take concerning long-range plans in his Department, and will he, for example, consider imposing a moratorium on all such long-range plans?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think putting a moratorium on all long-range plans would be the answer. Some of those plans will be required no matter what happens to the Department, regarding the rendering of services, no matter who renders the services, be it the Indians themselves or someone else.
Let me just say that we have undertaken, and I personally have undertaken, to consult with the AFN and the Inuit leadership-but directly of late with the AFN-with respect to any plans of this nature now or in the future. That is in keeping with the spirit of the House of Commons report. It also makes good sense from the Department's point of view to have them involved in some of the decisions we are making.
May I also say that no decision with respect to the computers the Hon. Member has referred to has been made by the Department.


INCOME TAX
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who will know that less than two weeks ago this House unanimously decided that all matters affecting the taxing of artists and writers should be referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture for discussion. Since that time I have received a number of communications from people affected, telling me the Minister's staff are assessing writers and artists under the old rules. I ask the Minister if that is true and, if so, will he now confirm to this House that he will put a stop to those assessments until the committee has had a chance to review the matter and report back to the House?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member, I have also received representations from taxpayers, and especially from artists. The Hon. Member is referring to a study that was carried out by a Standing Committee of this House. I may remind him, however, that any changes that should or could be made in the Income Tax Act are the responsibility of the Minister of
November 15, 1983

Finance, so that when the Committee submits its report, it will be up to the Minister of Finance, if any changes are to be made in the Income Tax Act, to put such changes before the House, if the Minister so decides. The Hon. Member will agree that until such changes are tabled in the House and approved, we must administer the Income Tax Act in its present form.


REQUEST FOR EXERCISE OF MINISTERIAL DISCRETION
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister understands that the reason the House spoke to the matter unanimously is because those rules are unjust and unworkable. By applying those rules the Government will continue to garnishee wages of people in universities, and it is imposing rules which are no longer acceptable either to this House or to those people.
It is within the Minister's discretion to give relief to those poeple, as he did with the musicians in the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. Will he not give relief to these people who are being subjected by his staff to unjust and unworkable rules? Everyone in this House agrees with that.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that when the Hon. Member reads what he said in the preamble to his question, he will wonder how he could have been so careless. The Hon. Member will recall that the Department of National Revenue is responsible for administering the Income Tax Act in its present form, and I am sure that if he took the time to examine the provisions of the Income Tax Act, he would see that there are no special provisions applying to the group of taxpayers to which he is referring. Provisions that apply to this group are the same provisions that apply to other taxpayers in Canada, and at the Department of National Revenue, when applying these general provisions, we take into consideration the particular circumstances of each taxpayer, including artists.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On November 7 the Minister announced that he rejects development on the North Slope of Yukon, citing the lack of land claims settlement as the reason. Does that mean that until the land claims are settled north of 60, there will be no new development?


John Carr Munro: No, it does not, Mr. Speaker. There
Oral Questions
are two land claims which are affected. The leadership of both claimants were on the North Slope project review group which reviewed the North Slope and voted against it because the approval, or otherwise, of these land claims is imminent, and this is not an appropriate time to go against the feelings of the native interests with respect to those land claims. It is not a veto which can be exercised by the land claimants forever, but this particular time is not appropriate, and 1 emphasized that at the time of the decision.


KING POINT PROJECT
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if the Council of Yukon Indians threw their support behind the King Point quarry proposal, joining with the Minister's own Department of Northern Development, Industry and Trade, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, the Yukon Government and many others, would he then change his mind and take a look at this very important project which will offer employment to 638 people, mostly Yukoners, and provide that much needed economic benefit to an economy which, as the Minister well knows, has been dealt a very serious blow because of the closing down of mining and transportation in that area?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member exaggerates quite considerably. I do not know to whom he is referring in my own Department. We had an official of mine on the review group who also voted against the project in the end, so I do not know to whom he could possibly be referring in my own Department. There are other departmental officials and colleagues of mine in the Cabinet who have considerable hesistancy with regard to this project. I can refer to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. I would also point out that there are conservation groups, including CARC, an organization in the North, that are entirely opposed to this development. If you add all of those people to all the native organizations that have expressed opposition, I believe the list I am compiling is equally, if not more, impressive than the one the Hon. Member is compiling.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In August of 1982 Clarence Jack of the Chemainus Indian band died in the Ladysmith RCMP lockup because he was not given medical attention. This month his cousin, Harvey Jack, was in a car accident and suffered a broken neck. Instead of getting him medical attention, the RCMP put him in the Nanaimo lockup. Today he is in Shaughnessy hospital paralyzed from the neck down. As these two incidents are not isolated but fit into a

November 15, 1983
Oral Questions
total pattern of relations between Indians and the Mounted Police, will the Minister order a full and public investigation of all relationships between the RCMP and the Indian people on Vancouver Island?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the incident to which the Hon. Member refers, in which the individual was locked up in an RCMP lockup with a broken neck. I have had a full report on it. The individual appeared to be in perfectly good condition when he was incarcerated. He was speaking. He was asked about his condition. He indicated that he was not suffering from any physical problems at the time that he was incarcerated. It was discovered, after he had been incarcerated and had passed out, that he had a broken neck. He was rushed to the hospital as soon as that fact was discovered.
1 would like to hear more from the Hon. Member about any suggestion that that tragic event had any connection with any other event, and any evidence that he has to suggest that the RCMP are mistreating the Indians. I totally reject that, and I suggest to him that if he wants to make a serious charge like that he should have more information to back it up.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the First Nation South Island Tribal Council have asked for such an investigation because of their concern.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. According to reports the Minister said that he would "do his damndest" to get compensation for the legal costs of Donald Marshall who was fighting to redress a wrongful conviction for manslaughter. So far no money has been forthcoming. What did the Minister do in terms of "doing his damndest" to get this money? Did he give up after a preliminary inquiry by the Department, or did he go to Cabinet? Is there no source of federal money to help pay for the tragedy that this young man has suffered, at least to cover his legal costs?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Hon. Member is referring to a quote of somebody else rather than myself. That should be noted for the sake of accuracy. I saw Mr. Marshall's father when I was in Nova Scotia. I saw his lawyer on several occasions, both in Nova Scotia and in my office, and heard representations of a very moving nature with respect to the legal costs that this falsely accused man had been put to, as well as other losses he had suffered as a result of this rather atrocious occurrence.
There is absolutely no authority in my Department for payment, as I think the Hon. Member is aware from his
knowledge of my authority through his experience on the parliamentary committee. 1 did write to the Province on at least two occasions urging it to look with some compassion on the situation. As well, I examined other areas in Government that might provide funding. There is none. I regard this very much as an obligation on the part of the provincial Government. To alleviate some of the hardship on this particular individual my Department arranged employment for him with our Department when he was out of jail.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to that of my colleague from Brampton-Georgetown, to direct to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In his first answer the Minister mentioned that it was a matter of timing on the King Point Development Project. In his second answer he raised the environmental question. It is my understanding from a report from within his Department, and also additional reports that he has, that there is no negative environmental impact on King Point. He knows the situation in the Yukon. He knows the jobs that are needed. In his planning, when is the right time in terms of months, weeks or days, as to when he can give approval for King Point?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated many times that there is not environmental clearance. Some of those questions could be more directly referred to my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. It has clearly been stated that certain mitigative measures would have to be put in place in order for you to seriously consider it from an environmental point of view. Keep that in mind.
As far as the Yukon government pressing me to approve these projects at a time when land claims are almost close to settlement is concerned, it is an absolutely integral part of any northern strategy with respect to opening it up for development in the future that those land claims not be prejudiced. The Yukon Government, walking capriciously away from the table during negotiations, and slowing up the negotiations for many months until finally deciding to return, did not in any way help this situation. If it had not been for that irresponsible conduct on the part of the Yukon Government this claim might have been settled and we might have been able to approve the project.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The Yukon has been hit very hard with unemployment in mining and industries relating to mining. The Minister knows that if we do not have infrastructure in northern Canada we cannot create private sector jobs. Is the Minister's argument now one of the environment, or
November 15, 1983

only one of timing? Is he in fact committed to northern development in projects such as King Point?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it was this Government that showed the political will to get on with the settlement of land claims necessary to open up the North and permit development. When my predecessor held this office he cut off all funding to the native groups in terms of negotiating land claims. If that policy had still been in place we would not be near settlement in either one of these particular cases.
*	V *


NATIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. In view of the current debate with regard to the recent report on the subject,
I	recently had an exchange with the First Nations Indians regarding the economic development allocation for bands in Canada. Could the Minister inform the House whether or not a Member for the Maritime Provinces has been appointed to this important board with respect to the disposition of these funds for economic development for Indian bands?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the first couple of words. If the Hon. Member is referring to the Native Economic Development Fund, that is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister responsible for small business. I would suggest he direct his question to him.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just heard his colleague sitting in front of him rightly term the Marshall case "an atrocious occurrence". Now that the courts have found someone else guilty of the crime for which Donald Marshall spent
II	years in prison, is the Minister of Justice prepared to take the necessary steps, which only the federal Minister of Justice can take, to see that Marshall's legal fees are paid at public expense?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, without passing any final judgment on the facts of the case 1 may say that I am indeed very troubled as a result of what I know about the proceedings of the investigation and the trial of Mr. Marshall on the first occasion. If there were any readily apparent actions that the federal Government could take, 1 would be indeed prepared to consider that. In fact, as I am sure my hon. friend knows, all aspects of the initial investiga-
Petitions
tion and trial were under the jurisdiction of the Province of Nova Scotia, either directly or indirectly through the police of the city of Sydney.
I am sure my hon. friend does not believe that we have a system of federalism in which it is the responsibility of a federal Government to correct the mistakes of the Provinces, or to take over from the Provinces when they are not doing things properly within their own jurisdiction. 1 have to say to my hon. friend that, not only is there no precedent for a payment, if that is what my hon. friend is suggesting in a case of this kind, in fact, I do not think it would be very good federalism to proceed in that way. However, because I am so troubled about it, I am at the point of discussing the matter with the new Attorney General of the Province of Nova Scotia to canvass the situation in order to see whether or not there is not some action which he may take.


ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, Marshall is a native Micmac and there is a federal responsibility for his welfare, and since there was at least an understanding that a federal Cabinet Minister gave a commitment to pay all bills, because it was a federal police report, commissioned by the federal Minister of Justice, who then caused the retrial of Marshall to be held; in light of all this federal involvement, can the Minister really expect us to believe that the federal Government has no further responsibility in righting what is so obviously a wrong? The people of this country believe that the Minister of Justice is merely buckpassing this to the provincial Government.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I understand from my hon. friend, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that not only did he not make such a statement, but it has already been denied in the press.
I may say that I find my hon. friend's argument, that because our report led to the freeing of Marshall, we should therefore assume some responsibility for his initial wrongful incarceration, to be an astonishing doctrine and one that is not supported in any way. He has made no comment at all on the fact that his version of federalism which he is presenting-and I wonder if his Leader endorses it-is that it is up to us to correct the Provinces and stand behind them, to step in and do work within their jurisdiction, when they are not prepared to do it. I find that astonishing.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that she has examined the

November 15, 1983
Point of Order-Mr. McGrath
petitions presented by Hon. Members on Monday, November 14, 1983, and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Last evening the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) raised a point of order concerning the reporting of certain report stage motions in Hansard of Thursday, November 3, 1983.
After reviewing the Debates I have to agree with the Hon. Member's point of order. A corrigendum will be printed in today's Debates indicating the corrections to the errors.
I want to assure the Hon. Member and the House that the official record of the House, the Votes and Proceedings, was correct, as is the version of Bill C-155, printed after passage by the House.



MR. MCGRATH-QUESTION ON UNEMPLOYMENT ANSWERED BY MRS. EROLA-RULING OF MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

['Mr. Speaker, I expect to be in the House all afternoon but since the purpose of this kind of question is to advise all Members what the business will be, perhaps if it is something different from fisheries the opportunity might be taken to rise in the House in order to tell us what the business will be for Thursday.']
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, is the Chair prepared to rule today on a point of order raised yesterday by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath)?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yesterday, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a point of order following the daily Question Period regarding a question asked by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). The question was addressed to the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) but was answered by the Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola).
Our practice is very clear in this matter and I would like to quote Citation 361 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a Province, or part of a Province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux puts the matter very succinctly in a ruling given on October 16, 1968, and I quote:
-a Minister may be asked questions relating to a department for which he has ministerial responsibility or acting ministerial responsibility, but a Minister cannot be asked, nor can he answer questions in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or a part of a province-
I am concerned, however, that the question posed by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming referred to actions of another Minister, while it was directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. That complicates the matter from the point of view of the Chair. It is difficult for the Chair to make a ruling to the effect that any Minister named in a question should not have some right to respond to the allegations in a question.
However, the general rule that Ministers should be asked questions and should answer questions relating to their primary ministerial responsibility is a basic rule of the procedure of the House.
*



Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, normally we would know what the business for the House would be on Thursday, but since we are not sitting tomorrow and since we did not get this far last week in describing Government business for this week, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary, in the absence of the Government House Leader, might confirm whether we will be dealing with the fisheries legislation on Thursday and would he state what it will be on Friday? If it is not fisheries legislation, what business will we be dealing with on Thursday?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge it will be the fisheries Bill. I will check with the President of the Privy Council and get back to the Hon. Member definitely about Thursday, and also with information about Friday.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be in the House all afternoon but since the purpose of this kind of question is to advise all Members what the business will be, perhaps if it is something different from fisheries the opportunity might be taken to rise in the House in order to tell us what the business will be for Thursday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty to present the following petition to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the constituency of Fraser Valley East in the Province of British Columbia, 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 there is a crisis of confidence in the Government of Canada because of high unemployment throughout the country, business bankruptcies and personal hardship.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take necessary action to restore confidence in the Government of Canada, that Parliament be dissolved and a general election be called immediately.
November 15, 1983


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this petition signed by 200 constituents of Hamilton West, the majority of whom are members of the staff and students of McMaster University.
In essence, the petition expresses concern over a statement made by the U.S. Secretary of Defence who indicated that an invasion of Nicaragua by the United States and neighbouring countries was not discounted and that he considered such action as a definite option. This concern is strengthened by the mobilization of 4,000 Guatemalan troops, a massive military buildup in Honduras, militarization of Costa Rica and open support of the invasion of Nicaragua by Contras and the lack of response from the United States to peace initiatives by the Government of Nicaragua and the Contadora group. The petition requests that Parliament notify the U.S. Ambassador to Canada that Canada would condemn any invasion of Nicaragua or El Salvador by any military forces and would urge the negotiated solution of any prevailing problems.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a number of petitions that I wish to present this afternoon to the House of Commons. Since they all reflect a similar concern, rather than read each one I will read the covering page of the petition and just name the communities in which the petitions have been received in order to speed up presentation in the House this afternoon.


Mr. Fisher:: Why be any different today?


Douglas Keith Anguish: These petitions are to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. If the Liberals would like me to read each one in the House, I would certainly be more than happy to do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would encourage the Hon. Member to proceed as he indicated and the Chair would express its appreciation.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, these petitions are addressed to the honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternate plan presented by the New Democratic Party, that the Crow rate must be maintained and that the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New
Petitions
Democratic Party's alternate plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass Freight Rate Agreement. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
At this point in time I suppose they would have to find a different Government to honour the wishes of the petitioners.
The first petition I have comes from residents of Flaxcombe and Waseca.
The next petition I have is signed by residents of Lashburn and Unity, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is signed by residents of Rosetown, Herschel and Saskatoon.
The next petition is signed by residents of Dodsland and Rosetown.
The next petition I have is signed by residents of the Macrorie and Outlook areas.
The next petition comes from residents of the community of Kyle and area.
The next petition is signed by residents of Biggar, Province of Saskatchewan.
The next petition I have is signed by residents of Lloydmin-ster, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is also from residents of Lloydminster, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is signed by residents of the Lucky Lake area, Saskatchewan.
The next petition 1 have is again signed by residents of the Lucky Lake area.
The next petition I have is signed by residents of Marshall, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is signed by residents of Unity, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is signed by residents of Lashburn, Marshall and Lloydminster.
The next petition is from residents of Holden, Alberta, Marshall, Saskatchewan, Lone Rock and Paradise Valley, Alberta.
The next petition is signed by residents of Kindersley and area.
The next petition is from the Kindersley and Rosetown area.
The next petition is from Rosetown, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is from Dinsmore, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is from Biggar, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is from Handel, Saskatchewan.
The next petition is again from Handel, Saskatchewan.
The next petition comes from the Kerrobert and Luseland
areas.
The next petition comes from Landis, Saskatchewan.
The next petition comes from Beechy, Saskatchewan.

November 15, 1983
Order Paper Questions
The last petition comes from residents of North Battleford, Lloydminster and Handel, Saskatchewan.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition to present this afternoon which has a bit of a different thrust. 1 will conclude after presenting this petition.
I would like to present this petition to the House of Commons today, signed by some 465 residents of the Province of British Columbia who support the passage of Private Member's Bill C-678, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone, standing in my name. The petitioners stress that multilateral disarmament must occur in order to secure peace in the world, tf Canada is traditionally a peaceful nation, Canada must play a crucial role in achieving multilateral disarmament. The petition calls on the Parliament of Canada to debate and pass Bill C-678, which would prevent testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and thereby allow Canada to act as a serious mediator in worldwide disarmament processes and engage in talks along with other countries that would wish to participate in such a forum.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of Justice and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned:
1.	(a) (i) two, (ii) $62,989.
(b) (i) 11, (ii) $147,621.96.
2.	1981-82
Price Waterhouse	$36,089
Associates
Peat Marwick and	26,900
Partners
Support staff requirement study
E.D.P. Study
Price Waterhouse Associates Peat Marwick and Partners
Touche, Ross and Partners
$44,500	Support staff to Officer ratio
study
23,748	Development of an improved
legal information system Phase II
23,327.20 Study of Department Management Information Requirement


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 5,328-Mr. St. Germain:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of saving the time of the House 1 once again make the same suggestion, without creating any precedent, that you simply ask any Members who may have notices standing in their name to rise if they wish to do so. I do not think you will find any rising. We are all so anxious to hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) in his first public bid in this House for the leadership that we really want to get to it as quickly as possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer that the proper procedure be followed.
Motions stand.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 5,248 and 5,328.
What is the mandate of the Provincial Analysis and Liaison Secretariat of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office?


John Leslie Evans: The mandate of the Liaison and Integration Secretariat (formerly the Provincial Analysis and Liaison Secretariat) is to ensure effective flows of information and data on provincial and regional concerns, views and initiatives in order to provide timely and accurate assessments of the current status of federal-provincial relations at the national, regional and provincial levels and to identify any emerging issues affecting federal-provincial relations in each of the Provinces.
The Secretariat also co-ordinates the preparation of briefing material for major undertakings (for example, First Ministers' Conferences and bilateral meetings between the Prime Minister and Premiers), and for the provision of advice on specific federal-provincial issues of major importance.
Further, as part of the liaison and integration function, the Secretariat also has responsibility for managing the Prime Minister's correspondence with each of the Premiers.


John Leslie Evans: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.
November 15, 1983


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary could tell me when he expects we will have an answer to question No. 5,015 which relates to the standards, if any, followed by the Prime Minister when he appoints Members to his Cabinet. 1 wonder, more particularly, whether the Parliamentary Secretary could assure me if this straightforward and simple question could be answered before the Prime Minister leaves again.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 will look into that particular question. Unfortunately I can give the Right Hon. Member no such assurance. However, 1 am sure the Prime Minister will want to answer that question at the earliest possible opportunity.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet perhaps 1 could answer the question raised with me by the Hon. Member for Yukon earlier concerning the order of business for Thursday and Friday.
I have now checked and 1 have discovered that we will resume second reading of Bill C-170, which is the fisheries Bill; and, should we be able to dispose of that Bill, we would move on to second reading of Bill C-91, an Act to amend the Public Works Act and the Public Lands Grants Act. Then, should we be so fortunate as to dispose of that piece of legislation, we would move on to the resumption of second reading debate on Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nielsen:
Thai this House condemns the Government for having taken high-handed and antidemocratic actions in this session and for having proceeded, without a mandate and through the imposition of closure, to abolish the historic Crow Rate, to impose measures relating to taxes on petroleum and natural gas, to cap old age pensions, to create Canagrex, to limit increases in family allowance payments, to change income tax laws, and to increase public debt through additional borrowing and calls upon the Government to seek a mandate by calling a general election without delay.
Supply
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in today's debate on an Opposition motion of censure, because in the motion as drafted by the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who this morning made a speech that had no connection whatsoever with the motion before the House, he referred to the energy issue, thus giving me a chance to rise in the House today and comment on this particular subject. In fact, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Yukon, the Opposition House Leader, most sincerely for giving me an opportunity that is becoming scarce in the House, especially in view of the kind of abuse that is going on in the House of Commons as we saw with a list of petitions that took twenty or 50 minutes to read, and all that only to say that they were not proceeding with the motion as proposed. I think that is really abusing the rules of the House. In so doing, Members make it extremely difficult for Government Members and Ministers to speak before the House.
In any case, to get back to the motion, I think that if the Parliamentary House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party had given the matter more thought and read up on current events, he would have realized that by referring in his motion to energy policies, he was giving me a chance to bring up what the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech last week in Calgary-two days later, he did a complete about-face and said that in this field as in any other, he had no policy whatsoever.
[Stage Direction]
It was very interesting to see what happened last week. On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) made a speech in which I felt he enunciated the new energy policy of his Party. He was talking in Calgary and he became somewhat excited. It was amusing to be in Ottawa the day after and see the people in his office running around and telling people that what he said was not what he said, that it was not what he meant if he said it, and what not. It was also amusing to hear the poor Member who represented him before the committee which was discussing Canadianization say: "What my Leader said yesterday is not the policy of my Party". It was fun to see what happened last week.
Last week, after two and a half months in the House of Commons, the Leader of the Opposition was to enunciate a policy. I have been told that he has not met with the press or had a press conference since becoming Leader. His strategy is well known-he will not say anything on anything. When I heard that he made a fantastic speech on energy policy in Calgary, I became excited too. It took a few days before they produced a text. They had some problems with taping and not taping, erasing and not erasing. I do not know what happened, but it was kind of funny to see their organization there. I looked at it and thought that he might be "on". I thought that at last the Leader of the Opposition might tell us something on a subject of vital interest to Canadians. He spoke about energy. It was a great subject on which to speak because he
[Stage Direction]
November 15, 1983
Supply
was in Alberta. He made a speech to please the Alberta audience.
I thought at least the Leader of the Opposition, who aspires to becoming Prime Minister of Canada, would check his facts a little. We understand that some Members of the House, when they have to fill a gap just to kill a bill or not let a piece of legislation pass, can speak and not give a damn about the substance of their speeches. However, when the Leader of the Opposition makes his first speech on energy policy, we feel he should offer something at which the people of Canada can look.
I want to highlight some of the points he made. Just to indicate the kind of fun we can have with it, he spoke about the back-in policy, that famous policy where the Canadian Government is saying that after a discovery it will buy back its position for 25 per cent.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Buy?


Mr. Chretien:: Yes, we pay.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is a new policy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, you do not know.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The Hon. Member will learn a lot if he
listens.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am listening.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As a former Minister of Energy, he should shut up if he does not know that. One of the funny parts is that he said he would abolish the back-in. I reflected on that and remembered that not long ago I dealt with the Premier of Newfoundland on the question of trying to reach an agreement with that Province on offshore resources. 1 proposed that we should have a back-in of 25 per cent, something according to the policy of the Tories in Ottawa to which they were opposed. One difficulty I had with Premier Peckford was that he wanted a back-in of 40 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, he wanted a back-in of 40 per cent; 25 per cent was not enough. He said that I was not allocating enough; he wanted 40 per cent.
What will happen when the Leader of the Opposition moves east? He made a speech in Alberta. When he goes to Newfoundland, it will be very interesting to hear what he will say to Brian Peckford about it. What will he do when he arrives in Halifax? There is another Tory Premier there, Mr. John Buchanan. He telephoned me not long ago-and his officials were in Ottawa as well-to ask: "When, Mr. Chretien, will you proceed with the Bill which will confirm the agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia on offshore oil and gas?" I said: "Why is it so urgent?" It is because he wants to have right now his share of the back-in. It is very urgent for him to develop his policy so that he can get his back-in. What will the
Leader of the Opposition do if he becomes Prime Minister and deals with Mr. Peckford and Mr. Buchanan on the back-in, which he says he will withdraw because his friends tell him that he should? Of course, multinationals are very important to him. When he received orders from Cleveland to close down Schefferville, he said: "Yes, ready I am". Not only did he close the mine, Mr. Speaker, he closed the whole town. However, that is only one point.
Another point I would like to mention is that he spoke about the taxes. He said that the taxation was a grab and a steal in the middle of the night. 1 was amazed. I asked myself what the share of the industry was some years ago and I looked it up because it is good to have the facts. In 1977, oil and gas revenue was a 45 per cent share of the industry. That was in the good old days before the NEP. In 1978, again before the NEP, it was 46 per cent. In 1979, when the Hon. Member was the Minister of Energy, it was 41 per cent. Now, after the NEP, do you know how much the industry is getting from oil and gas revenue, Mr. Speaker? Not 45 per cent, not the 41 per cent it got under the Tories, but today it is getting 52 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Even so, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) says that we are taking too much and that it is almost a steal. He spoke about robbing somebody at three o'clock in the morning. Again his facts were wrong.
He spoke about other things that were very important. He said that it was terrible-and I agree with him-that there are 81 different categories of oil. He said that that makes no sense and that he will change it. However, I have discovered the facts. It is very complex, but this rule was established by the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission. The Government has nothing to do with it. It is his friends in Alberta who have established a system with 81 different categories of oil. Again, the very learned Leader of the Opposition had the facts wrong and blamed the federal Government for the mistakes of Peter Lougheed. I think he should check his facts a little more.
Let me cite another example. The Leader of the Opposition said that the federal Government has failed to stimulate new markets for natural gas. I would like to tell him again that he should check his facts. Who does not know that in the gas policy agreement we have signed with the Alberta Government, we have jointly agreed that the price of natural gas will not be more than 65 per cent of the price of oil in Toronto? That is an agreement that was reached between the Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada. It was reached in order to expand the gas market in eastern Canada.
We had all sorts of what we call off-oil programs designed to stimulate the demand or utilization of natural gas in the East. You know about the programs that allow for private home owners to get grants from the Government to convert from oil to gas, Mr. Speaker. We have built pipelines to expand the market in Quebec.
November 15, 1983

[ Translation)
All the Members from Quebec know about it. To date, we have spent over half a billion dollars on expanding the gas pipeline network in Quebec. The pipeline has now been built as far as Quebec City and Sherbrooke, and it will soon reach the Lac-Saint-Jean area, I hope, if we can get enough contracts. The Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) and his colleagues are putting pressure on me daily about this, but my answer is: pressure the companies to sign and then we can build another pipeline extension. We even built an extension as far as Lachute, where it was not even supposed to go, but we managed, following representations by the Member for Lachute. And, Mr. Speaker, just to show that we are not partisan, the pipeline even goes as far as the riding of Joliette. He cannot criticize us, since it helps increase sales.
Mr. Speaker, of course 1 could go on with my comments on the natural gas issue, but my time is limited. Ironically, we worked together with the Government of Alberta to expand markets in Canada. Of course, he is also condemning the Government because, according to him, we were not successful in sales to the United States. Perhaps I may remind him that everything we have done in the past year in the field of natural gas and gas sales to the United States was done in close co-operation with the provincial governments.

Everything we have done in relation to the situation with the United States in terms of marketing gas has been done after lengthy consultations with the Alberta Government. We reduced the price to $4.40 and we have given an incentive price of $3.40 for volumes above a base level quantity. Last month, we again changed another mechanism to measure natural gas on a monthly basis rather than on a yearly basis in order to meet the demands of the industry and the Governments of Alberta and British Columbia. All that has been done in close consultation with the Provinces. However, the situation in the gas industry has not been caused by the federal Government. It has been caused by the international situation. There are huge bubbles of gas in the United States and so there is no demand for gas. The election of another Government will not change the situation in the United States.
1 would like to know something from the Official Opposition. I am glad to see that the energy critic is present in the House. We know that she is a good writer. When she was with the press, she used to work for the federal Government in the North.


Miss Carney:: That's a lie, not true, never.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: She is touchy. She never received any money from the federal Government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: She said it was the opposite of the truth.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We know that she can write. We hope that she will tell us, after consultations with her Leader, if the Conservative Party wants us to sell Canadian natural gas to
Supply
Americans cheaper than to Canadians. That will be very interesting for us to know.
We would like to know what the Official Opposition will do about these problems. For example, today the Alberta government wants to deregulate the price of oil but it does not want to deregulate the price of gas. That is the position taken by the Alberta Government. Mr. Lougheed wants to deregulate the price of oil but not the price of gas. On the other hand-1 was at a meeting last week with Premier Davis and Mr. Lougheed-Mr. Davis wants to deregulate the price of gas but does not want to deregulate the price of oil. That is a nice little problem for Mr. Mulroney to solve. At least he can pass an objective judgment, but he is trapped between the two.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order! Perhaps I may remind the Hon. Minister that he must refer to his colleagues in the House by the name of their riding or their position, not by their own names.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought my time was up. It is not quite over and that is good.
That is the type of problem that the Leader of the Opposition will be facing sooner or later. He will have to decide between the opinions of these two leaders.
The Leader of the Opposition made another point that I believe needs some clarification. He said that the biggest problem was that there was very little activity in the oil and gas industry in Canada and that all of the rigs were idle. I would like to tell the people that in the oil exploration industry at its peak in 1980, there were 2,081 wells completed in Canada according to an Oil Week source. In 1983, there were 3,136 oil wells completed in Canada. Of course, there was a big decline in gas wells for the very valid reason that the market in the United States is such that the Americans cannot take any more gas. There is so large a surplus of natural gas that it is useless for people to drill for more gas. In western Canada, there are 17 trillion cubic feet of gas in excess of our needs for the next 25 years so far. I do not blame the oil and gas industry when it does not drill for gas, but there was a big increase in oil drilling.
What is the story in the United States? According to the Official Opposition, the oil and gas industry has slowed down somewhat because of the NEP. The Government in the United States is not socialist and there is no NEP there. The number of wells drilled in the United States decreased from 4,530 in 1981 to 1,807 in 1983, a drop of 60 per cent. That was in the United States and it was not because of the NEP. It was only because the oil and gas situation in the world has not been what it once was.
The point is that for the first time we heard the Leader of the Opposition making all sorts of innuendoes without check-

November 15, 1983
Supply
ing his facts. It was amusing because the night after that he went to Edmonton. During the day there was quite a scramble. They said it was not what he had said. When he went to Edmonton, he had nothing to say other than that he would have a new energy policy. Canadians have a right to know what he would do about it.
The Opposition critic of my Department is always talking about PIP grants. Last week I was in St. John's, Newfoundland. The drillers, Husky and Bow Valley, said at a press conference that if there were no PIP grants, they could not afford to drill there. Are the Conservatives saying that if they come to power, they will stop the drilling off the coast of Newfoundland and off the coast of Nova Scotia and there will be no more Canadianization of the oil and gas industry?


An Hon. Member:: They will give it all to the Americans.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, they might. He said there would be no more discrimination between Canadians and Americans. If they do that, we will be back to the good old days when everything in the oil and gas industry in Canada was controlled by the Americans.
We have made progress. Let me give an example. Canadian ownership is now 38 per cent compared to 28 per cent three years ago. Sixty per cent of the Canada lands today is owned by Canadians compared to what it was a few years ago. Are they against Canadianization? We want to know that. Are they against self-sufficiency and security of supply? How do they reconcile the differences between Mr. Lougheed and Mr. Davis? What will they say to Mr. Peckford who wants a 40 per cent back-in? What will they say to Mr. Buchanan who wants his 25 per cent shares right away on the back-in? Canadians have a right to know. They want more than negative statements. They have the right to know. The NEP is a fundamental policy of this Government.
When dealing with the industry and what I have done over the past 12 to 15 months, I told them that I would not change the policy but would adjust it. I said I would give them stability. The industry is asking for stability, not a change of policy on a daily basis. That is exactly what we have done. We managed to get an agreement with Alberta in July without any flak. Mr. Mulroney pretends-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sorry. I have known him a long time. Canadians have the right to know what they will do.
In the last 15 months there has been a lot of stability in the industry. Last week the Leader of the Opposition did a great disservice to the industry by creating complete confusion. Within 24 hours he had to backtrack. I hope that his critic will tell us today what that Party intends to do. The people know what we want to do. We want self-sufficiency and security of supply for Canadians. We want to Canadianize the industry.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. I have a letter dated February 18, 1983, addressed to Mr. Brian Mulroney, President, Iron Ore Company of Canada, Montreal, in the Minister's Province. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Mulroney:
Thank you for your letter, dated January 24, 1983, setting out some possibilities for the future of Schefferville.
Firstly, I have noted with great interest your company's compensation and relocation program for the workers affected by the closure of your Schefferville operation. I think that your actions in this regard are commendable.
Your proposals for a new industrial base for Schefferville appear to have good potential and are worth serious attention. Because of their diverse scope, I shall be transmitting them to the appropriate federal departments in order to get their views and opinions on the subject.
A representative from E.M.R. was present at the Parliamentary Commission in Schefferville, and I am expecting a summary of the proposals submitted to the Commission. Hopefully, it will permit me to assess in more detail what possible role participants of the federal government could have in the suggested development committee. For the moment, we cannot name a specific representative for you, but once the committee and its mandate are defined, it should be possible to indicate an appropriate contact.
I would like to assure you that your efforts in diversifying the economic base of Schefferville are of high interest to me and that Energy, Mines and Resources Canada will do what it can to support your efforts.
We emphasize the sentence "I think that your actions in this regard are commendable". Does the Minister agree with the sentiments set forth in that letter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, he closed the town of Schefferville. We all know that he tried to do something about it. Most of the programs were developed in collaboration with the federal Government. I did not say that he did not try to relocate the people. Most of the programs were financed by the federal Government. The fact is that he closed the mine. Of course he tried to reduce the problem somewhat. That is natural. We offered our help, our programs and so on.
This morning the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) accused us of being somewhat reddish. The proposal of the Leader of the Opposition was to do something along the lines of what is done in Russia, that we apply to Schefferville a technique used in Russia to repair the damage there. If the Hon. Member wants to be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, there is a very easy way of doing that. Why does the Leader of the Opposition not run for election there? The people of that area will give him an answer. He could go to that town with his smooth voice where he could be judged. The people of that riding will show him what they think about what he has done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before again recognizing the Hon. Member for Yukon, the Chair would like to observe that both the question and the comments were rather lengthy.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question was not brief because the rules prohibited me from tabling the letter, which I would like to do. I had to read the text, which was fairly brief. My question is simply whether the Minister agrees with the sentiments in the letter, particularly, "I think that your actions in this regard are commendable".
I was going to get the answer and then point out to the Minister that the letter was signed by his colleague, the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
November 15, 1983

Erola). As far as her sentiments expressed on behalf of the Government of Canada are concerned, it seems that the actions of the then president, Mr. Mulroney, at that time with respect to the Schefferville closure were commendable.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was a novel expression of desire, after he put everyone there on welfare, that he wanted to do something about it. It is commendable. However, it would have been more commendable if he had persuaded his American friends to keep the mine open.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a question. I understand from his remarks, which I first caught over television, that he again said that the Leader of the Opposition had said that he would abolish or scrap the NEP. Is the Minister aware that that misquote which occurred last week has been retracted by Canadian Press? Is he aware that an editorial has appeared in the Ottawa Citizen pointing out that the press misused the Leader of the Opposition? With all the resources at his command, was the Minister not aware that the Leader of the Opposition was misquoted in the press when he said that he was going to abolish the NEP?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I find that extremely funny because he did not use that word. I am happy that he will keep it as his policy. The Hon. Member is saying that there will be no abandonment of the policy, but he said, "The programs concocted to implement them constitute the most self-defeating pile of tax"-I am glad that they will keep it-"and red tape which has ever been unleashed upon a single industry or sector in the history of this country". Now he says he will do nothing-


Pat Carney: Point of Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -after using that crazy type of language. If he thinks it is so bad, why not come clean and tell us? He is using some big words like that and then telling us he will not do anything. What I want to tell the Hon. Member is that I challenge her to give us the policy of her Party as to what it will do with the back-in. What will it do with the back-in in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia? I would like to know.


Mr. Rossi:: Stand up and say it.


John Leslie Evans: She said, abolish it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If that Party has a policy, I would like to see it in writing. If it will be as the Hon. Member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) said the other day, "We will only change the name", then let them invite me to the baptism and we will have a glass of champagne together. If it is just changing the name, then there is no problem. As long as they keep the same policy, God bless them.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) on the kick-off to his election campaign for the leadership of his
Supply
Party, although I believe he is going to have to do better than that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre rises on a point of order.


Pat Carney: I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to point out that the Minister has deliberately misled this House on various points this afternoon. He misquoted-


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Let us have the point of order.


Pat Carney: The Minister has misled this House. I withdraw the word "deliberately". He obviously is ignorant of events in his field. He misled the House when he said that I had been paid as a journalist by the federal Government. He misled the House when he said that Mr. Mulroney said that all the drilling has halted, and he misled the House when he said that Mr. Mulroney had said that we would abolish the NEP.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. Those are points of debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, instead of throwing a bit of mud back on the floor, I would like to ask the Minister how the National Energy Program is really working. The megaprojects are not working in the tarsands, the big megaprojects. The Alaska pipeline is not going on as promised. The National energy policy was built on rising world prices, whereas we had falling world prices. The NEP, in fact, in its pricing policy, is in a shambles. 1 would also like to put to the Minister the fact that for all the much vaunted Canadian ownership, I am told-and these are figures from the Minister-that since the program came into being in 1980, Canadian ownership of oil and gas production has increased to 38 per cent from 28 per cent. That is, 62 per cent of our industry is still foreign-con-trolled. Would the Minister not agree with me that in fact the national energy policy has been quite a colossal failure and we have not achieved Canadian self-sufficiency or 50 per cent Canadian ownership of our industry? Why, then, in the name of Heaven, is the Minister giving the oil industry $2 billion in PIP grants and another $5 billion in the next five years in PIP grants, which surely must make it the biggest welfare bum in the country? Why does the Minister go to Calgary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is a very simple answer, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing the Canadian Government can do about the international situation regarding the price of oil. It was not done by us. It was done across the board in all the nations of the world. I believe it is not necessarily bad. I believe it is good that the price of oil is not going up to $60 or $70 a barrel. I believe the general public of Canada will appreciate that we are not faced with that problem.
In spite of the difficulty, this year we have signed an agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan for an

November 15, 1983
Supply
upgrader of $600 million. We have the Cold Lake project, which will go between $300 million and $1.5 billion. The Wolf Lake project is $200 million, and on the Syncrude expansion over five years there will be a spending of $1.5 billion. These are not small projects in the oil and gas industry. I would like to tell the Hon. Member that for the first time in years, in 1982 Canadians have produced as much oil as we have consumed. We have 17 trillion cubic feet of gas in surplus, so we are in a much better position today than we were five years ago, and he has to recognize that fact.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You would not know the truth if it came up and kicked you in the shins.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, since the Question Period, much of the debate has centred on one small part of the motion dealing with energy and gas prices. 1 thought I might begin my remarks by simply refocusing on the essence of the motion. The motion called for the Government to seek a mandate by calling a general election. That is the essence of the motion.


An Hon. Member:: Any time.


J. Michael Forrestall: How about tomorrow morning?


David Edward Crombie: The motion says that this House wants to have an election. This morning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) indicated that in his view the motion calling for an election was "frivolous, irrelevant and makes no sense". 1 want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and Hon. Members of this House, that so far as I understand the people of this country, and certainly the people in my own riding, the Minister of Transport is dead wrong when he thinks the people of this country do not want an election. People in this country desperately want an election, Mr. Speaker. I believe, indeed, that if every Hon. Member of this House thought about this for a second and remembered the last time he was in his own constituency, particularly during the week of recess, and he took the same opportunity that many of us did, he would know exactly how his constituents feel. People in the constituency of Rosedale, people in the constituencies of Toronto where 1 spent that week, want a change. They want a change badly. If you listen to those people in the constituencies they will tell you things you need to hear about whether or not we need an election. I listened to the people in my own constituency all week long. 1 believe that every Hon. Member would have had the same experience as myself in listening to what they had to say. They have concern, Mr. Speaker. Their number one concern is jobs and financial security. That is the first concern of the people 1 talked to.
There is, Mr. Speaker, 11.1 per cent unemployed in this country. There are 1,346,000 people counted who are unemployed. If you add those who live in areas of the country where there is no opportunity for work at all, the figure is well over 1.5 million people without work. People need to have a job in order to look after their responsibilities. It is something which goes to the very core of the lives of people. What they have had for four years as of February, in the face of that awesome
unemployment, is words, words, words; numbers, numbers, numbers, and programs no end. With all the words, all the numbers and all the programs, the reason that the people do not believe the Government, Mr. Speaker, is that they know a hard fact, which is that beneath all those programs and pronouncements by Ministers, there is the underlying reality of chronic unemployment in this country which will not go away, and which is scaring hell out of people.
When you ask the people, Mr. Speaker, they will tell you that their first concern is jobs and financial security. Twenty-four point four per cent of the people under the age of 25 and who have finished their education are without a job. Is that not a great way to start out in this country, knowing that no matter how hard you try or how much education you have, 25 per cent of you are going to be unemployed?


John Leslie Evans: Not true.


David Edward Crombie: It is true. The Hon. Member will understand if he remembers that I said it was those who had finished their education.


John Leslie Evans: It is not true.


David Edward Crombie: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is the people between the ages of 55 and 64 who are without jobs. How many Members of this House have talked to those people who know the prospects for re-employment get dimmer and dimmer as they get older? That is why this is not a debate about some frivolous thing about whether or not someone said something or someone said something else. The first concern that people have is jobs and financial security. That is the first reason they want an election.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, people talk about taxes. My constituents talk to me about taxes and I know they talk to Hon. Members about taxes.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Yes, all those Rosedale-


David Edward Crombie: The Hon. Member says "Rosedale". If he knew more about the city he came from, which is supposed to be Toronto, he would understand that in my riding we have people who have been waiting for years for this Government to produce what is promised. What bothers them most about taxes is not only that they are too high. No matter what level of Government you are in, taxes are always too high. Whether they are working people, small business people, artists and writers, they know the system is no longer fair and equitable. It is unjust, unfair and unworkable. That is why when they look at taxes they say to themselves, how is it that a system could go so wrong in such a short space of time? This is an important matter, Mr. Speaker, because in our system of Government taxes are voluntary. The only way people will voluntarily pay their taxes is if they feel the system is fair and just. But they do not see that. What they see is a Department of National Revenue which is just about out of control.
November 15, 1983

Two weeks ago we had a motion from the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), to which this House agreed unanimously, to examine the unjust and unworkable rules applying to artists and writers in this country in the face of the reinterpretation of the law by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). Despite that, the Minister and his Department continue to apply those rules. He made the interpretation, he can change it, but he does not. That is one example of why people in this country are increasingly trying to avoid taxes in ways which they would not have contemplated in the past. As they do that, the Department becomes more oppressive and makes the assumption that people are guilty until proven innocent. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when you talk to people in my constituency, indeed in every constituency, there is going to be a day of reckoning for this Government when it tries to explain how it let loose the Department of National Revenue and the way it has been going for the last couple of years.
The third thing my constituents talk about is peace, Mr. Speaker. Peace is not a Party matter. There is no one, whether it is from the NDP, the Liberal or the Conservative Parties, who has a monopoly on or concern for peace. It is an issue which transcends this House and our politics. Everyone I have talked to feels the same way no matter what his role in life. They are more frightened these days because they read in the paper, hear on the radio and watch on television a kind of slow escalation. That is why, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced he was going on a mission to see what he could do with respect to world peace, I know how my constituents felt. They wished him well. Better than that, some of them prayed for him because they need peace and want it so badly. That is why it was even more incumbent than normal on the Prime Minister to bring what he found out to the House and allow the House, and therefore all the people of this country, to deal with the matter as best we can at this time. Peace is not a question of Party, it is not a monopoly of any Party. In a way, not bringing it to this House diminished the Prime Minister's mission. He still has an opportunity and I hope he takes it.
Fourth, Mr. Speaker, my constituents talk about the Government and Parliament. I do not think it will come as a surprise to any Member here that they are very skeptical. They do not trust the Government to understand their problems, and they are skeptical of this House's ability to solve those problems. The more the Government and this House become removed from the people, the more people do not pay any attention to it and the more the national community begins to divide. That is why far more people than I would have thought-and I ask Hon. Members to think about their own constituencies-paid attention to the issue of parliamentary reform. They know that this is the one national free institution which will allow us to deal with our problems. They know it still ought to be what John Stuart Mill once called it, the nation's committee of grievances and its committee of concerns. That is why they supported parliamentary reform, and that is why it was supported by all Party representatives
Supply
on the committee concerned. That is why they are also concerned about why the work of that committee has not proceeded. They know it is only this institution which can help.
Not only do they have concerns about jobs, taxes, peace and the future of our institutions, but they also know what they want. That is not always the same thing and it is not always explained in the same way, but what they want is something very vague and not something small. If I can put it in a few words, Mr. Speaker, they want to start again. They want a rebirth, a renaissance, a revitalization of this country. Nothing less. That is what they are looking for today. They want world class investments, world class skills and world class markets. They want a Government responsive to their needs and to their concerns. They want a Parliament which reflects their thinking, not the internal bickering. They want the tax system reformed so that it is just and fair. They want peace unencumbered by Party politics. They want jobs and financial security for themselves and their children, and they want that fast. Above all, Mr. Speaker, they want hope for the future of this country and they want to have pride in this country. They are sick and tired of region pitted against region, of intolerant groups trying to impose views on other groups. They want what the Constitution promised them 116 years ago: peace, order and good Government.
In 1946 a great Canadian historian offered a very small and modest thought. It is so apt. He said:
In every generation Canadians have had to rework the miracle of their political existence. Canada has been created because there has existed within the hearts of its people, a determination to build for themselves an enduring home.
Mr. Speaker, the reason that the constituents of Rosedale, the people in Toronto with whom I talked, and I am sure all the constituents of all the Members of this House, want to have an election is that they want to get on with building that future, and this Government is in the road.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Questions? Comments? The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans).


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am always elevated by the speeches of the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). I was disturbed by some of the comments he made with regard to the unemployment statistics. Is he confident that youth unemployment for educated youth who have gone through university and high school is 25 per cent? The latest figures 1 have seen indicate that the only group for which that figure is true is that of students who have not completed high school. For university graduates the unemployment rate is around 11 per cent. While it is unacceptable, for high school graduates the rate is around 18 per cent. The over-all average youth unemployment rate today is not 25 per cent but 18 per cent. This is still totally unacceptable but it is far less than the figure that the Hon. Member was putting forward as being the youth unemployment rate in this country.

November 15, 1983
Supply


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I used the Government's own statistics, not mine. I think the record will show that 1 carefully said it is the category dealing with youth who have finished their education, whether it is high school, public school or university. Twenty-four point four is the figure I have. If that is not true then I will correct Hansard.


John Leslie Evans: It is wrong.


David Edward Crombie: If I could add, that is the figure which 1 took out of the Government statistics. If that figure is right then of course I would be happy to accept an apology from my hon. friend.


John Leslie Evans: I would be happy to offer it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Debate.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I too listened with interest to the comments made by the Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). I thought they were thin. We will read his comments here with interest. He stood in the House and told us what people want. That is substantial and that is important. He did not tel! us anything about what he believes. He did not tell us anything about what he would do. While trying to pretend that he was offering something to people, he acutally failed the real test. He did not offer the people of this country his positive views and thereby give them an opportunity to judge which course of action they would like.
Mr. Speaker, that is the whole character of this motion and this debate. This is political fluff today. It is a waste of time. It is a rag-tag collection of tired cliches. We have seen this motion in the House over the over again. The Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the man who signed the motion, is a typical Tory. The motion and his speech today really represent his best contributions. He has a highly specialized skill, the skill of opposing. They offer no facts. They certainly offer no economic facts. If they were to take some of their statements out of the House and into the private sector they would not have a prayer of getting a job, because some of these statements do not hold water and do not earn anybody's respect. In the House those same statements are used to threaten courses of action and to threaten the basis for the livelihood and prosperity of some of our people.
The Mississauga News saw this very clearly and they treated the whole thing in a symbolic way recently. The Member for Yukon visited my riding. When he came, they ran his picture on November 2 and said the following things about him:
Conservative House Leader Erik Nielsen was the guest speaker last week at a fund-raising dinner for Mississauga North federal candidate Bob Horner. Nielsen was late for the dinner because of a filibuster in the House of Commons Friday.
They did not say anything about his speech because he did not say anything in his speech. They did not say anything about the crowd who were there. I am told the crowd was not
big enough to start a fight. That is so typical of the Conservative Party.
On the same weekend the Liberal Party in my riding held a dinner as well. We charged the 500 people $5 a couple, and we made money. The Tory Party charged $75 and served up a guy whose description in the newspaper is solely limited to that of a man who contributes to a filibuster in the House of Commons. That is all they have to say about him. That is all we can say about the Opposition in its offerings today. It is a filibuster. It is empty fluff. They are only for their capacity to oppose.
This same hollow motion and this same hollow speech have been repeated now for 20 years. For 20 years the Tory Party has been losing the very elections that it calls for in this motion. The same defeats follow the same hollow ideas.
I was quite amused the other day at a comment from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in answer to a recent question on the economy in the House of Commons. Statistics Canada had just reported some more good economic news and the Prime Minister stood up and said:
I was wondering this morning how the Opposition would manage to seek grief because unemployment had fallen for the seventh consecutive month and the figures are good and encouraging. I am interested in seeing that the Opposition can still put a sad face on good news.
That is exactly what we are seeing in this motion today. This imaginary tale of woe flies in the face of the reality in our country. It flies in the face of the fact that our economy is recovering. It flies in the face of enormous consumer confidence that is building and helping to regenerate that recovery. It flies in the face of serious attack against the unemployment tragedy in our country. It flies in the face of positive policies that are bringing back our positive economic strength.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let's have an election.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: What are those policies? Policies like the 6 and 5 program in the general anti-inflation fight that got rid of one of the worst economic diseases ever to strike our country.


An Hon. Member:: Brought on by a Liberal Government.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Policies like our short-term job creation program that are helping people facing severe disaster in their own lives. Policies brought out in the April budget that generated and rekindled business confidence. Policies like the special recovery projects that are speeding up Government investment and bringing it on line now when it is needed. Policies like our ongoing emphasis on trade and international relations. Those are the policies that this imaginary tale of woe flies in the face of.
My friend from Halifax called out that he would like an election. I would remind him of something that the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker said in Lethbridge way back in 1962. He said, "I would never have been Prime Minister if the Gallup polls had their way." Perhaps in the light of all their enthusiasm across the way sparked by the Gallup poll our good friends over there would like to keep Mr. Diefenbaker's reminders in mind. The Liberal Party is proud to stand up and
November 15, 1983

base an election campaign on the policies that we followed over the past five years.
Let us compare the programs that we have offered and the kind of hollow opposition that has been offered by the other side. Mr. Speaker, we believe that Canada is part of the whole world. We believe that, despite the desire by the Opposition to overlook that very simple obvious fact. That is why the six and five program was introduced. It kept us in line with our world competitors. It helped us to keep up our standards in world trade. It helped us to rebuild our export industries and to recover the lost jobs in the export industries. It helped us to keep in step with the recovery all over the world.
What was the Tory Party doing when that program was introduced? They voted against it and fought against it. They spoke against it. That was the end of their contribution to anything in that vein.
We in the Party believe that Canada is part of the world. That is why we have encouraged aggressive trade policies and that is why in this Parliament we expanded the Export Development Corporation. That is why in this Parliament we initiated Canagrex. What was the Tory answer to that? Their answer was a filibuster in the Elouse of Commons and in the committees from people like the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). They could not stomach any longer the idea of supporting the Export Development Corporation, so they wanted to fight it despite the best interests of the country. They wanted to fight it to the point where the Business Council on National Issues sent a telegram, the day after another successful filibuster, pleading with the committee to get on with it because the Corporation was needed by businesses and exporters all across this country. That was the Tories' answer and that was the public's answer to their activities.
We believe that Canada is indeed part of the world. That is why we proposed a revitalized rail system. That is why we have just finished an intense debate, following two years of consultation coast to coast with Canadians on the Crow rate. Through these kinds of revitalization in our rail industry, we create the confidence that we can deliver our products to the outside world. Our customers come to believe that they can rely on us. Our customers believe that our suppliers are reliable sources of these vital products for them.
We have supported the change in the Crow rate because in this case there is a clear link between better trade, better railroads and better jobs for all Canadians. But what happened? The Tory Party voted against the Crow rate. They voted against new industry for western Canada.


Mr. Huntington:: That is unbelievable.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: They voted against jobs in mining, in steel, in railroads and against suppliers for railroads. They voted against stronger industries coast to coast.
Supply


Arthur Ronald Huntington: You do not even understand what you voted for.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: They can squawk and complain but they cannot go to Trenton and tell the workers in the railroad plants down there why they held up those jobs that those people need so badly. There are no squawks. Not a comment.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is a figment of your imagination.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: There is not a whimper from them now when that kind of fact is brought out. When they want an election, we will be happy to bring those gentle facts from the record to the attention of a few Canadians.
Not only do we live in an open world, we believe that we must foster and nourish Canadian industry within that context. That is why we have FIRA-to set standards and to screen applicants who want to come to Canada. It is not to keep them away or to discourage them but simply to let them know that when they invest in this country they must follow Canadian standards for the benefit of the Canadian economy and Canadian society.
That is why we have the national energy plan, so that our wealth and resources can be developed for our own use and prosperity. What do we see from the Tory Party? They want to tear down FIRA and destroy the National Energy Program. We see a leader in the Party who cannot wait to pander to every foreign carpetbagger with any kind of business idea. We see a finance critic who ran his leadership campaign recently on the entire thesis of open trade and complete vulnerability to the United States. We see the foreign critic of that Party for whom Washington's every wish is his deepest command.
We on this side of the House believe in a co-operative effort between the Government and the people to build our country. That is why we are proud to support Petro-Canada. That is why we do not want to abandon the Canadair efforts. That is why we are proud of our Crown corporations. That is why we are ready to join with business and give them incentives to become involved in vital activities.
When we examine the Tory record, we see memories of the Avro-Arrow and we hear hollow squawks about European socialism as the thin disguises for their destructive programs.
Finally, we on this side of the House believe that Canadians should have a decent safety net for the days when they personally get into trouble or when our economy gets into trouble. When one examines our record over the past year, one can see a proud record of help for Canadians in the depth of really tough economic times-. We put $4.5 billion into the special recovery program. We have the National Training Act to help people whose skills are outdated or businesses which need to upgrade the skills of valuable employees. We have seen the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) put an emphasis on a decent medicare system, despite the activities of Tories in the provincial Governments from coast to coast. We have job sharing under the Unemployment Insurance Program. As well, we have the NEED Program, Canada Works and Summer Works, all of which are short term

November 15, 1983
Supply
job-creation programs intended to bridge tough times and help people have a job for a few days or weeks until their old jobs return.
But what we see in this very motion is the revealing of the real Tory attitude. Their attitude is that we should give the rich a nice tax break despite the homilies from the Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie). I would say to him again that 1 doubt the people in Regent Park are really worried about having some kind of special rollover provisions on our RRSPs, or other cute little tax breaks. What they want are jobs. They want a fair tax system that taxes people from coast to coast equally. We see Members on the other side propose ideas to help the rich keep their money and hide it from the taxman at the expense of the poor who must carry those burdens. No one engaged in such vitriolic debate as some of those Members when the MacEachen budget was introduced. The very heart of their complaints was that the rich would have to pay more and pay their share. That was very clear in all of their debates.
We offered a chance for a fair and more even tax system. In this motion we find that that is supposed to create a lack of confidence in the Government. What else do we see in this motion? We see a direct attack on the funding for the safety net. We see a direct attack on the use of Government resources to help people in trouble. This comes out very clearly when the two Members from St. John's rise. The Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) wrings his hands, full of pity, and the Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) says that we must cut the deficit. Who is it that has the greater power and greater influence? It is the deficit cutter, the one who wants to take a direct run at the safety and prosperity of ordinary working Canadians.
This motion is thin. The speeches we have heard, particularly the one from the Member for Yukon, are outstandingly thin. After this debate, when all of these cliches are dragged out and these tired criticisms are dragged out, we should always remember the little warning we had from Gerard Pelletier back in 1971 who told us that "Alarmism is the real temptation of opposition". That is what we are hearing in all of this. It is a faint hope that they will stir up fires and drag out discontented people without being caught in any of the real choices or real options of Government.
Let us just go down the list that I have given in my comments. Let us note that we on the Liberal side believe that Canada must take part in the entire world and not hide. The Tories voted against the six and five. They voted against the Export Development Corporation. They voted against Cana-grex and against the Crow. Here on this side we believe that we must help our own economy to grow. What do the Tories do? They fight against FIR A. They vote against the National Energy Program and they try to open our doors to any kind of carpetbagger that comes along. We believe on the Liberal side that Canada must use co-operative efforts between the people and their Government. What we see is two clear-cut cases of deliberate and malicious attacks on Petro-Canada and on Canadair. On this side of the House we believe that Canada must create safety nets for ordinary Canadians. What do we
see on the other side? Plaintive pleas on behalf of the rich, and deliberate attacks against the spending that funds and supports safety nets for the poor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: There are poor people like Alistair Gillespie.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The Tories want an election. Good luck. Those ideas and concepts have been dragged out and paraded before the people for 20 years, and for 20 years the Tories have been thrown back into Opposition, kicking, screaming and wondering whatever happened. I wondered. 1 just got curious as to what happened to the people between 1979 and 1980. I think the best answer to that can be found in the electoral record of the Hon. Member for Yukon. He was thrown into office in 1979 with a margin of 1,400 votes and thrown back in by an even more overwhelming majority in 1980 of 100 votes. The people of the Yukon are getting increasingly sick of him. They get sick of him because he has nothing to offer but criticism. Given a chance to be positive, given a chance to build and given a chance to do something creative, he and his colleagues blew it because they refused, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) is now refusing, to offer creative ideas and real choices to the Canadian people. Who knows, you may in fact find that their ideas are accepted, Mr. Speaker. But to this point they are only a question mark, and Canadians will never reward cowards. We offer vital ideas and we will stand by our record because it has been human in tough times and energetic in a time of recovery.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, so much for decorum and civility coming as close on the heels as it does in the words expressed in this Chamber as late as yesterday with respect to the necessity for civility.
I have a question for the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher). He used the expression that it was the intention to use the vast wealth from the energy of Canada for use by Canadians and for Canadians. 1 know the Hon. Member was in the Chamber and listening closely to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). Could he tell me if that might include the persuasion of Government, with the immense talents the Member has, to make an adjustment in the PIP grants so we do not drive out of Canadian shipyards about 16,700 jobs that could be taken up with the construction of offshore service rigs, oil drilling rigs and, vessels for the Canadian commercial account involved in energy exploration? Is the Hon. Member for Mississauga North sufficiently familiar with this difficulty? If he is, would he respond as to whether or not that would be a useful adjustment to make so that what he did say with respect to the Canadian use of the wealth and energy might become a reality?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear a Member from Nova Scotia talk about civility in the House. I certainly hope he will take the opportunity to pass his lesson along to his colleague, the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) who is always ready to drop insults and accusations
November 15, 1983

here but does not seem to be able to carry them outside the House where he is a little more vulnerable. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) might also want to pass his homily along to the Hon. Member for the Yukon whose best benchmark in Canadian politics is perhaps to attack his colleagues in this Chamber personally. I have only challenged him. 1 suppose it is uncivil in a Tory sense to do this, but I have only challenged them to come forward with some ideas. If that is uncivil, then I do indeed apologize for asking where they stand and what their ideas and beliefs are. So far the Tories have not shown us that except in the behaviour of people like the Hon. Member for the Yukon and the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants.
May I say that the Hon. Member and I engaged in a "Late Show" on this very question of PIP grants, and I would be happy to run down two or three observations for him. The Hon. Member knows, because I said it to him then and I presume he remembers, that the Canadian Government uses two checking points to try to determine that Canadian spending will happen first with that money. There must, first of all, be a serious check through both the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to make sure the PIP grant money is spent on Canadian projects.
Second, we do not intend to distort the market totally to make the people, whether in the Maritimes, British Columbia, Ontario or anywhere else, pay more because of an exclusive Canada policy. We need the check of international competition. The Hon. Member smiles. He knows it is true. He knows his own constituents would not thank us if we were to waste our money by letting these shipyards go unchecked or by letting any other industry or supplier to the Government go unchecked. He also knows there is a tremendous world glut in much of this equipment that simply ruined a lot of the shipbuilding activity. The Hon. Member also knows the Canadian Government under the Special Recovery Program has started the frigate program and the icebreaker program, and speeded them up to offset the effects of that glut and to provide some employment in some of those very shipyards.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the rambling response from the Hon. Member for Mississauga North. I asked him a simple question. He is obviously not aware of the difficulty that PIP grants cause for Canadian shipyards. I asked him whether or not he would use his office as a learned backbencher in Government to persuade the Treasury benches to make that adjustment in the PIP grants so that explorers- those out there doing the offshore work-can in fact claim their capital costs here in Canada in terms of building up their level of grant or award for this exploratory work.
Petro-Canada built its rigs here in Canada because it could not get the grant. It sold its service rigs offshore and then it was able to claim full capital costs all the way up to 80 per cent. That is what is happening in case after case. It is that question that I would like addressed. Would the Hon. Member direct himself to an adjustment in the program that would allow rigs, service ships and other equipment built in Canada,
Supply
to qualify at the same level rather than having to go offshore to get it?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member directly or indirectly is asking for a Canada value added or for some allowance so that these rigs and this equipment made in Canada, more expensively at times, could be devalued so as to be competitive with international equipment. If he wants us to do that and it is a reasonable idea, we will take a look. I am sure the Minister is open to these kinds of suggestions. On the other hand, I reject the allegation that PIP grants are a pipeline into cheap equipment.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have two short questions for the Hon. Member. I want to congratulate him on his spirited speech. I do not agree with much of what he said, but it was spirited. The Government has budgeted about $8 billion in PIP grants, which I have called welfare to the oil industry. I have read that the Canadianization rate has risen since the National Energy Program came into being in 1980 from 28 per cent to 38 per cent. We now own 38 per cent of our oil and gas industry.
Why does the Government not cut out these PIP grants and all such giveaways and simply use the money to take over one of the foreign multinational companies like Imperial Oil? The Government would still have a mixed system, private and public, but we would clearly have over 50 per cent Canadian ownership. It could be done quickly. We could buy the company and we could use that money which is going into PIP grants, instead of going with the long scheme of grants to help Canadian companies which might ultimately get us there by 1990.
My second question concerns what we hear in the country, that Canadians want a change in leadership in the Government. Does the Hon. Member agree with that? Will he go on record as urging the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to hurry up and get out of there so that we can get on with some new direction in leadership?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I will go on record as telling the Hon. Member that I like my Leader. He is the Leader of my Party, and I am happy to support him. He can stay around for as long as he wants, and two things will happen. First, I will be happy and, second, I will win my seat in the next election because the people of my riding like him.
In answer to the other question, which was a lot less frivolous than his second one, I think the Hon. Member is overlooking two or three matters. I understand the sentiment behind it; I, too, would like to have the oil industry dominated by Canadian companies. That is a worth-while objective. Perhaps on this question we have more disagreement on the pace of it than on the substance of the issue.
When the Hon. Member talks about the federal Government becoming involved in the buying of a foreign oil company, I would like to remind him that he has forgotten BP and many other acquisitions which went into the making of Petro-
28908

November 15, 1983
Supply
Canada. Obviously that has not brought us up to the 50 per cent mark, but it has been an enormously expensive endeavour. It has come at a time when the Government has to make some choices about further expansion and the pace of it. We have a company which is established there. We have a system which is encouraging needed exploration. It is possible for us to go at a slightly slower pace without ruining the economy, without pouring billions and billions of additional dollars out of the country and without slowing down the pace of exploration. It seems to be a reasonable balance at this point. I recognize the sentiment. I happen to agree with much of it. Elowever, it is a question of the pace of the sentiment rather than the final destination.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, since the earliest days no principle has been more central to our system of justice than that the law must be understood and that it must be applied fairly and even-handedly. When ordinary citizens are incapable of understanding how the law applies to them or when laws are enforced unevenly, democracy perishes and despotism is born.
In Canada we take pride in the fairness of a system of laws designed to protect the citizen when his rights conflict with the convenience of the state. One of the reasons Parliament acted two years ago to entrench the Charter of Rights in our Constitution was precisely to defend that principle. Yet, principles can become undermined to the point that they cease to have any relevance at all. By its sheer weight, big government can smother the rights of its citizens and overwhelm their ability even to insist upon fairness in their dealings with the state.
For Canadians in 1983, that is precisely what is happening in their relationship with the federal tax bureaucracy. We have a crazy-quilt Act that probably no one in Canada, either inside the Government or outside it, can claim to understand. Certainly 1 would be surprised if there were anyone in the House who is responsible for passing laws, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), who would claim to understand fully the Income Tax Act.
If those of us who write the law and those who enforce it are not fully knowledgeable about what it means, think of the position of ordinary Canadians-working persons, farmers or fishermen, artists, owners of small businesses and pensioners. How are they to negotiate the income tax morass without becoming lost in it? Indeed it is hard to see what they are to do when faced with laws they do not understand and with officials who have little interest in their plight.
A tax system like ours, based on voluntary reporting and payment, can only work as long as those affected by it feel they are being treated fairly. When respect for the law breaks down, or when people begin to feel they have become victims and no longer beneficiaries of the Government and its policies, growing numbers of citizens are prepared to break the law or to make enforcement as difficult as possible.
Increasingly that is what is happening in Canada today. The vast majority of Canadians are conscientious and law-abiding. They love their country and they are prepared to carry their fair share of its economic burden. However, when they begin to feel that their Government views them as criminals waiting to be caught, their respect for the law and their willingness to comply with it rapidly decline.
Here is how one chartered accountant from Toronto described the problem in a recent letter to me. He wrote:
I can see how upset my clients are with the unreasonable treatment that they are receiving. My advice is to file the documents and appeal when the notice of reassessment comes through. The obvious result is that the auditors are wasting their time because they don't accept the document and we don't accept the reassessment. My clients have to pay me for what they can see is unreasonable treatment and the tax department has to pay their employees for the wasted effort.
But 1 think that there is a larger impact in this. As someone recently said; the tax department is unfair and arbitrary so why should I be honest in reporting information on my tax return? I think that this attitude is much more common now than it was when I first started in the business. I advise my clients to file their returns correctly, but if taxpayers believe that they are being treated unfairly, they are much less inclined to be honest.
Members of Parliament on all sides of the House could quote from similar letters or refer to similar representations which have been made to them by chartered accountants, lawyers or other experts in the tax field. We have found two things happening frequently. First, the income tax laws become so complex that ordinary people feel trapped in the maze. Second, actions by the Department of National Revenue have often been so capricious and unfair as to estrange ordinary Canadians and make them feel that they are victims of their Government or that their Government is out to get them rather than simply requiring that they pay their fair share.
I cite this example, not because it is extraordinary but because it is typical of a growing number of complaints being received by every Member of Parliament. If the Government needs other authorities to convince it that the situation is serious and that it is rapidly growing worse, I could refer it to a book which was first published by a tax lawyer from Montreal. It is entitled, "How to Survive Canada's Tax Chaos". On the front cover of the book there is a quotation from a review in The Gazette of Montreal which read, "should be required for every Member of Parliament". Certainly I agree. It would be helpful if Members of Parliament on all sides of the House would read this book. They would gain some impression of the author's views of how the tax system has worked in Canada and how improvements could be made to make it more fair and equitable, to ensure that it functions in a better way and more successfully and to ensure that relations between the Government and the citizens of Canada are conducted in a more civilized fashion. Here is part of what the author wrote in his introduction:
Since the introduction of "tax reform" with all its complexities and inequities, I have noted a distinct deterioration in the "tax morality" of many taxpayers who hithertofore have been scrupulous in their accountability to the public treasury. Why? There are at least five discernible reasons for this development-
He then proceeded to list the five reasons he feels Canadians are losing faith in the tax system. The first reason listed was that many people have lost confidence in the Government's
November 15, 1983

ability to provide them and their families with any long-term security. That was in 1976. Surely since that time, as the Government has dragged Canada into a recession, that confidence has fallen even further.
The second reason which is advanced by the author is uncontrolled Government spending and bureaucracy. He elaborates on the point in this way:
Many taxpayers find no way to counter what they consider profligate government spending otherwise than through tax avoidance and often tax evasion. The growing list of government "white elephants" that have consumed billions of taxpayers' dollars, the failure of government to establish and abide by accepted financial controls as illustrated by the recent revelations of the Auditor General, the unacceptable level of remunerations, perquisites and retirement benefits enjoyed by certain of our "civil servants" which are virtually unmatched in the private sector, and the seeming disregard for the peoples' priorities, have all contributed to an attitude of hostility towards governments at all levels. Many maintain that hard-earned income is being expropriated by government in the guise of public necessity only to be in turn dispensed on ill-conceived public projects, to idle bureaucrats, and to indolent welfare beneficiaries both individual or corporate and that this waste of tax dollars is justification for resistance to growing government fiscal demands. This resistance may take many forms but tax evasion is certainly one of them.
The third cause listed by this author is tax inequities. The author states that:
-there is no doubt in my mind that the failure of our tax system to achieve "tax neutrality" (i.e. that taxpayers in the same circumstances should bear the same tax burden) is also contributing to the practice of tax evasion.
Two other reasons listfcd by the author are that a small proportion of the population will always want to evade taxes and that the tax system is too complex. On the latter point, he concludes:
I believe that the establishment of requirements clearly destined to be ignored or disobeyed has the effect of undermining the entire system.
Who was that tax lawyer from Montreal who wrote the book "How to Survive Canada's Tax Chaos", Mr. Speaker? He was the Prime Minister's tax laywer, a man named Donald J. Johnston. He is currently the Minister of State for Economic Development in the Cabinet of this Government.
A review from the Montreal Gazette appeared on the front of that book as saying that the book should be required reading for every Member of Parliament. I would suggest that that is entirely correct. The first place to start would be on the Treasury benches themselves because when the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) was simply a tax lawyer and was representing Canadians at that level, he had a very good grasp of some of the problems which are confronted by Canadians when dealing with the Government. He had a prescription for ways to correct those problems. Yet today, Mr. Speaker, we find that he has been swallowed up in this massive bureaucracy against which he previously railed and we find that he is part of a Cabinet which is indifferent to the plight of ordinary Canadians and which is not concerned about reforming the system, making it more equitable and ensuring that the confidence of the people in Government is increased. That is why 1 agree very much with what was quoted on the front of that book. This book should indeed be required reading for every Member of Parliament.
Supply
The statements which 1 quoted were written in 1976. Today we have a tax system that is far more complex, far less equitable and far more subject to bureaucratic caprice than it was seven years ago.
In September of this year, Hon. Members will recall that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce met with the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance to recommend ways to improve our tax legislation and its administration. In its brief, the Chamber complained of inordinate delays arising from bureaucratic inefficiencies. It also reported this finding:
There is a growing perception across the country that Revenue Canada is becoming more and more aggressive in its attitude towards the assessing and collection of income taxes. No one disputes the right of Revenue Canada to collect the full amount of tax to which it is entitled, but there appears to be a significant growth in the number of frivolous or poorly based assessments, often issued without the benefit of discussion with the taxpayer. In addition, the collection officers then insist on payment of the tax owing, even though it might be obvious on a cursory review that the assessment will be reversed on appeal.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a blunt and candid assessment of the Department's procedures. However, the Chamber of Commerce is not alone in its concerns. On May 28, The Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association had struck an ad hoc committee to consider the assessing procedures of the National Revenue Department. The article quoted a number of authorities who were concerned about the Department's aggressive tactics. If the Government were serious about its relationship with Canadians, it could implement reforms today to begin to correct this situation.
There is no element of this problem that is more serious than the inequity that occurs when moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One finds that the law is applied unevenly as one moves from place to place. A recent example of this was brought to the attention of the House, and that was the tax treatment of members of symphony orchestras. The tax department's interpretation in the case of the Montreal Symphony Orchestra was entirely different from the way in which it interpreted the position of members of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra. That is not atypical. It is something which happens all too often in the system and something that must be addressed.
1 would like to refer the House to an article that appeared in The Toronto Sunday Star of November 6, 1983. The author of that article, Mr. George Brett, was referring to comments made by a lawyer named Paul Schnier. In that article, the author says this:
Schnier adds that some district tax offices are tougher than others to deal with (though the taxpayer must deal with his own office and so has no choice).
"Hamilton is notorious and Kitchener is another tough one," he says. "Toronto, because it deals with more (tax) professionals, is in a position where it has to be a little more accommodating.
"The auditor in Toronto knows he's dealing not only with the taxpayer but his accountant or lawyer as well-and tax practitioners aren't easy to push around."
This tax lawyer says that one's treatment at the hands of the Government under the Income Tax Act depends to a great extent upon where in the country one lives and which office one must deal with. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is something that is unfair and that attacks the confidence of the people in the administration of the income tax system.

November 15, 1983
Supply
There are a number of things which can be done to correct the problems that we have referred to today. First, it is time for a review of ways to make our tax laws more intelligible. When growing numbers of people find that they cannot fill out their own tax returns without someone else's help and when the cost of assistance in filling out one's return is not even deductible for individual taxpayers, the system has broken down badly. The Leader of my Party has struck a task force that will report in a matter of months on ways in which a Progressive Conservative Government would simplify the tax system.
Second, it is time to remove some of the clear inequities from the system. When the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was Minister of Finance, he attempted to give Canada's hard-pressed family farmers a break when he proposed capital gains tax relief for family farms.
Third, it is time to take a fresh look at some of the special advantages which the law gives to the tax department. As an article in the October 23 edition of the Toronto Star recently pointed out, the onus of proof is on Revenue Canada only in a small number of instances; for example, when it is prosecuting, when it reassesses a tax return more than four years old and when it is levying penalties. In most other cases, the onus of proof is on the taxpayer to explain any discrepancies. Additionally, it is hard to justify allowing the tax department to force payments while the assessment is being disputed.
Fourth, and perhaps most important of all, the Minister of National Revenue has a responsibility to ensure that his officials treat taxpayers with courtesy and respect. Every Canadian would expect tax cheaters to face prosecution, but for the vast majority of people whose greatest offence was to make an honest error, there is no justification whatsoever for anything but polite and helpful treatment by the Government. That tone should be set by the Minister himself and clear instructions should go from him to each of his employees indicating that strong-arm tactics will not be tolerated.
There has probably never been a time either in this or in any other country where a call from the tax department has been particularly welcome. I doubt that any of us will ever see that day in the future. However, relations between taxpayers and the Government have now reached the lowest point in our history and the breakdown in our tax system can only worsen unless the Government acts now.
There is no need for the atmosphere of mutual distrust which exists today between the federal Government and the Canadian people. It is perhaps too late for the present administration to reverse that sad condition, but it is not too late for a new Government with fresh ideas, with a desire to serve and not to rule and with faith in our citizens to begin the task. Rebuilding the confidence of Canadians in their Government is a challenge worthy of a new team and it is urgent that the work begin now.


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. There are two
issues contained in the motion which concern me, and one is the idea that we have used closure or time allocation on many occasions. The second is the idea that what the people of Canada want now is an election. I was interested to hear many speakers, including the last speaker, say that Members of the Party on the other side have some fresh ideas. They must still be germinating because I have not heard many of them.
I would like to warn the people of Canada that in light of the fact that there are no ideas and we do not know what the policies of the Opposition would be if they were in Government, they should think of what Napoleon said when inspecting his troops toward the end of the battle of Waterloo. Following his inspection of that rather rag-tag group of desolate beings, he was asked by someone what he thought their effect would be on the enemy. Napoleon was reputed to have said, "I don't know about the enemy, but they sure scare the hell out of me". When we think about the Opposition, that is the sort of feeling I get. I am a little frightened.
With respect to time allocation or closure motions that we have had, I find the attitude taken by the Opposition in bringing forth this motion today to be quite strange, to say the least. They wish this House to condemn the use of, not closure but time allocation on various Bills passed during the session. On the face of it, they do not wish to take account of the merit of these Bills, the time that was consumed in debating the Bills, or the surrounding circumstances, including the impact that failure to pass the legislation might have had.
Good management in all things, particularly good management of time, has always been a virtue, yet these are exactly the issues which must be addressed by the Government in taking action to limit debate. In fact, before time allocation takes place, there is a time period set aside during which Members on both sides of the House may debate the motion for time allocation.
Let us take two of the Bills that have been singled out by Members opposite, Bill C-131 and Bill C-132 to amend the Old Age Security Act and the Family Allowance Act. Both of these pieces of legislation were intended to give effect to portions of the six and five program announced in the budget of June 18, 1983. The program was designed to tackle the very serious problem of inflation by setting identified goals for cost increases in both the public and private sectors and then by taking the lead in a broad range of ideas within the federal authority. It was an effort to end the inflationary psychology that had taken hold of this country and was keeping inflation at high rates of around 12 per cent. As part of this effort, the Government felt it necessary for a period of two years to set limits on the indexation of family allowance and basic old age security pension. In so doing, it was the Government's stated intention to enlist the participation of Canadian families and Canadian senior citizens in this effort to show how important and serious the six and five program really was. Clearly this was a difficult step to take and special protective measures had to be instituted at the same time to safeguard those with low
November 15, 1983

incomes, as 1 will discuss later. In both cases, the Bills were introduced in the House in October, 1982, to take effect from January 1, 1983.
In the case of Bill C-131 to amend the Old Age Security Act, the amending legislation was introduced for second reading on November 18, 1982, and was debated by 28 Members, including 23 Opposition Members, seven Progressive Conservatives and six New Democrats, up to the point of time allocation.
The terms and effects of the legislation had by that time been very thoroughly debated indeed, well beyond the point where any additional insights or views were being added. It came to the point where the Government had to consider the effects on the parliamentary process, on the six and five program and on the public if passage were to be further delayed.
These effects were serious. First, time was being lost for the debate of other important legislation. Second, the whole psychological effort, the seriousness of the Government's determination to ensure that inflation would be brought down, was being laid open to question, and this could have led to a return to the inflationary viewpoint if matters had gone on indefinitely. Last and most important, uncertainty that was being created in the minds of the pensioners had to be of concern. They did not know what to expect. Would their January pension cheque be limited or would it not? What was the amount going to be? They needed to know this so that they could plan accordingly.
The provisions of Bill C-131 had been designed with great care. The old age security pension is indexed four times a year rather than once a year so that its real value stays as constant as possible. However, the 6 per cent and 5 per cent limits were annual targets. To meet these goals within the OAS program, the indexation of the basic pension was to be limited to no more than 1.5 per cent over the December 1982 rate in the first quarter of 1983, no more than 3 per cent in the second quarter, 4.5 per cent in the third quarter and 6 per cent in the fourth quarter.
As it turned out, the fully indexed basic pension in the first quarter of 1983 was $251.12, while the limiting amount under the Bill was $250.62, a difference of 50 cents. It was for that amount, 50 cents a month, that Opposition Members were acting to create uncertainty and anxiety in the minds of pensioners by delaying passage of the Bill.
Furthermore, it was not all pensioners who were subject to a limit on their indexation. All low income pensioners, in fact all pensioners who received any portion of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, were guaranteed by the legislation not to lose a single cent. The legislation provided that recipients of the supplement, who make up more than half the pension population, would have their supplement fully indexed and then increased further to offset the effect of the six and five limits on their basic OAS pension. These pensioners then were assured that they would be no worse off after the legislation was passed, but the delay in passage was no doubt causing them some worry.
Supply
Despite these factors, it was clear that Members of the Opposition were not prepared to agree to a reasonable length of time for debate prior to passage of the legislation. Instead, there were clear statements made that the New Democrats at least would continue to present speakers as long as the bill was in debate in order to delay its passage to the longest extent possible. This is the climate in which the Government decided that it must move for time allocation.
Even so, time allocation only limited further debate on second reading of the Bill, which was then sent to committee on December 10, 1982. In committee, the Bill received a further and extremely thorough examination in four days of hearings before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs before it was reported back to the House without amendment on December 21, 1982.
It was then debated at the report stage until January 31, 1983, when time allocation had to be moved a second time to finish off report and third stages. At that point, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) noted that some 71 Members had spoken at various stages of the passage of the Bill. After a further time allocation debate, another full day at report stage and a final day of debate on third reading, the Bill went to the Senate on February, 1983.
Very similar circumstances were faced by Bill C-132, a legislation to limit the indexation of family allowances for two years. That Bill did not require time allocation to obtain second reading. In fact, it was moved to committee after two days of vigorous debate in the House and was reported back after three days of hearings by the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. However, at report stage, it again became clear that debate was being extended for the sole purpose of delaying passage, and time allocation had to be sought. At that point, 32 Members had already participated in debate on the Bill at its various stages.
As with Bill C-131, the concerns of the Government extended to more than simply the time of the House which was being used up in debate for the sake of delay, while other important legislation was awaiting passage. There was also concern about the uncertainty and worry which were being created for recipients, although by this time the limitation had been applied in January, 1983 to restrict family allowance increases to 6 per cent. More important for these recipients, however, was the delay created by opposition to another piece of six and five legislation, namely, Bill C-139.
As in the case of Bill C-131, the Government had been careful to ensure that low-income families could be protected against the effects of limiting their family allowance increases. In the case of old age security, the protection came through the income-tested Guaranteed Income Supplement. In the case of family allowances, however, the appropriate vehicle for protection was the refundable child tax credit which is provided for low-income and middle-income families under the Income Tax Act. To offset the effect of the limit on family allowances, the Minister of Finance announced a special one-

November 15, 1983
Supply
time $50 increase in the child tax credit for 1982, raising it from $293 to $343 per child. This increase was intended to balance in advance the expected reduction in family allowance over the two-year restraint period for these low-income and middle-income families. However, the increased child tax credit could not be refunded until Bill C-139, the legislation amending the Income Tax Act, was passed. This again took a great deal of time while the Bill was being debated in the House. That delay in passing C-139 held up the child tax credit payments for many mothers.
If 1 may say so, Mr. Speaker, the experience of Canadian mothers having their child tax credits delayed, provides a very good example of the type of circumstances which support the responsible application of time allocation. We heard this morning some talk about the fact that Parliament has lost relevance in the eyes of many of the people and they were saying, "Why do you not get on with the job?" Time allocation in this case did help in allowing us to get on with the job.
Let me now turn to perhaps the most important point in discussing the wisdom of this motion as it refers to Bills C-131 and C-132, and that is the merits of the legislation itself. During the course of the debate, which some Members of the Opposition clearly feel was not long enough, there was certainly plenty of time for Opposition Members to say many incorrect things about the six and five program and about the purpose and the effects of Bills C-131 and C-132. There was time for them to suggest that the Bills were deindexing family allowances and pensions, when they were continuing indexation, albeit subject to limits. There was time for them to suggest that the legislation was simply an effort to save money, when in fact the savings were less in the first year than the cost of the child tax credit increase, and every effort was being made to minimize the effect of the limits by bringing inflation down. There was time for Opposition Members to quote and repeat figures showing that pensioners would lose hundreds of dollars, even after actual figures for the first quarter were released showing a difference of only 50 cents a month once the Bill took effect, and only for pensioners with incomes too high to qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
To put it mildly, it is obvious that many Hon. Members of the Opposition portrayed the legislation as something which was dangerous, misguided and would create hardship among vulnerable segments of our society. So it is certainly a welcome opportunity to look back now at the end of 1983 and be able to confirm that these Bills did serve the purpose they were intended to serve, without harming Canadian families or senior citizens.
These very favourable conclusions stem largely from the results of the six and five program. All Hon. Members know what has happened to the inflation rate in Canada. It has gone from an unacceptable high rate in 1982 to its lowest level in years in 1983. The 12-month rate to September, 1983 stood at 5 per cent. For old age security pensioners, this has meant that the limits set by Bill C-131 have not had to be applied in the last three quarters. The amount of the old age security benefits right now is exactly the same as it would have been in the
absence of the legislation. This is due to the measures taken by the Government. The OAS basic pension is the same as it would have been in the absence of the legislation, as I said. I feel that bears repeating.
The full indexation of old age security to the end of 1983 has been held within the limits allowed, so that the amount of benefit for the last three quarters has not been at all affected by the legislation. Some pensioners did lose a total of one dollar as a result of the limit applied to their February and March OAS cheques, but that is all, up to this point.
For family allowances recipients, the drop in the inflation rate has meant that the over-all impact on the value of their allowances is less than originally expected. Given that inflation is now running at 5 per cent, the limited indexation increase of 5 per cent in family allowances this coming January will be doing a good job of maintaining the real value of the benefit. Furthermore, since Bill C-132 was passed, the Minister of Finance announced in his April, 1983 budget that the special $50 per child increase in the 1982 child tax credit will not be removed. Instead, the credit will remain at the $343 per child level for 1983, and this amount will be fully indexed for 1984 and subsequent years. This means that neither old age security pensioners nor family allowance recipients have been hurt by Bills C-131 and C-132 in the way in which some Opposition Members suggested they would. In fact, we might ask ourselves who has benefited most from the drop in inflation which has taken place since the six and five program was introduced.
One group which has deservedly benefited from lower inflations is pensioners with fixed annuities and unindexed private pensions. These pensioners were unable to protect the value of their pensions which were being eaten away by double-digit inflation. Even 5 per cent is too much inflation if you have a fixed income, but it is definitely preferable to 12 per cent. Another group which may have benefited is young families in the low and middle income ranges. These were the people who were hardest hit by inflationary mortgage rates and by general costs which for many rose faster than their wages.
This then was the record of this legislation. It did no harm to those who most need the social benefits. At the same time, it was an important contribution to the objective of the Government; to help bring inflation under control by reducing the inflationary expectations in the country. Clearly, the six and five program worked to the point at which it has surpassed our expectations.
Time allocation is a tool of the parliamentary process which must not be utilized lightly. Its use must be justified by the circumstances and defended by Governments in debate. Nevertheless, it is a legitimate instrument to which responsible Government must resort for good and sufficient reasons, as in the case of Bills C-131 and C-132. Accordingly, I must advise you that I cannot agree with the motion which has been laid before the House today.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment rather than a question, although the Hon. Member may want to
November 15, 1983

comment on it himself. It is really not a disagreement, although of course I would not deign to say that 1 agree with all that he said. But for the sake of the record, the Hon. Member stated that it was the Emperor Napoleon who said something to the effect: "I do not know if they frighten the enemy, sir, but, by God, they frighten me." In fact it was Arthur Wellesley, the First Duke of Wellington, who made that remark about the British troops. 1 am sure the Hon. Member would not want to offend some of the Bonapartists in his own camp across the way, so 1 simply draw that to his attention as 1 feel his speech will be circulated among some of his constituents and I would not want any of the young people in Guelph to get the wrong idea about history.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing that out. I understand the last person who mistook the Duke of Wellington for Napoleon was shot on the battlefield.
The Official Opposition has proposed a non-confidence motion, Mr. Speaker, and they say they do not like closure. They do not like closure on the Crow rate, on petroleum taxes, pensions, Canagrex, tax changes, the public debt and so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, neither do my colleagues or I. The Conservatives say they do not have confidence in this Government. Neither do we, nor, I think, do the people of Canada. But as the debate developed today and I got a chance to listen to different viewpoints being put forward, it was very interesting to see that the topic of energy was brought up and the positions taken or not taken by the Official Opposition. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I urge Canadians to scrutinize very closely, especially in light of public opinion polls, the so-called alternate Government, the Conservative Party under its new leader, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney).
As my colleague and House Leader pointed out earlier, what we can find of Conservative policies are inconsistent and vague. Some of the Conservative critics are starting to show already a disturbing arrogance, very much like that shown over the years by the Trudeau Government.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: That is a misreading of our situation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It may not be quite as bad as that arrogance, but it is getting there. When I sit here and see the Conservatives raise their voices against closure over Canagrex and petroleum taxes and so forth, well, I am from British Columbia and we just had an incredible fight against the Social Credit Government of Bill Bennett, which is in part a Conservative Government and which tried to close down the legislature. It had the Leader of the Opposition dragged out of the legislature, it pushed legislation down the throats of the people, and the people rose up, went on strike and stopped Bill Bennett in his tracks. But when I tried to get some support against this use of closure in British Columbia from the Conservatives MPs from British Columbia, 1 got absolutely nowhere. There was not one voice-well, perhaps on human rights that of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). But none of the rest said anything against the kind of
Supply
closure that Bill Bennett brought in. As a matter of fact, behind the curtains they thought it was pretty great.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some concern about references to matters taking place in a provincial legislature. The Chair listens with interest, but there are certain courtesies normally observed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in British Columbia and thank goodness that matter is hopefully over. But I wanted to point that out to show the hypocritical and selective nature of the motion and the position taken by the Official Opposition.
In the debate today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien), and a number of speakers from the Conservative Party, talked about energy and petroleum taxes. 1 took the opportunity of getting a copy of the infamous speech by the Leader of the Official Opposition at a fund raising dinner in the Calgary Convention Centre on November 8, 1983. He talked about some problems in the National Energy Program with which I have some passing familiarity. The motion mentions energy taxes, and the Leader of the Opposition said this:
One, the cash flow of the companies involved was gravely impaired by the federal "tax grab"-
When the Official Opposition presents a motion like this, and when its Leader makes a speech like this, it really has to get over some very serious naivete in dealing with energy in this country. The oil companies of this country always want more "cash flow". They did ten years ago, they do today and they will tomorrow. They always want more money. The poor Leader of the Opposition is getting sucked in to giving more money to these companies. How do you finance a Government, Mr. Speaker? You have to get taxes and you have to choose whom you are going to tax. Are you going to tax consumers, the poor, the middle-income earners, the pensioners? Or are you going to tax the oil companies and banks, some of the people who can afford to pay? Here we have the first indication of the kind of policy presented by the Opposition. Finally we are hitting a moving target here. They are about to change the tax structure to help the oil companies, and it will result in penalizing indirectly the average ordinary Canadian. The second thing the Leader of the Official Opposition said in that speech was this:
Two, there was so much obvious retroactivity and confiscation in the NEP that investors lost whatever trust and confidence they had in the federal Government.
That is the United States line, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what Ambassador Paul Robinson said. This is a branch plant economic position. When you take this kind of position on economic policy-that is, we will follow what the Americans want and open wide to American investment-and then take the same position on foreign policy, a "me too" Reaganism, then you have a complete change, and this is why the motion surprises me. You have a complete historic change in the modern Conservative Party. This is now a continentalist Party. It is for big oil, and make no mistake about it.

November 15, 1983
Supply
Have you seen the ads that the Canadian Petroleum Association has every night on TV, Mr. Speaker? I urge Canadians to watch these ads. If they flip channels they will probably see them. They talk about how they are going to help Canada and co-operate with the federal Government and take a fair return and so on. The Canadian Petroleum Association is big American oil. That is who controls the CPA. That is who is giving this line about more cash flow, about retroactivity and confiscation under the NEP. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, there are lots of things to attack in the NEP: the pricing scheme, the give-away PIP grants, where we are doing exploration and so on. But they are taking the American line. We are still an independent country. The Americans are our allies, but we are an independent country and we have to remember that. Is this what the modern Conservative Party has come to? John A. Macdonald would not be turning in his grave, he would be spinning in his grave if he could read this Calgary speech of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say something else about this motion today. It seems to me that the Conservatives have missed the mark on the non-confidence aspect of the Government. It should not be in energy. It should not be in Canagrex or the Crow and so on. It should be in the handling of the economy. If we had had a chance to put forward a motion, we would have tackled head on today the most important thing that has happened around here in a little while. That was the conference on high tech last week. My Party and I have no confidence in the way that the Government is handling the revolution in high technology and the way that the conference happened last week. The Government spent $500,000 on a conference on high tech that was virtually Government propaganda and that missed the whole social implication of high technology. The highlight of the conference apparently was Senator Lawson's offcolour speech telling dirty jokes. That shows you the shallowness of the conference. Basically, labour was not at the conference. The largest labour group, the CLC, the legitimate group, was not represented at that conference. The reason that they were not there is that they never thought that the Government would look at the underlying problems of high tech. There was an underlying assumption from the conference that we do not have to deal with labour in the future because high tech will replace the labour unions and they will be gone. There was that very important and very serious assumption. There was also an assumption that high tech was a good thing. There was no talk about the deskilling effect of high technology or how it affects working people.
I think that what the Government was most incompetent in was in the handling of that conference and in its handling of the high technology revolution. The fact is that people are being affected by high tech and the Canadian worker should have a say in how high tech is developed. They are not modern Luddites, the people who knocked machines when they came in at the beginning of the industrial revolution. The Canadian worker has a legitimate concern. I say this to the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) who was at the conference.
Look at British Columbia. When the worker is up against the wall, when you take away job security and seniority and you make things so insecure for the worker, the worker will fight back. One thing we learned in British Columbia last month is that the teachers will fight back. No one expected the teachers to go out the way they did. No one expected some of those other unions to join. There is a lesson to be learned, and the Government should learn it. The lesson is that the Canadian worker is not going to sit back and lose his or her job needlessly. There is a great feeling of insecurity out there, and the Government should address this in the upcoming high technological revolution. In offices secretaries are worried about losing their jobs. Women especially will be affected by this change. It is coming faster and faster all the time. We have to deal with it.
I would like to say one other thing about the high technological revolution. The Government should get on with the job of appointing an all-parliamentary committee or some committee that really has labour on it. I mean the CLC people who have really gone into some of the problems associated with high technology. The Government should listen to people like Heather Menzies when she speaks articulately about how technological change will affect women and how the deskilling affects the job. In fact, what we are going to have is a few high technocrats making lots of money and the rest of us being technopeasants of this new era. We will lose the middle class in Canada. That is a fundamental change in the Canadian economy and society.
I hope it is through negligence rather than bad will, but the Government is missing the boat here. It should get this out in public and have a public commission or a committee of this House of Commons and it should bring in all the labour groups. It should not have Senator Lawson come in and tell a few dirty jokes, but it should go to some other teamster people in the country. In Vancouver they can speak articulately about labour matters. The Government should speak to the CLC people.
I would like to conclude by moving a motion. I move:
That the present motion be amended by inserting the following after the word "borrowing":
"and for accepting the advice of the Official Opposition when they urged the Government to abandon the Crow rate and increase the public debt through additional borrowing to grant billions of dollars to private sector oil companies."
I am told that the motion has been approved by the Chair. I propose to move that motion, and I do so. I believe you have a copy of the motion, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to conclude by saying that in the NDP we think that we have made our position very clear as an Opposition Party. We opposed the Crow rate from the beginning. We consistently opposed it. Today in the House of Commons my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). He said that one day after the Crow passed the railways were laying off people in Winnipeg at the rail yards. The Government promised that great things would happen after the change in the Crow rate. Right away we see lay-offs. We were skeptical
November 15, 1983

and we were right. I think we are going to see that the change in the Crow rate is not all that was promised and it is really going to hurt the farmer in the prairie Provinces.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment covers the notion that was brought up time and time again in debate today, that is, the energy policy, of borrowing and of giving billions of dollars in petroleum grants to the poor private oil companies which moan and groan and whose moans and groans have been accepted by the Leader of the Conservative Party. 1 do not know what he is going to do if he ever gets to be Prime Minister, because he is going to have to choose between Premier Davis, who is going to want low energy prices, and Premier Lougheed, who is going to want high energy prices. As the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech, they are going to solve all the problems because, "It is time for energy policy in this country to be established around the table of consensus. It is time for co-operative efforts. It is time for this country to begin realizing the tremendous potential we all know it has." That is fluff. That is shallowness. A real Prime Minister, a real leader, has to deal with and solve conflicting regional viewpoints. These regional viewpoints killed the former Conservative Leader, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who could not survive the problems between Premier Davis and Premier Lougheed. Let us not have this fluff from the Official Opposition. Let us not have these inconsistencies, as the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) said. Let us have some real policy. Let Canadians know what you are going to do.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are clear. We know what we want to do in the area of peace. We know what we want to do in the area of economics. We know what we want to do in the area of the Crow rate and the farm policy. It is all there to read and see. That is why I propose this motion. Let us see that the Tory emperor really has no clothes and that the Conservatives in fact are just as bankrupt as the Liberal Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions may be posed to the Hon. Member who just spoke.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. It is the same question that the Hon. Member asked me. I want to return the compliment to him. Could he tell us when his Party will come to grips with its leadership problems? Does he agree with the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) and the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) for example, that there is a problem? Can he tell us when his Party intends to start the tough job of revitalizing its policy under a new leader?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intent of the Hon. Member's question. With respect to leadership, I can tell him that there is certainly no problem on this side of the House and we are quite content and proud of our Leader, who is perfectly consistent and who does something which certainly
Supply
the Official Opposition and increasingly the Government does not, which is to advance policies and stay behind those policies.
For us it is not a question of leadership; it is a question of policy. Any difference we have ever had in our Party has basically been over the question of policy. Let us look at the policy of the present Government. When its Leader was speaking in the 1980 election, in some previous reincarnation, after 12 years he suddenly found that our oil industry was controlled by multinational oil companies that were basically American. He also discovered that the oil industry was actually doing things which were not in Canada's interest, such as when Exxon said to move a shipment of oil away from Canada, Imperial would do so. The Leader of the Liberal Party advocated Canadian control-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, the Chair is trying hard to establish some relevance. While it is a very sweeping motion before us, the Hon. Member does appear even to be going beyond that motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to answer the question. The question was on leadership. I was making the point that we were more interested in policies than leadership. I was giving the Hon. Member an example of this. That is why I moved this motion, and if the Hon. Member would look at it he will see that it states:
-and for accepting the advice of the Official Opposition when they urged the Government to abandon the Crow rate and increase the public debt through additional borrowing to grant billions of dollars to the private sector oil companies.
To answer his question with respect to leadership and policy, I am saying that one must look beyond leadership and examine the actual policy. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised Canadian control of the oil industry. That is the second time he promised it since he did so in 1975 as well.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, the Chair feels that both the question and the answer being pursued have gone beyond the motion before us. Perhaps the Chair should have intervened and not allowed the question in the first place. If the Hon. Member is relevant to the motion being discussed, he may continue.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make the point that the question on leadership had to be referred to the debate today. The debate today showed an interesting new matter, which was raising the energy issue with the new Conservative position on energy which basically is to eliminate the National Energy Program. In my view that is a fundamental change for the Conservative Party. That is what we should be looking at.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forth every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply in accordance with Section 9 of Standing Order 62. The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 15, 1983
Supply


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment negatived.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall we dispense with the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Nielsen) which was negatived on the following division:
November 15, 1983

Althouse
Andre
Anguish
Beatty
Benjamin
Blackburn
Blenkarn
Bosley
Carney (Miss)
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Coates Cook Corbett Cossitt (Mrs.)
Crombie
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Crouse Dantzer Darling Deans de Jong Dick Domm Ellis Elzinga Epp Fennell Forrestall Fraser Fretz Friesen Fulton Gamble Greenaway Gurbin Gustafson
Allmand Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworthy Bachand Baker
(Gander-T willingate) Beauchamp-N iquet (Mrs.)
Supply
(Division No. 468)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu'Appelle-Moose
Mountain)
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Hnatyshyn
Hovdebo
Howie
Huntington
Jelinek
Kempling
Kilgour
King
Kristiansen La Salle Lawrence Lewis
Murphy
Murta
Neil
Nickerson
Nielsen
Nowlan
Nystrom
Oberle
Ogle
Orlikow
Pa proski
Parker
Patterson
Reid
(St. Catharines) Riis
Robinson (Burnaby) Roche St. Germain
Campbell (Cardigan) Chenier Chretien Collenette Comtois Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove Cousineau Cyr Dawson De Bane de Corneille Demers Deniger Desmarais Dingwall Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Dionne
(Northumberland-
Messrs.
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbault
Harquail
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Isabelle
Ittinuar
Johnston
Kaplan
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss)
Olivier
Ostiguy
Ouellet
Parent
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Peterson
Pinard
Portelance
Prud'homme
Reid
(Kenora-Rainy River) Roberts Robinson
(Kingston and the Islands)	Sargeant	Miramichi)	Lamontagne	(Etobicoke-1MacDougall	Schellenberger	Dubois	Landers	RompkeyManly	Scott	Duclos	Lang	RooneyMayer	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Dupras	Lapierre	RossiMazankowski	Scott	Duquet	Lapointe	RoyMcCain	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Erola (Mrs.)	(Charlevoix)	SavardMcDermid	Shields	Ethier	Lapointe	SchroderMcDonald (Ms.)	Siddon	Evans	(Beauce)	Simmons(Broadview-Greenwood)	Speyer	Ferguson	LeBlanc	SmithMcGrath	Stevens	Fisher	Leduc	TardifMcKinnon	Taylor	Fleming	Lefebvre	TessierMcKnight	Thacker	Flis	Loiselle	TobinMcLean	Towers	Foster	Lumley	TousignantMcMillan	Vankoughnet	Fox	MacBain	TrudeauMiller	Waddell	Frith	MacEachen	TurnerMitchell (Mrs.)	Wenman	Garant	MacGuigan	VeilletteMitges	Wilson	Gauthier	Mackasey	WatsonMulroney	Wise	Gendron	MacLellan	WeatherheadMunro	Wright	Gimaiel	Malepart	Whelan(Esquimalt-Saanich)	Young-108.	Gingras	Maltais	Yanakis-137.NAYS	Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion negativ	
Messrs.
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blaker
Bloomfield
Bockstael
Bossy
Breau
Bujold
Burghardt
Bussieres
Caccia
Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (LaSalle)
It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to order made Monday, November 14, 1983, this House stands adjourned until Thursday November 17, 1983 at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 17, 1983