1983-09-12

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
32 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.

[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 12, 1983


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-152, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate today on a very important piece of legislation that has far-reaching consequences. It relates to the reorganization and the over-all philosophy of economic development policy for Canada. It is very important that this be done correctly because over 1.5 million people are out of work today.
We oppose this legislation. We do not expect to defeat it because the Government is asking us to legitimize something that has been in place for about a year and a half now. The Government had a Bill passed last June which provided for a principal program for the new Department, even before the Department was approved by the House of Commons; which displayed the arrogance of this Government and its disdain for the institution of Parliament. It also indicated the approach the Government wants to take to economic development. It is ignoring the desires and views of Members on both sides of the House in what should be a non-partisan effort. The procedure is a bad precedent because it is asking us to enact something already in place. As well it removes the opportunity for the public and Members of Parliament to have any meaningful influence on legislation.
While we do not expect to defeat this Bill, we do oppose it. I am disappointed the Minister is not even in the House today to hear comments of Members on this side of the House. We are opposing this legislation in order to bring to the Minister's attention some of the legitimate concerns that Canadians and that we on their behalf have. We want to address them to him so he can administer this Department effectively and deal with the important problem of unemployment.
I will be speaking only of the regional economic development, the DRIE aspect. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) will be addressing those elements that relate to external affairs later on in this debate.
There are three main objections I want to address today. First, the Government is making far-reaching structural changes in government for short-term political purposes. Second, the Government is merging two Departments which have quite different operational objectives and looking into the future will be very difficult to operate. Third, there will be a lack of cohesion and direction in the economic policy of the Government.
Let me be more specific. Beginning two years ago the Government stated publicly and has demonstrated on many occasions its concern that it was not getting the proper political profile for certain of its programs. The federal Government is more concerned about this political profile than the actual impact of the programs under its administration and its public image is far more important than the effect these programs will have on the unemployed and on economic development.
By decentralizing the program in this new Department, the Government will be increasing the grant-making mechanism. This has important ramifications in that the over-all grantmaking mechanism will be put under much more political and arbitrary control. This will help the Government in ridings it is concerned about, and there are many of them. This Bill will result in a political boondoggle. There will be more grants. There will be a huge grant budget which will be controlled under one group, the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Undoubtedly, there will be a large increase in the arbitrary decisions on grants that will be based on overwhelmingly blatant political considerations. It is no coincidence that we have an election coming up some time within the next twelve months. We can expect more Liberals running around the country cutting ribbons and handing out cheques than ever before.


An Hon. Member:: You are jealous.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I am not jealous at all, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member opposite says I am jealous. I want to tell you something about one grant. I hope you will take this into consideration the next time you throw a flip comment like that across the floor.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member realizes that he must address his remarks to the Chair.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I will bring my remarks directly to your attention, Mr. Speaker. In one day the Hon. Member for

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
Egmont (Mr. Henderson) flew to his riding and back in a JetStar. He had a very important grant to hand out, Mr. Speaker. It was for $3,500, about the cost of the jet fuel consumed by going there and back. Why did the Hon. Member go there? What was so important about this cheque? It was not the fact that the money was going to some local community organization. It was far, far more important that he see his picture on the front of the paper. He could have sent this cheque by mail. But he wanted to have stories about him on the radio program that night. This is why he took that $3,500 and wasted taxpayers' money, just to get his picture in the paper.
[DOT] (mo)


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I said, we will see an awful lot more of that over the next little while. When we look at the green spaces on the other side of the House, we will know where those Members are; they are handing out the money of this new Department. We see the Hon. Member over there licking his chops as he thinks about all the cheques he will be handing out in his riding. It may be for 12 more months. Then he will have to watch. He will have to read the papers as a Conservative Member will represent that part of the country.
Let me just summarize this particular point. With this legislation the Government of Canada is distorting a very important structure of Government for clear and blatant political reasons. The new IRDP, Industrial Regional Development Program, announced last June gives the Minister tremendous discretionary powers. It removes the more specific objectives of about half a dozen Government programs and replaces them with one bland program with ministerial discretion to say where the money will be spent and how it will be administered-total ministerial discretion. We can be excused from being too cynical when we consider the uses that might be made of this discretion, but one only needs to look at what has gone on in the past to understand what is likely to happen in the future.
The Minister-again I wish he was here to listen to my remarks-has protested that the whole program will be politically tamperproof-I believe those were his words-because decisions will be taken at local levels. Let us discuss this. We have seen that under that particular program decisions involving over $250,000 have to be referred to Ottawa and decisions over $500,000 will be taken in Ottawa. Thus it is not tamperproof. We do not have to use our imagination too much to understand how local Members of Parliament, particularly some who are in the House today, will be beating local and regional administrators over the head to have their cronies in the Liberal Party favoured by that legislation. This opens up all sorts of opportunities for political abuse. We can see where some of that money, with a little recycling, will end up in local campaigns. This is one of the greatest weaknesses in the grant system of support. I will come back to it later in my remarks.
The second objection I want to address is that the operations of the merged Department will be disrupted by the inconsistent objectives of the two Departments which will form this one Department. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, DREE, was concerned with regional development. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been concerned with developing internationally competitive industry. These are diametrically opposed objectives. Industry, Trade and Commerce was dedicated to matching the industrial strengths of Canada with international trading opportunities through both export and import displacement. On the other hand, DREE addressed the needs of less developed regions of the country by assisting in the creation of new companies which could be established without Government assistance. There are exceptions to this. I am aware of those exceptions. However, as a general rule those were the two objectives.
ITC was building on strengths; DREE was shoring up weaknesses. It is a different philosophy. There are different problems and different ways of dealing with it. We have to be very concerned in the administration of the Department that we understand what the overall approach of the Government will be.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) or the new Minister of DRIE have not spoken in this debate. Therefore, we do not know how the Government will combine these two different philosophies in the new Department. Both are worth while, but both can be greatly undermined by the attempt to blend the two. We have to know what balance the Minister is going to try to achieve in building the industrial development side and the regional development side, where the priorities are going to be, what industries will be favoured and what industries will be downgraded during the course of the next year or so under the Minister's administration. A key to the success in this merger is that the Minister address these questions so as to give industry some idea of the direction that he proposes to take.
Let me address the third objective, and that is the lack of control, co-ordination and consistency in industrial development policy that can arise out of this merger. If we accept the Minister's statement that decision-making will be decentralized it raises a question as to how regional decisions will be co-ordinated with the broad economic policy of the Government. Reluctant or recalcitrant regional officers can obstruct over-all policy objectives.
Let us not forget that ranking of certain officers in the field is higher than with many of the people in the industry branches and in other parts of the Department here in Ottawa. We are dealing with a bureaucracy here. When people in Ottawa in trying to fulfil broad policy objectives are not able to exert their influence on people in the regions, there will be some breakdown in the administration of Government policy.
The regional officer, being a normal human being, is going to respond to pressures that he feels from the regions. That is why he is there. However, we have to understand how those
September 12, 1983

regional pressures can be co-ordinated with the broad policy approach of the Government. The people in Ottawa are a long distance away, but the people in the regions are right on the spot and there are specific pressures on the regional officers.
We are dealing with a bureaucracy. That bureaucracy is very hard to administer. In analyzing this Bill, 1 believe that the over-all administration of the Department will become much more difficult. It will become much more difficult to arrive at some broad, co-ordinated economic policy rather than one which breaks down into the political boondoggle I was referring to a few moments ago.
1 want to single out one industry that is most affected by this particular problem, and that is the tourist industry. It is composed mainly of small businesses, businesses that will be eligible for smaller amounts of money under the $250,000 limitation where the decision is made in the regions. The sole prerogative for those decisions resides in the regional officers. We have a major ongoing tourism deficit in this country of some $1.5 billion to $2 billion. This will require some national co-ordination to rectify. I fear that this new structure is going to break down that national co-ordination.
1 have another real concern. Under the previous enterprise development program there was a financial burden criterion which encouraged that program to favour small business. This is gone under the new IRDP Program. Big business is now on the same footing. We have to know how this will be handled. Don't forget, Mr. Speaker, that big business has the staff, the resources and the time to access Government programs. Small business has not. Time is money to them. When the president, the person who relates to government, is also the chief sales manager and sometimes acts in many other capacities within a small business, he does not have time to spend dealing with governments. I am concerned that when big business is put on the same footing as small business, big business will gain some advantage that it did not have under the previous program.
So what will the criteria for spending that money be? How will the Minister retain control of the programs? What will his strategy be? What sort of industries will be favoured? Because of those questions we must hear from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the House before this Bill is passed.
That brings me to a fundamental difference in philosophy between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party on the one hand, those two bedfellows in crime together, and the Progressive Conservative Party on the other hand. The other two Parties make use of grants and hand out Government largesse to a much greater extent. We on the Conservative side favour tax incentives.
I would like to summarize in a general way what the difference is between grants and tax incentives. Grants are arbitrary and, as I said, lend themselves to political abuse. Grants distort the economic process because a civil servant or a politician is required to make the decision rather than having the decision made by the broad marketplace. Those who have the expertise or the ability to tap Government programs get a
Government Organization Act, 1983
benefit which others who may be less successful at that but more successful as businessmen do not get, leaving them at a disadvantage.
The grant process is too slow. It does not benefit high technology or companies that are seeking research and development assistance. As well, grants create bureaucracies which we certainly do not need today. Tax incentives, on the other hand, are open to all. Only the marketplace determines who will succeed. With a grant, a business gets the money before it is tested by the market. With a tax incentive, there must be some record of success as demonstrated by existing profit in order to make that tax benefit worth while.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there will always be a role for grants to play, for start-ups, for major projects and for certain elements of regional development. However, I fear that the combination of Industry, Trade and Commerce and DREE under one roof demonstrates a growing desire on the part of the Government to encourage more use of grant money and less use of the tax incentive. This is a process which we on the Conservative side would reverse because we feel that we must return to a more open, more efficient method of dealing with the whole process of economic development.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I feel that it is important for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to come to the House to address this Bill in order to give us an understanding of the direction in which we are likely to go. It is important that he embark upon an educational campaign soon in order to straighten out the misunderstanding in the minds of people across the country and remove the confusion that those people are faced with about what this merger means and how it will benefit them in industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The rules of the House provide for a ten-minute period of questions and answers at this point. Are there any Hon. Members seeking to ask questions or make brief comments?


Mr. Hawkes:: I rise on a point or privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is rising on a point or privilege. I presume that it arises from what has immediately preceded.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not want to take up a great deal of the time of the House, but I would simply like to bring to your attention and to the attention of Members of the House that at the commencement of the sitting of the House this morning, the bells did not ring in the Confederation Building. Over half of the Members of the House have offices in that building. I wonder whether or not we are in legal session when in fact the Members from that building have not been called to the sitting of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has brought to the attention of the Chair a matter which will be investigated immediately.

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Hon. Member. He has indicated that his Party prefers tax incentives to grants. I wonder how the Hon. Member expects new companies, innovative companies, companies entering into high technology that are just starting and that have not been in business before and therefore do not have any tax credits coming to them, will be able to operate if they do not get those kinds of grants, particularly in slow growth areas such as Atlantic Canada or the Province I represent.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has raised this question because it is an important one. During the course of my comments, 1 did say that there will always be a role for grants to play. I did specifically identify start-ups.
I think what we have to do is balance the grant approach with the tax incentive approach. As an example, in the case of start-ups I believe that if more incentive is provided through the taxation system to encourage people to invest money in new start-ups, that will reduce the need for grants to get companies on their feet. If the companies can be properly capitalized at the start, which is an ongoing problem in this country, then they will not need the grant so much. The ongoing tax incentive will provide the means for the company to be successful and gain the continuing support necessary to keep moving.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of evidence that many of the newest inventions and newest procedures have been begun not by large corporations, which in Canada particularly are pretty stodgy, but by very new companies run by young people just starting out who have very little capital. Certainly they have no tax credits to begin with.
In his speech the Hon. Member indicated that he believed in both, but he made it clear that he and his Party favoured tax credits over grants. Of course, we can all agree that we should have both. I am concerned, however, that if a Conservative Government were to depend mainly on tax credits, we would not get the kind of start-up or the kind of input from new, innovative, small companies which we will need if we are to succeed.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been very clearly demonstrated in other countries as well as, in a converse way, in this country that you get more start-ups through an attractive tax system than through having a bureaucrat or a politician in Ottawa or in a region saying: "You are going to get some money and you are not going to get some money; you are going to be favoured but you are not".
I was in the investment business and I know the mistakes people can make when deciding which one is going to be favoured and which is not. The people in government, whether on the political side or on the bureaucratic side, do not have the expertise to be able to judge which is going to succeed ultimately and which is not. 1 prefer to see that decision left to the private sector and to the marketplace.
If we can have a tax system which will encourage innovation and risk taking, then fewer people will come to governments looking for handouts. Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, I say that is the type of economy we want to have in this country.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the last speaker. By dealing primarily with the incentive system, whether tax credit or other types of writeoffs or incentives, he is basically providing assistance to those who already "have". In other words, "them who has gets". What the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) mentioned to him a few moments ago was that those who were lean and hungry-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member make his point briefly because there are one or two other Hon. Members seeking to be recognized?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question is, why does he insist on favouring-and that was clearly the thrust of his remarks-those who already have a dominant position or a strong position, rather than giving encouragement to those who are lean and hungry, who are inventive, who want to establish small businesses, get them moving and make a productive impact on the economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, has totally distorted my comments. 1 have said on many occasions-I said it here in the House-that if you have a taxation system which encourages people to put money into start-ups of new businesses, you are going to have an immense number of new businesses starting up and they will create tremendous employment in this country. The Conservative Party understands small business far better than the New Democratic Party and far better than the Liberal Party. The Conservative Party has supported small business for years and years and the Conservative Party derives a tremendous amount of support from the small business community.
If I can just refer the Hon. Member to both the Canadian Organization of Small Business and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, who represent small businessmen right across this country, there is no question in the minds of either one of those organizations that they far, far prefer the tax incentive rather than the grant, because with the grant they have to come to Ottawa, they have to plead with government, they have to take government through the whole process and they waste time. They do not have access in nearly the same way as big business. Therefore, by favouring tax incentives over grants, there is no question that we in the Conservative Party are favouring small business rather than big business, which I suppose the NDP are starting to get much closer to than they have in the past.


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) is with regard to the reorganization of the Department of Industry, Trade and
September 12, 1983

Commerce. First of all, 1 would like to congratulate him for being a very articulate spokesman for Thatcherism and Reaganomics in this House. We have all seen how that has worked.
Some Hon. [Members: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member is entitled to his views and I respect his right to express his views. However, when I see him appointed the shadow minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce, DREE and for the development of the regions of Canada, I become very concerned because I heard the Hon. Member opposite say-and perhaps he can correct me and reassure me as well as the far-flung regions of Canada-that he had some concern with the notion that in the reorganization of that Department there were going to be regional people, not just responsible for regions but people located in the regions, reporting directly back to the Ministers. He said he was concerned that there would be pressure on those regional officers to express regional views. I know that clashes somewhat with the centralist line, but it seems to me that all Parties, all members of the DREE committee, including Hon. Members of his own Party, have agreed many times in committee and in this House-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has in mind the time limitation?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will put the question, Mr. Speaker. All Hon. Members have agreed that a strong regional voice is indeed necessary. It has been renewed with this reorganization. I am concerned that the Hon. Member opposite is saying that under a Conservative government there would be a centralist planning board and no room for regional voices, regional spokesmen and regional questions.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting how the Hon. Members in the other Parties use this ten-minute interlude to distort the speeches of the Hon. Members who have just spoken. I never said that at all. What 1 did say was that there can be policies which are decided upon by the Government in order to support regional development, as well as the over-all economic development of the country, which can be interpreted differently by regional officers in ways which do not support the over-all policy. That is the concern which I have expressed.
1 have asked the Minister to come to the House and tell us how he is going to administer this policy so we can have a co-ordinated regional development policy, rather than have different regions and different parts of the country fighting among themselves and distorting the policy, ensuring that the policy will not work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period of questions and answers having expired, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East has the floor.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy today, as the House of Commons resumes, to have the opportunity to address Bill C-152, although 1 would have to say in
Government Organization Act, 1983
the beginning that it is rather difficult to speak about something, as the previous speaker has already indicated which has already taken place. We are talking about a reorganization of departments in Ottawa which has already been put in place, so our speeches today are really a reflection on something which, to all intents and purposes, we cannot change.
However, I do believe it is still very appropriate to reflect upon and suggest to the Ministers, and to the Government, that we are concerned and worried about certain things which have taken place with Bill C-152, which Bill has changed the structures of external affairs and trade. I would particularly like to address the Bill from the aspect of its international effects. I feel that this kind of Bill will have serious repercussions down the road as it affects Canadians and as it affects the country of Canada.
As I understand it, the new Bill has set up a giant new Ministry under the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). Under that ministry there are going to be two "minor" Ministries, shall we can them-or are they equal? I am not sure how it is going to operate. One Ministry is called the Ministry of External Relations and the other is called the Ministry of International Trade.
Of course, there is no doubt that when Canada deals with other people and other countries in the world there is a whole multitude of relationships taking place. The problem I have is that by putting the Ministry of International Trade under External Affairs there will probably be an imbalance in the perception and (he way the Ministry will operate which I feel could be very dangerous to the human rights of many people around the world. Because the Department of Trade is not out there by itself, is not being directed by a Minister and making its decisions completely on its own but is being handled now by this "super" Ministry, I have a fear that many decisions which formerly might have been made for strict international and political reasons or for reasons which would be related to human rights, or which would involve the humanity part, will now be made for another reason, which will be profit at this particular time for some Canadian firm. The pressure which will be brought against the Department of External Affairs, not for human reasons but for reasons which relate to business and profit, I feel has become entrenched in a way that it was not before.
Since we have gone home for our holiday break during July and August there have been changes in the House of Commons and in the roles of different Hon. Members. At this particular time I would like, as a fellow colleague in the House of Commons, to congratulate the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) for having pulled the plum out of the basket and received the new role of external affairs critic for the Progressive Conservative Party. At the same time, though, 1 am sure he would be the first to appreciate the fact that I have great difficulty in understanding why that choice was made. One of the writers in The Globe and Mail, Michael Valpy, has said it must be part of the Irish humour of the new leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, who at the same time I would like to congratulate on his arrival in the House of Commons,

Government Organization Act, 1983 for being able to make that kind of choice. Now, if it is a joke, 1 have not laughed yet; and I am worried. The direction that the Progressive Conservatives have officially taken in external affairs really upsets and worries me as a Canadian, not only as a Member of the NDP.
With all due respect to my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel and I have worked closely with him on the Latin American report and over a number of years in external affairs matters, and he has a view of the world about which I am deeply concerned. He has not spoken yet and I will be very happy to hear his views, but I believe that this set-up of External Affairs being responsible for international trade will be very much to his liking. I believe the Hon. Member sees international relations as being basically concerned with trade.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the subcommittee on Canada's Relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, of which there were 15 Members from all three Parties, 14 Members came to an agreement on the report about how Canada should deal with its neighbours in the Caribbean and Latin America. There was one dissenting voice, that of the Hon. Member for York-Peel, although in the meetings of the full Committee on External Affairs and National Defence there were Members who supported the Hon. Member for York-Peel, all from the Conservative Party. But the report, which I felt was balanced and was prepared only after extremely hard work and an awful lot of study, I feel gave Canadians and the Government a direction to follow in dealing with the people of the Caribbean and Latin America, yet it was opposed by that one Member who is now the Conservative Party critic for external affairs. I do not think that this appointment is a joke, even though Mr. Valpy of The Globe and Mail says it is.
1 repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if this legislation is going to please that Hon. Member, then it is the kind of legislation he probably would have planned himself. I believe the Hon. Member is going to speak later today on this particular Bill and I will be anxious to see just exactly how he will address it.
I will be anxious to see whether or not the Hon. Member will see it as an intrusion into the freedom of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make clear decisions on morality and not be pushed by the business side more than others. There are many sides the Minister has to take into consideration when he makes his judgments.
The sub-committee on Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean is one of the few groups in this House of Commons which has taken seriously this part of the world and has studied how Canada should relate to its neighbours. All 14 Members of that subcommittee, excluding the Hon. Member for York-Peel, felt that in dealing with countries in Central and Latin America the primary thing to be taken into consideration by the diplomats and the Government is the question of human rights. What are we as a country doing to protect the human rights of the people who live in Uruguay, Peru, Bolivia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Jamaica, Cuba, or wherever, so that they can live as human beings with the rights
September 12, 1983
and privileges of a human being at this particular time in the history of the world?
In our report we also make the very clear point that trade and investment is another reason Canada is interested in relations with those countries. The world runs on trade and 1 have no difficulty with that. But we also recommended that in development assistance Canada should be very conscious of the fact that it is to assist and develop the country, not just something to develop and make Canadian industry go. Development assistance or true aid is to aid and assist people, wherever they happen to be, who because of the current economic situation need this assistance. Aid is something that people do not ordinarily want; they would prefer to assist themselves. But at times in their lives, as in ours and everyone else's, aid is demanded.
The point I make concerning this reorganization is that development assistance can now become much more of a tool, let us say, to trade. I repeat, development assistance should be for the human needs of people wherever they happen to be, but I have a fear that what can easily happen with this reorganization is that this will be the first stepping stone to increasing trade. Canada will send off aid in the form of machines and tools or technology which will tie the receiving country into a web they cannot get out of. Everything they do will be directed to the particular Canadian industry involved.
Well, Mr. Speaker, people can ask what is wrong with that.
I suspect there are good reasons for thinking a little bit in that direction but my experience, having worked in developing countries and with people in the Third World, is that many times aid programs, because of this effort to try to tie them into trade, did not or do not help those to whom they are directed. The program was imposed by those who want to trade something they have here and are trying to find a market for, but the market is not there because the people of that country have not arrived at that level as yet.
For better or worse, CIDA has been criticized many times for programs which do not work well and reflect badly on the whole idea of aid. But I think that if you looked at those programs which have received the biggest opposition and caused the most conflict, they would be programs which are very closely associated with an aid approach which was attached almost directly to Canadian trade.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this new set-up really does concern me. Is there going to be an unequal pressure now from the Minister of Trade (Mr. Lumley) in the area of external affairs so that human rights, which the subcommittee laid down as the guiding force of Canada's relationships with other countries, and development assistance will now fall out of focus and be forced away because Trade and Commerce have become too predominant in the judgments being made in External Affairs?
There is another thing that concerns me about this Bill. I do not know what the Minister of External Relations means. What is it? Who is it? Why is it? 1 cannot find in the Bill a definition of what that Minister is supposed to do. I may not have read the Bill correctly but I cannot find that, so I think
September 12, 1983

that by itself is a great omission. What is this Minister supposed to do?
At the same time 1 would like to congratulate the new Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin). I hope he will do well in his role, whatever it is. At the same time, 1 would like to congratulate him for the way he handled the initial news about the Korean airplane incident. As we are all aware, that was a horrendous event and a terrible thing to happen in modern day society. Unfortunately, 1 still feel that we do not know many of the things about the event. Even today as the papers come in and television reports are made, we receive more information which leaves doubts in people's minds about what was actually happening. For instance, how could a modern airliner with its three navigation systems get that far off course? These questions still have not been answered.
When the news first came out that this tragedy had taken place, that lives had been lost and Canadians had been involved in an international disaster and had died in a terrible incident like this, the Minister of State for External Relations kept giving us whatever information he had but left the door open for further information. I congratulate him for that. There was no immediate closing down of the question.
At the same time, I would like him to rise in the House to explain what his job is, because 1 do not know what it is and it is not described in the Bill. 1 can see great conflict arising between the two roles, if they are necessary at all, unless they are clearly defined and divided so that we know the purpose of each. While 1 think 1 should know that, I and I am sure most Canadians do not know why there are two Ministers dealing with international affairs or relations.
1 will end my remarks by saying that 1 believe this particular Bill, from an international point of view, causes me grave concern because the whole question of trade, profit and commerce will play too big a role in the judgments made by the Minister of State (External Affairs), other very important conditions to international life, such as human rights and development assistance, and how we deal diplomatically with other nations in the world could be very strictly limited.
Second, I would like the Government or the Minister himself to define for us the role of the Minister of State for External Relations and how it both differs from and relates to the role of Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). Whom are we to believe if their statements and views differ?


Miss Jewett:: Mr. Speaker, as the New Democratic Party critic for Cl DA, does the Hon. Member know that the new president of CIDA, I understand, will be reporting directly to the undersecretary rather than the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen)? If that is the case, what are the implications of that change?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the question. I had been forewarned that this was a possibility.
Government Organization Act, 1983
The new president of CIDA is Mrs. Margaret Catley-Carlson,
I would like publicly to congratulate her on her appointment at this time because CIDA has been without a president for nearly a year. It had been rumoured that the new president would have to report to a lower level in External Affairs. I checked with CIDA to make sure that would not happen. Mr. Jack Shea, the person from CIDA who monitors the House, informed me this morning that she will be reporting to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are other Hon. Members seeking to ask questions? If not, the Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today particularly to have the opportunity to respond to many of the criticisms that have been levelled against the regional economic aspects of this particular Bill. However, I must confess that 1 am not particularly pleased with what I have heard in the House so far today. The reason is that it will have a bearing on our capacity as legislators from every Party in the House to deal with the very difficult economic challenges which Canadians face in the days, months and even years ahead.
Let me be more specific. At a time when we have so many opportunities and challenges ahead of us, 1 would have hoped that we would see a concrete, positive and upbeat approach by the Opposition showing that they are prepared to work in a constructive manner toward proposing concrete alternatives to the situation that we face today. We did not see this.
The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) gave a perfect example of small, partisan bickering, bringing to the House no new alternatives and looking to confrontation rather than constructive alternatives. He may say that these are many charges, but let me substantiate them by repeating what he said.
First, he said that he is concerned that we are making increased funding available to the most depressed regions of our country. He said that this is merely a political move. One may call any move that we make a political move, but the question is whether it is a move that is in the interest of the people in a particular region. Personally, I do not apologize for our Government's posture in increasing the funding which we are making available to the poorest regions in Canada. Did the Hon. Member have a constructive alternative in this case? Absolutely not.
Second, he is concerned that the new federal economic development co-ordinators who are being appointed in each Province of Canada to deal specifically with economic development problems at the local level will not be able to respond to regional economic problems, or he suggested that they will respond to regional pressures. If that is his criticism, I gladly accept it. If the voices of the regions which reflect the needs of

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
the people in those areas in a concrete and specific way do not come to us, 1 do not want a part of this particular program.
We are establishing federal economic co-ordinators who will work with the Provinces and the people in the regions in order to develop through co-operation the programs that best relate to the specific difficulties that are being faced by our most impoverished regions of Canada. Perhaps his alternative is to centralize the whole bureaucracy even further in Ottawa. If that is the Conservative alternative, which is what the Hon. Member was saying, then I want Canadians to know that specifically.
A third point the Hon. Member made was that small business will be left out of the new initiatives and that only big business will benefit. What proof does he have for that assertion? Surely by putting the small businesses and the federal economic development co-ordinators together in the particular regions, additional access for small businesses will be created so they can go to the table to negotiate and become involved in the process of setting our regional priorities. It was far more difficult for small businesses from the various regions to come to Ottawa. Instead, we are going to the regions and making this access available. This is a third instance where there is confusion, deliberate misrepresentation or simply total ignorance of exactly what we are trying to do. Again, no constructive alternatives.
Fourth, we have tax incentives versus grants. In essence he said he favours tax incentives to grants. This is a motherhood statement when you look at the record of our Government and particularly at the last budget. What did we do? There were enhanced tax incentives to all businesses and to the private sector in Canada in terms of enriched investment tax credits whereby those companies wanting to expand could receive greater benefits. We also saw a program where research and development was enhanced for the introduction of new technologies. We had before that budget the most generous tax program in the world for introducing new technologies in the private sector. We enhanced those provisions in the budget in a way that will particularly assist small businesses. They will be able to transfer their excess tax advantages to investors to attract new capital.
I am not interested in theoretical arguments about whether tax incentives or grants are best. We all favour a generous tax incentive program that will enable the private sector to set its own priorities, and that is exactly what we have done. Did the Hon. Member propose any alternatives to us? Did he specify where he wants to see small business given additional tax breaks in addition to those already in existence? This is the Member who has been complaining so much in the past about the level of the deficit. I want to see what those specific alternatives are and where we wants to enhance the capacity of small business further.
Let me say something about grants. I prefer, and this Government prefers, that we have tax incentives instead of grants. There is no question about that. But grants do have a
very important role to play. Hon. Members should talk to companies that once were very small, such as Mitel, which have benefited from grants and have had opportunities to expand and become very large. Yes, there will be problems with grants. They require a decision by Government. There is not one small-business person to whom I have spoken who would ask us to do away completely with grants that assist small businesses, new entrepreneurs and, those people who otherwise would have no tax advantage to speak of. If you think that every grant we give will result in a successful operation, Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely wrong. We must not be afraid to have certain failures in these areas. By using grants in certain cases we are expressing faith in Canadian entrepreneurs. I make no apology for that. I particularly make no apology for doing that when it comes to entrepreneurs in the developing regions of Canada.
I think we have demonstrated that this approach of the Opposition is not one based on fact or on one dealing with the specific realities of the Bill before us; rather it is one based either on misrepresentation or total ignorance. It is an approach based on an attempt to replace co-operation in solving our national problems with partisan bickering. I hope that as legislators we could determine that the good of the people of Canada, those who send us here, is more important than this partisan approach in dealing with our problems today.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to talk about some of the specifics of this Bill as they relate to our Government's commitment in dealing with the regional economic problems of Canada. Before the reorganization, the responsibility for regional economic development was contained in one Department, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. This was a bold, new initiative and it had many successes under our Government. We have felt for some period of time that this important initiative cannot be left to only one department, that it is one where the responsibility has to be expanded. Therefore, we have attempted through this Government reorganization to create a new Ministry called the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development, "regional" being the important word, and to put the emphasis on the regional aspect of the economic development program.
What does this mean in concrete terms? Instead of just one Minister for DREE as in the past, we will have every Minister with an economic portfolio involved in the regional aspects. Second, we will have the economic and regional development committee of Cabinet with all of the economic development Ministers having the regional aspect as a chief priority on any decision that goes before that committee. What we have done is make the responsibility not that of solely one Minister or Department but one of all the economic Ministers and the very important co-ordinating committee chaired by the Hon. Minister to whom I report. This is a very concrete step forward.
The implementing tool of this type of approach will be, as you have already heard, Mr. Speaker, the placement of a federal economic development co-ordinator in each province. The co-ordinator will be responsible for implementing our
September 12, 1983

programs. Second, co-ordinators will be responsible for reporting back to Ministers on every economic priority of the particular region and Province. They will be co-ordinating and chairing economic development committees involving citizens and, provincial representatives in order to determine what the priorities are in each region. Then at the Cabinet level, those regional priorities can be co-ordinated with our national priorities and national goals. 1 do not apologize for putting those important decision-making and consultative functions at the provincial and regional level. On the contrary, 1 applaud this move. I would hope that Members from the Opposition would at least recognize that this is a step forward and has many benefits. It will help us here in Ottawa to determine what our local and national priorities are but more particularly it will help the people in the regions to make their views known.
Another aspect is to replace the general development agreements with new agreements called economic and regional development agreements. These new agreements, to be entered into with each of the Provinces, is another attempt by a federal Government to demonstrate our respect for provincial and regional economic priorities. We feel the way to work these out is in co-operation and consultation with the various regions. My Minister has already entered into extensive consultations with six Provinces. Others are slated for the future.
Another concern 1 have heard expressed is that we no longer have a regional fund available to devote to priorities as determined by the particular regions and in the particular regions. Let me refute this very strongly. For example, in Atlantic Canada in 1981-1982 the amount of funds committed was $155.9 million. This year, 1982-1983, under the new system we are devoting $214 million, a large increase. Comparable figures for Quebec are rising from $98 million to $124 million; for Ontario, from $33 million to $40 million; and for western Canada, from $94 million to $101 million.
The Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre told us that he resented the increases in the funding we are making available.
1 hope he has the courage to visit the particular regions which have been benefiting and to tell them that we are wrong to be setting an economic priority on their particular development needs.
I do not regret the fact that we are undertaking these initiatives in consultation, co-operation and on a co-ordinating basis with the regions and the Provinces. We will be able to parallel our regional incentives programs with those of the provincial Governments. Is that not the way it should be done? There is no reason that these programs should be in conflict. Surely the interests of the Provinces are our interests when it comes to this type of economic development.
Another aspect which the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre criticized was the fact that we allocated $75 million this year, and at least that many dollars in succeeding fiscal years, to target specifically on DREE-style projects that involve multi-sectoral planning in particular regions. This fund of $75 million will not be subject to the arbitrary whim of the
Government Organization Act, 1983
Government because we have set criteria for it. Those criteria are public and the allocation of the funds will be public. They will go-and we have stated this specifically-only to the poorest regions in Canada. The purpose is to give them projects to help them create infrastructure which will aid them in recovery. They will be applied on a graduated four-tier scale basis aimed selectively at particular sub-regions which need them most. We will be able to use these funds to lever and buttress the efforts of the private sector to bring about development. Surely this is the best way to create lasting jobs; surely this is the best way to give people the skills to use the resources of the private sector and work in co-operation with it.
All the changes I have mentioned are, to my way of thinking and certainly to the Government's way of thinking, positive moves in an attempt to deal with the difficult problems we face in Canada today. In addition to these funds, the new system of consultation, the new system of respecting local needs, the new delivery mechanism and consultation method through federal economic development co-ordinators in each region, Canadians should not overlook the fact that we have a system of equalization and economic opportunity in Canada that has been worked out over many years but which 1 think is a very noble, worth-while and effective approach. It is one in which the six poorest Provinces in Canada receive federal transfers from all taxpayers to bring their standard of living up from between 57 per cent and 79 per cent of the national average to between 90 per cent and 99 per cent of the national average. This is the essence of what Canada stands for-co-operation and sharing. This is something of which we as Canadians can be extremely proud. It is a right and a principle we find enshrined in our new Constitution.

Finally, I would like to say that what we are proposing in the legislation before the House should increase our ability to serve Canada's regions and Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? The Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the proceedings today. 1 do not wish to detract from the opportunity to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Willow-dale, (Mr. Peterson), but I would like to point out that there could be a dress or undress problem in the House today. I know there is very little in the records dealing with Hon. Members wearing short sleeves in the House of Commons, but there is a definite reference in Beauchesne to the "conservative, contemporary standards" of dress which are acceptable in the House. Also I draw attention of the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke to some of the debates on dress which have taken place in the House. It would be a sad day when the House of Commons accepts short sleeves-

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member referring to the Hon. Member for Kootenay West or the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Perhaps I made an error. It is Kootenay East-Revelstoke, is that not right?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I apologize to the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). I am referring to the dress of the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen). This question has arisen in the House of Commons and appeared in Hansard a long time ago. The Speaker at the time said that he would be sorry to see Canada resort to making our policies in short sleeves, referring to the business of the House of Commons. I realize there is a fine distinction between dress and undress-


Pauline Jewett: I protest.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: -but I think we would be treading on rather thin ice if we adopted a policy in the House of Commons which allowed Hon. Members of Parliament to attend in short sleeves while debating issues in the House.


Mr. Epp:: What about Flora?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to a male Member.
I realize there is a distinction between men and women in the House. I would like to refer to citation 244 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition which reads:
The Standing Orders of the House are virtually silent on the subject of Members' dress. S.O. 28 requires that a Member who wishes to speak must rise in his place uncovered. While the wearing of hats in the Chamber has a respectable historical tradition. Speakers in recent years have frowned on unorthodox headgear. Beyond this. Speakers have enforced conservative, contemporary standards in the House.
I suggest with all due respect that a short-sleeved safari shirt or jacket over top of another shirt is hardly considered to be "conservative, contemporary standards" in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Peterborough raises a matter which is not easily resolved by the Chair. The Chair prefers, if possible, to ask Hon. Members to use their own good judgment, according to their own conscience, on contemporary standards of good taste in the House. 1 note the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) came into the Chamber in the attire described-and the Chair would not attempt to be more precise-but 1 also note that the Hon. Member subsequently entered the House with a more conventional jacket. I have no further observation to make.


Mr. Lambert:: They are still short sleeves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I feel the point concerning dress has been made. In the interests of the debate and in the interests of Hon. Members, the Chair would like to put an end to the discussion by simply stating that the Chair hopes Hon. Members will at all times observe contemporary standards of good taste in their dress.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I certainly accept your comments in the spirit in which I believe you made them. I would like to correct the record by stating that I happen to be dressed in exactly the same way as I was when I entered the Chamber earlier. Mr. Speaker may not have perceived that; anyone can make a mistake. As to the matter of sexual equality, I would not deign to show my knees in the House, but I certainly think my elbows are as attractive as those of the other gender. I do not see a problem. Apart from that, it is well past the time that we in the House rolled up our sleeves and did some work.


Mr. Anguish:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) regarding the tier system about which he talked and how it relates to regional economic development. I am quite concerned that different tiers can occur within different areas of a Province, but I think there is some inconsistency in terms of establishing on what tier a certain area is.
The area that I represent, The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, is on a lower tier of that four-tier level. If the tiers are based on need and the highest tiers have the highest needs, they therefore get the first preference on funds, grants and economic development. As the Hon. Member is the "buddy" Liberal Member for The Battleford-Meadow Lake, he knows that unemployment and economic development is in a very sad state in the northern part of Saskatchewan, especially from Meadow Lake north. In fact, some communities there have in excess of 90 per cent unemployment.
I want to ask whether there is some way of reassessing the tiers and whether they can be re-evaluated. A certain area may have inadvertently been put on a lower tier than it should be. Can that be reviewed and reassessed to a higher tier level?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to receive the representations of the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). Having a very specific and close interest in his riding and the good people of that riding, I will certainly undertake to work in a constructive way to ensure that their needs within the over-all priorities are respected.
I look forward to the opportunity of co-operating with him to ensure that the tier system and the approach we are taking of implementing our programs will be effective. I very much welcome his question and his representation on increased collaboration and co-operation in this area.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. As the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there were other elements of his speech which I found interesting and, of course, some which I found controversial. I will not get into the elimination of DREE, which is really the heart of the Bill before us in terms of reorganization. There are many aspects to it, such as the external affairs merging with the trade aspect. In effect, there is the elimination of DREE. The real question that concerns many people in Atlantic Canada is how attention will be
September 12, 1983

focused on regional problems with the elimination of departments set up to study and resolve them.
My question is not on that broad issue. It is about the element in the Bill that will allow senators to become parliamentary secretaries. I want to ask this Parliament Secretary what justification, under the greatest parliamentary interpretation, is there to have senators become parliamentary secretaries under this Bill? This Member is not a bad Parliamentary Secretary, as far as that goes. Will he use the intellectual acumen that he sometimes displays, stand up in the House and say that the reason this reorganization Bill will allow senators to become parliamentary secretaries, which is almost a contradiction in terms, is that there are no Members on the other side of the House who have the ability, acumen or competence to be such creatures?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, 1 have two comments. First, I will take the Hon. Member's comments as a repesentation that he would very much like an appointment to the Senate. I, along with all Members of this House, have been very impressed with many of the representations he has made in the past. We look forward to long service on behalf of the people of Canada from this Member in whatever House.
I want to respond to the preamble in which the Hon. Member indicated that the abolition of DREE will not enable the Government and the people of Canada to focus on regional economic development concerns. I make the following points.
Yes, we have eliminated that one ministry, but we have created a new ministry to replace it. The new ministry replacing it is the one headed by the Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston). In that capacity, he will not be working alone; he will be using his role as chairman of the economic and regional development committee of Cabinet to co-ordinate the efforts of all the Ministers who have an economic portfolio. In this way regional development needs will become priorities. There will not be as in the past just one Minister, but many Ministers plus a whole Cabinet committee, plus the ministry itself.
What we have done is augment Cabinet's capacity to deal with the specific issues in the regions, including the region the Hon. Member is particularly concerned with, Atlantic Canada. Second, we have given increased funding to deal with these areas. Third, we have a new mechanism so that decisions are not made on all of these projects here in Ottawa.
We have very strong co-ordinators in each of the regions and Provinces so that we will be closer to the people, closer to small business, closer to provincial needs as determined by the provincial Governments. We will be closer to the people who have the input to make.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What about the parliamentary secretaries?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he feels that in the last 20 years there has been a substantial playing of musical chairs with, among others, DREE. In 1964 we saw the coming forward of
Government Organization Act, 1983 the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce as the logical spin-off from Trade and Commerce. Ultimately we saw the development of DREE as a full Department. I trust the Parliamentary Secretary will note the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been poured into various regions of the country with, admittedly on his own remarks this morning, little or no effect. He claims that we still have a real problem in Canada.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how this new section of a Department with provincial commissioners replacing former provincial directors, who allegedly were to work with the provincial Governments, will improve the situation? Will we not see a continuation of the pouring of hundreds of millions of dollars into bottomless wells?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the concerns of the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), it would be irresponsible for me to claim that every bit of federal money spent in a particular region will produce the benefits that all of us would hope. We are human beings. Just because there is that challenge, it does not mean that we should give up our efforts of trying to maximize the return to all taxpayers, particularly to those in the region affected, those who want the jobs, those who are looking to the projects that we, in co-operation with other groups fund in order to build a better economic infrastructure.
The prospect of failure should not deter us. Rather, as the Hon. Member is suggesting, it is something that requires mechanisms to try to minimize the possibility of failure. This is why 1 believe that the new system with the federal economic commissioners in the region, working with the people on the spot who best know the priorities, difficulties and concerns, in consultation not only with the provincial Governments and among the federal Departments but with the private sector, with citizens and businesses in that particular area, will minimize those situations in which the return is not exactly what we would hope.
Lastly, and I think this is important, in the last year of operation DREE has a budget of $680 million. This represented only 8.8 per cent of the federal Government's total economic development spending of about $7.7 billion. With this approach, we are not only enhancing the mechanism to ensure that the Hon. Member's concerns are met, but we are also increasing in hard dollars our commitment to our concern for the people in those regions.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I appreciate the excellent comments that have been made by all of my colleagues who have preceded me.
The division of DREE into two parts and its burial in two other departments of Government is not a matter for rejoicing in the areas of Canada that suffer most from problems of regional disparity. With the passage of this Bill, the Government's commitment to addressing the problems of regional

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983 disparities will reach an all-time low because there will be no one department of Government with a mandate to attack the problems of regional disparity as differentiated from national development.
In economic development there are federal responsibilities, provincial responsibilities and shared responsibilities. The provincial Governments in the wealthier Provinces are better able to discharge their responsibilities than are Governments of less wealthy Provinces. The general development Agreement recognized this and provided for assistance from the federal Government to less wealthy Provinces in order to help them in their development efforts. The weakness of the general development agreement was that it did not provide for the integration of programs in the area of federal jurisdiction into the total development effort of the Province.
Divided responsibility for economic development should be recognized and the need to co-ordinate federal and provincial efforts should also be recognized so that all development activity is oriented to the achievement of common objectives. The federal Government should have a primary interest in regional economic development since it is only through an effective federal regional development effort that Canadians in all parts of the country can achieve reasonably similar employment and income levels.
Also, in the less wealthy Provinces it is only with federal Government assistance that smaller areas of high unemployment and low income can move toward national standards. In addition, the achievement of these goals can mean the reduction of transfer payments and real savings to Canadian taxpayers.
DREE followed a sound strategy when it focused on growth centres within depressed regions, but in later years it has signalled a departure from the practice of building on strengths. A classic example of this occurred in New Brunswick where the Fredericton-Saint John-Moncton triangle was excluded from the 50 per cent tax investment credit. This scattergun kind of approach is inefficient and unreliable. It may involve heavy expenditure on infrastructure and incentives only to have the subject collapse or require permanent subsidization because of conditions in a particular industry or company. Almost inevitably, moreover, the case by case approach ignores provincial planning and priorities. It is not surprising that DREE's greatest success has occurred under the auspices of the general development agreements.
The decision of the Government to allow existing general development agreements and the subsidiary agreements under the umbrella provisions of the GDA's to expire on termination is indeed regrettable. Last year in New Brunswick all of these agreements had expired except one, and that agreement has either expired very recently or is just about to expire. Its replacement is not in effect, and during the budget speech of the New Brunswick Legislature the Premier of New Brunswick underscored the great difficulty he and his departments have had in developing a new framework agreement.
Nothing could be simpler than the general development agreements themselves and nothing could be more appropriate
to the needs of the areas being served by the subsidiary agreements than those agreements which in fact are the product of negotiation by the two levels of Government involved. To replace DREE in part with the Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development and require it to inflict a developmental dimension on other departments of Government is to ask a fly to chase an elephant.
The fanfare that preceded MSERD is a lot of bureaucratic jargon. Unless the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) personally heads up MSERD and unless he personally leads the attack on regional disparity, line departments of Government in times of restraint have not, and bureaucrats will not, accept any challenge other than the bare bones responsibilities of their departments of Government which now exist.
The absence of a single department or Minister exclusively committed to regional development does not augur well. The mandate to foster development in all regions is doubletalk. It is the negation of a concerted attack on regional disparity. In that sense it can truly be said that MSERD is absurd. The reference to regions in which opportunities for productive employment are exceptionally inadequate is hopelessly vague, and in any case, it appears last among the Minister's principal duties. There is no assurance that the Special Areas Act will priorize genuinely regional as opposed to local underdevelopment.
The principle that all Government departments will be sensitive to regional needs is fine in theory and particularly appropriate now that regional equality is a goal enshrined in the Constitution, but it is meaningless without a specific designation of responsibility within each department. We have strong evidence that the opposite is likely to occur.
An obvious priority for regional development is the identification of possible foreign markets and the establishment of contact with potential foreign joint investors who already have their own market contacts. Yet that portion of the old Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with international expertise is now going to External Affairs, which is not likely to give much attention to the needs of the Atlantic region per se unless specifically directed.
Moreover, it is clear that the Government has less determination than ever to co-ordinate its initiatives with those of the Provinces. It still has no designated successor to the general development agreements in place across Canada despite the fact that the Department has been in existence for over a year and that the ones completed are not an improvement over the ones which they have replaced. It proposes a regional development fund which invites a political and bureaucratic free for all; a search for sure winners rather than a consistent longterm policy.
The removal of the New Brunswick development office out of the capital city of that Province is a totally gratuitous slap at the ideal of intergovernmental co-ordination. The fact is that economic development in the Atlantic region can occur only when its unique conditions and opportunities are the central focus of policymakers. For example, it is clear that successful enterprises will be medium to small in size and that
September 12, 1983

the most promising new manufacturing opportunities are related to technological changes in its own major primary industries.
There is no reason the Atlantic region should not be internationally competitive in the manufacture of fisheries hardware and marine equipment or a leading innovator in the use of marine resources. There are regions in the world with far less capacity for growth which nevertheless exceed our own accomplishments; the difference is that the development of their potential is a political priority.
Where in this legislation is the impetus for more policy specialization in unique regional circumstances? Nowhere, I fear. In its mad march to win political points and have the federal Government do its own compact piece of work so that all can look at it in wonder, the federal Government has made one basic mistake. Its industrial development program relies almost entirely on resources within provincial jurisdiction. The consultative process is mandatory and important. It is not taking place.
Let me say a word about the federal Government's quest for more credit and visibility in the regional development projects it supports. Within reason this is legitimate but I fear it has become almost an indecent obsession. Clearly, this is a primary motive for the disengagement from general development and subsidiary agreements, even those that have proven their effectiveness. The Senate committee, its Liberal majority included, has concluded that there are very few circumstances where it is best for the federal Government to fly alone, but fly alone is now its primary policy.
What is the source of this obsession? Have the Leaders of the Government developed such a siege mentality in their war with Quebec separatists that they think Canadians will be loyal to the national state only if they are beholden to the federal Government? Is every provincial Government that steals a little more credit than it should working for the break-up of Canada? The Bill will give the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston), as the nominal ringmaster of the circus called the Cabinet Economic Development Committee and keeper of the mysterious Regional Development Fund, the legislative power to create a bureaucrat's dream. The federal Government will be able to reset provincial priorities through the powers of the purse and get all the credit for the moneys spent in the region to boot. It will also bear the responsibility and reap the whirlwind.
It may well be that political will rather than the structure of the Government will determine the success of regional development policies, but it does not appear to me as if the proposed changes can accommodate priorities like the following for the Atlantic region.
First, in concert with the provincial Governments, a new emphasis on managerial and manpower training and research and development geared specifically to viable small industries to enable them to compete in national and international markets.
Government Organization Act, 1983
Second, financial incentives for such viable enterprises wherever they can be best located within the region. In other words, treat the region as a region and the provincial communities as communities.
Third, immediate reform of Government purchasing practices, not to favour the inefficient, but to counteract systematic discrimination against smaller and more distant firms.
Fourth, immediate action to identify and seize ocean and marine related manufacturing opportunities where the Atlantic region can become internationally competitive.
I believe this Bill should be amended to define "Underdeveloped region" in terms of its provincial context, to specifically require the Minister to co-ordinate and report to Parliament on the attention being focused by all Government departments on regional underdevelopment and to restore the Government's obligation and mandate to enter into general development and subsidiary agreements with the Provinces.
Hard times have brought us to the end of an illusion that dependency is a satisfactory answer to regional disparity. Not only is it futile, it is defeatist. It assumes that Canada's least affluent region, the Atlantic Provinces, has no real future, that it lacks the resources and the opportunity to establish greater self-sufficiency.
The fact is that modern communications and other technology development provide the opportunity to overcome the large locational disadvantage from which the Atlantic region has suffered for much of the last century. If the Government of Canada does not act now it will be because of the political weakness of the region, a simple but tragic numbers game. Such an attitude would make a mockery of the Government's claim to be committed to national unity and to regional development. I would like to think its intentions are higher, but I do not see it in Bill C-152.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members who are seeking to ask questions? The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to agree with a few of the remarks of the previous speaker. Coming from northern Manitoba, one of the underdeveloped regions of Canada, I agree that the death of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is bad news for people in the underdeveloped areas. I also agree with the Hon. Member's remarks regarding the decision of the Liberal Government not to renew the general development agreements and the subsidiary agreements. One of those was the Northern Development Agreement in northern Manitoba. We were lucky to beat the Liberal deadline and have a new agreement in place worth $186 million to the region over the next five years. The death of that type of agreement is bad news for every part of Canada where there is an underdeveloped region.
The critic for the Conservative Party, who spoke earlier did not speak about regional development and did not talk about special programs for the underdeveloped areas. I should like to ask the Member who just spoke what the Tory position is. Is

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983 that Party saying it will reinstitute the Department of Regional Economic Expansion? Is the Hon. Member saying that a Conservative Government would reinstitute general development agreements?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Hon. Member for his kind comments. Policy is an ongoing, developmental process within this Party. The last words spoken on this matter were spoken by our former Leader in Halifax, Nova Scotia, I believe, when he said that the Party's position was that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would be reinstated. It is difficult to foresee the future but I anticipate that carries with it the general development agreements and matters of that nature.
There is a very real position in development for grants, contributions, loans, guarantees, loan guarantees and tax incentives. I have spoken twice in the House on tax incentives for expenditures for capital and for labour. I think that programs of this nature are extremely important.
Another attractive program that I would mention is the DISC program that operates in the United States. That would be an interesting program for us to consider. It is essentially a free trading area for our great ports along the Atlantic and Pacific seaboard that would enable us to operate assembly plants, to import, without tariff, charge, goods made by developing nations of the world and to include Canadian technology and Canadian content in order to help regain some of the world markets we have lost in the last few years. Development of this type of port in the Atlantic Provinces, for example, would be a great incentive to our export trade and would enable us to put more Canadians to work in those Provinces.
I think the jobs would be permanent and that they would expand as our Canadian technology continues to grow. In some areas this is the best in the world.
I appreciate the contribution made by the Hon. Member and I thank him for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A short supplementary question by the Hon. Member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, I have a very short supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member spoke about the position his former Leader took when he spoke in Halifax. I wonder if the new Member of the House, the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), spoke about DREE and the general development agreements during the recent by-election and, if so, what he said?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is hardly a short supplementary. Does the Hon. Member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) care to comment?


J. Robert Howie: I think that I essentially answered the Hon. Member's question when I spoke before. I cannot recall everything that was said during the by-election in Central Nova. As a matter of fact, the by-election was not very well reported in my area of New Brunswick. I read the papers and saw that
some 11 Cabinet Ministers went down to help elect a Conservative as the Hon. Member for Central Nova. They were very successful.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member could clarify something. In answer to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), 1 thought he inferred that under this Bill the reorganization would do away with general development agreements. Did I understand him clearly to interpret the reorganization as suggesting that no more general development agreements would be signed? Is that his position?


J. Robert Howie: The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has correctly interpreted my interpretation of the Bill. I raised the matter with the Minister at the MSERD committee. The Minister indicated he had a schedule to develop new framework agreements, the nature of which he was not able to explain to me, which will replace the general development agreements. The general development agreements have for the most part lapsed. All of the subsidiary agreements in New Brunswick have now lapsed.
During the recent debate on the budget legislation the Premiers indicated they had great difficulty developing a new agreement with the Minister. Being a senior member in the Government department and very responsive to the needs of New Brunswick I hope the Hon. Member will join with me in urging the Minister responsible for economic and regional development to proceed with all due haste to try to put in place some new development agreements to replace the ones which have lapsed in New Brunswick.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the Hon. Member what he had or had not talked about with a Minister. Could he show me in this Bill where he sees any change in the statutory position of general development agreements? Could he show me in this Bill where there is anything said which would change the status legally or otherwise of general development agreements?
Further, Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Member will correct the misinformation which he just gave us, I am sure unintentionally, that all of the subsidiary agreements under the GDA in New Brunswick had lapsed. There is at least one agreement which has not lapsed and which is continuing. There are negotiations on at least three others which are still going on. There has been no decision by anyone, to my knowledge, and I follow this very closely, that there will not be a new general development agreement signed for New Brunswick.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to follow the Hon. Member's question, but I will try to clarify my remarks for him. This Bill abolishes the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which has been the only Department of Government dedicated to the development of regions in the country which suffer from problems related to disparity. Second, it buries the Department and splits it in two. The operative part of the Department now goes to DRIE and the part which dealt with general development agreements, the
September 12, 1983

Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, is now a new Department.
The policy announced by the Minister in the new Department is that he is going to let general development agreements die. They have died. They are dying. The one in New Brunswick to which the Hon. Member refers has one remaining component. I accept the Hon. Member's statement that one out of more than 18 remains. It will be news to the Hon. Member but it will die also this year. Then there will be none. When they are all gone, there will be none left. What takes its place?
The Premier of New Brunswick says he is having great difficulty negotiating a new agreement to take the place of the general development agreement. I accept that. It is reported in the press. It is in the synoptic reports of the New Brunswick Legislature. We can stand here all day and quibble about when the one subsidiary agreement is going to die. 1 would choose instead to urge on all Hon. Members who represent New Brunswick-the Hon. Member is the only one on the opposite side of the House here today, in fact the only one from the Maritimes, and I commend him for his attention and interest-that what we must do is stop playing silly games, get this Minister off his butt and down to New Brunswick to get a new agreement with Richard Hatfield so we can do something for that Province.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I know there are problems in developing a new general development agreement in New Brunswick, but the Hon. Member should know that one of the reasons is that since his last provincial election the Premier has not seen fit, nor his government, to allocate any money for regional development.
My question did not deal with the statutory base of DREE.
I was asking the Hon. Member a very clear question. Where does he see in this Bill the statutory base or the statutory position of the general development agreements change? They are not affected at all by this Bill, so the Hon. Member should stop confusing the issues. I would like the Hon. Member to show me where they are changed and if not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked this question before and I have tried very hard to answer it. The abolition of DREE is accomplished in this Bill and a new department, one of the purposes of which will be to deal with the subject of general development agreements, is created. The Minister of that department has indicated that general development agreements will die. Facts are facts. I believe we must stop playing games with words and recognize the fact that general development agreements as we have known them are done. Let us take it from there and instead of playing silly word games, let us get on with the business of building Canada and building our regions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt but the period allotted to questions and answers has expired. The Chair calls to the attention of Hon. Members at this point that the next
_______________________________________26983
Government Organization Act, 1983
speaker to be recognized will be the last having a limit of 20 minutes with a 10-minute question and answer period. Subsequent speakers will be limited to ten minutes only.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I see by the clock we are fast approaching the luncheon recess. However, it is a privilege and a pleasure for me to make some remarks on this Bill which is of great importance to a great many of our areas, if not all of them.
I have had the privilege of being member of the committee on DREE for a number of years now and, of course, have questioned many Ministers who have held that portfolio. DREE, I believe, was instituted first, Mr. Speaker, back in 1969. As an Hon. Member representing the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, which, I must say, is not in the highest economic bracket across this great Dominion of Canada-I still say that, although I see smiles from some of my colleagues-I have no doubt that DREE has in the past contributed directly to the disadvantaged areas. I am one of those who share considerable concern at the doing away with DREE in itself as a regular department, and in spite of the wonderful statements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) this spring and later that it is going to be much better, well, I am from Missouri and am looking forward to seeing the concrete proposals which will be made.
In the past, and again in my particular area, I have been put in a tough spot because half my riding is eligible for DREE, that is, the territorial district of Parry Sound, and the other part of my riding, the regional municipality of Muskoka, has not been eligible. Of course, when you come to that boundary, that borderline, 1 am going to tell you that the haves and the have-nots take a very dim view of it. However, under this new set-up and tier system, the District of Parry Sound is in territory three which, from reports, will be provided grants which may even be slightly higher. The regional municipality of Muskoka goes into a lower tier but at least will be eligible for capital grants and for other advantages which they were denied before.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, they take a jaundiced view. The mayors of the various municipalities and the regional municipality of Muskoka and, of course, their industrial commissioners feel they have been left out in the cold for a very long period of time and, therefore, should have their place in the sun at the same percentage or on the same tier as the district of Parry Sound. I have assured them that at least they have their toe in the door and they are going to get something. Of course, it depends on the economy.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is one o'clock, so may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
The Leader of the Opposition AFTER RECESS

September 12, 1983
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


NEW MEMBERS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of the following members:
Of Mr. Brian Mulroney, for the electoral district of Central Nova.
Of Mr. Gerry St. Germain, for the electoral district of Mission-Port Moody.


NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED
[Stage Direction]
Brian Mulroney, Member for electoral district of Central Nova, introduced by Hon. Erik Nielsen and Hon. George Hees.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Gerry St. Germain, Member for the electoral district of Mission-Port Moody, introduced by Mr. Brian Mulroney and Mr. Chuck Cook.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WELCOME TO NEW PAGES
Madam Speaker:: I also wish to welcome our new group of pages who are commencing their duties today in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The House has already applauded the pages who are beginning service today in the House of Commons for the entire year. We hope with all our hearts that they have a good year among us and that they learn a lot from all of us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as you see, a spirit of benevolence pervades the House today. Perhaps you will allow me to say a few words, in addition to the welcome extended from this side of the House to the new Leader of the Opposition. 1 would like to address a special word of welcome to the two new Members who have just joined the House. I am told that the Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) is perfectly bilingual. Madam Speaker, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that, in this House, all Members are on an equal footing and that we on this side intend to be as attentive to his words as to those of the other Hon. Member who has just joined our ranks.
I would like to say a very special word of welcome to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). I would like to congratulate him on the duties he will be taking up at York University. However, I hope that his responsibilities there will not keep him away from the parliamentary scene, because as emeritus leader his position is a very honourable one and we intend to show him the respect he is due.

You will understand. Madam Speaker, if I say that, standing in this place, 1 feel a little bit that we are witnessing the onslaught of history. When I first came into this Chamber we on this side were faced by a very formidable Leader of the Opposition, the former Member for Prince Albert, the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker. But he stood alone as leader on the other side.
On the other hand, very soon after I stood in this place, 1 was faced by the Leader of the Opposition who was then Mr. Stanfield. But he was flanked by his former leader, the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker. It then came the turn of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) to lead his Party. He was flanked not by one but by two former leaders, Mr. Diefenbaker and Mr. Stanfield, who stood by his side to assist him.
Now, as we see the Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) take on his duties as Leader of the Opposition, he is not only flanked by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead but also by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who was interim Leader of the Opposition. I dare say there is a third leader-at least his ghost is still in this place and we feel it often-the former Member for Prince Albert who, I am sure, will be here to assist the Hon. Member for Central Nova.
We are very happy to welcome the Hon. Member for Central Nova. I am sure he will forgive us if we say that we have even greater pleasure at the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Mulroney.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member for Central Nova has come a long way from that log cabin in Pictou County. I see that he has put away his rumpled trousers and old sweaters, to be brought out again at the next election. In the meantime it is nice for us in this Chamber to be able to bask in the glow, in
September 12, 1983

the benign smile, of a man who sent such shivers of pleasure down the spines of the matrons all the way from Oyster Pond to Mushaboo.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure him that we on this side of the House will endeavour to be every bit as helpful to him as we have to his many predecessors.

As the great Andre Siegfried said, if you want to harm someone, too much praise is more effective than criticism. In fact, Madam Speaker, 1 think there is a Machiavellian plot afoot among members of the Press Gallery who seem to be out to destroy in this way the new Leader of the Opposition-he can count on us to render the plot ineffective. We are certainly not going to praise him excessively, because he is faced with a difficult and a historic task as leader of a party that has played a major role in the history of this country, and he ought to realize that the task that lies ahead will be a difficult one. I want him to know that we wish him the very best.

I also want to congratulate the members of the shadow Cabinet. I think it is fair to say that never has a more vaporous group of shadows ennobled this place.
This has been an occasion to talk about the man rather than the policies, so he will understand that I have gone on a little longer than otherwise would have been possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we all wish him good luck, good health and, as they say in show business, "break a leg".

In French, the traditional expression is the "mot de Cambronne".


Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, in this world of constant flux I am glad to see that there are certain constants. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has maintained his usual gracious and congenial disposition in welcoming the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Before I add my few words of welcome to the new Leader of the Conservative Party, I too would like to join with the Prime Minister in expressing the good wishes of my colleagues to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who is now teaching back at my old alma mater, York University-and right away I have written a warning note to all the students there not to pay too close attention. Quite seriously, though, I want to say that we do hope the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead will continue to bring his
The Leader of the Opposition
concerns about the well being of our country to this important Chamber so that we will benefit from his views.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I think the new Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) will understand that in welcoming him I have several reasons for not elaborating on the point. Again most seriously, however, I do welcome him to the House on behalf of my colleagues and I am sure he will understand my comment when 1 say that I hope his stay will not be too long.
1 now want to turn to the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) to say that when he has been in Chamber for some time-we do not know for how long-he will know that he should not expect again the kind of greeting that he received from all sides today. 1 suspect this is a one and only shot, especially for a leader of a political party. But we do welcome him and wish him well in his personal concerns and in his activities in this Chamber.
I have noted, and for some time knew, that the Member for Central Nova was not only a working colleague but rather close to one of our former leaders in the Province of Quebec, Robert Cliche, an old friend of mine, a distinguished Que-becois and a distinguished Canadian.
I look forward to the days ahead in this Chamber, hopefully even today, when the Member for Central Nova will be just a wee bit more specific on some of his policy orientations. No doubt because of the little publicity he has had in recent weeks we have not had a detailed provision of his policy positions, but when he does reveal them I hope we will begin to note the impact on his life of Robert Cliche. I shall watch with interest. [Translation]
And once more, 1 would like to say, very sincerely, as they say in Baie Comeau, bienvenue, bonne chance, but perhaps not too much of the latter!


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, first of all 1 wish to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his gracious and cordial remarks. There may have been some minor political differences between us in the past, as there certainly will be in the future, but nevertheless, I have always recognized that the Right Hon. Prime Minister is a man of great distinction, and I wish to offer him my sincere thanks for his warm welcome here today.

The Prime Minister has always been a man of great accomplishment and distinction. I was honoured by the thoughtfulness and the generosity of his words today. 1 wait with bated breath for tomorrow.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

September 12, 1983
The Leader of the Opposition


Martin Brian Mulroney: But I want particularly to welcome the Prime Minister back from Greece, and the Cabinet back from Central Nova.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I want you to know, Prime Minister, that during the summer, while you were otherwise occupied, it was a very pleasant summer for me. There was one untoward incident, only one. The Liberal candidate in Central Nova persistently referred to a candidate from Quebec who did not live in his riding but lived in a million dollar house rent free, and 1 defended you, Sir, regularly.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I rose to your defence with an alacrity that surprised even me.
I was also delighted and interested to read in the weekend press, Madam Speaker, the fact that the Prime Minister announced he is not a quitter. 1 want you to know, Sir, that we are behind you all the way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: And I say "Hang in there", notwithstanding the urgings to the contrary from some people over there. This Party, and I am sure the New Democratic Party, stands united on at least that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 am delighted as well in having an opportunity of representing Central Nova to be so close to my old friend, the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: it is not a widely known fact-
[ Translation]
-but I would like to mention it because it is quite an interesting phenomenon and one of the subjects I am really delighted to raise in the House today-

-that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Prime Minister and I, all hold degrees from St. F.X. University, and 1 should point out that the President of St. F.X. is here today. On behalf of the Prime Minister and myself we want to say we did not study economics at St. F.X. under the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I only mention that because the Prime Minister asked me to.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, imagine my surprise and, in fact, my delight, at seeing before me, in the House today, the smiling face of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Before I left Ottawa for my riding in Nova Scotia, I thought that considering the tremendous and increasing popularity of the Minister in Quebec, he would have been drafted for the leadership of the Quebec Liberal Party. I am truly delighted to see that he turned down a Quebec draft, to stay in our midst. That is really good news.

1 want to say a word of thanks as well to the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). Indeed, on many occasions the Hon. Judge Robert Cliche, a truly great Canadian, spoke well and eloquently with regard to the qualities of the Hon. Member, and with good reason. Judgment, as Robert Cliche used to say, was always so important. I want you to know that we Nova Scotians appreciate your judgment, Sir, in taking your caucus down to Nova Scotia.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It did my heart good to see the socialists spending $90 and $95 a day, and then, Prime Minister, they have the temerity to say things are not going well!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Martin Brian Mulroney: Dear friends and colleagues, Madam Speaker, I know this is a very unusual day, at least for me, but I sincerely wish to thank everyone for the warm and cordial welcome I was given here today.

My thanks to all of you for your kindness and generiosity. I will try, given the magnificent example set by my predecessor, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), to serve this House and to serve you with honour and distinction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DOCTOR BAL RAM JAKHAR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE OF INDIA
Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in our gallery today of Dr. Bal Ram Jakhar, who is the Speaker of the House of the People of India.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 12, 1983


Madam Speaker:: Just in case the enthusiasm of people who are in the galleries continues, I must remind them that they are not allowed to applaud or to manifest in any way.
1 suppose we have passed the time at which we can have Statements by Members. I will immediately go to Question Period.


Mr. Benjamin:: Why?


Madam Speaker:: The Standing Orders are quite clear.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: With consent.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lalonde:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that we go to Statements by Members?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my first question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

As the Sea of Japan continues to give up the dead, a result of the recent tragic and terrible international incident, ten Canadians having been killed, could the Prime Minister inform the House and the people of Canada as to the action he has initiated to ensure that massive and exemplary damages are secured on behalf of the grieving families, in the interest of the Canadian people?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I should begin by expressing the deep sympathy of Canadians to the bereaved families of the Canadians who were so tragically killed in an unjustified act of murder by the Soviet airfighter.
We have, as part of our response to this grave incident, conveyed a note to the Soviet Embassy indicating that we
Oral Questions
would be presenting a claim for compensation. That note was delivered both in Ottawa and in Moscow, and we are currently preparing further steps to support that particular effort to secure compensation. That effort will be pursued not only bilaterally but also with the United Nations and at the upcoming meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization to be held in Montreal later this week. That effort to secure compensation will be joined by other aggrieved parties, of which Canada is one, including the United States and South Korea.


SAFETY OF CANADIAN CITIZENS VISITING SOVIET UNION
Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister inform the House, given the fact that so many hundreds of Canadians are presently in the Soviet Union, and given the impact of the commercial air blockade which will be launched against the Soviet Union, of what action he has taken to ensure the safety of all Canadians presently in the Soviet Union, and what contingency plans he may have in regard to transportation when urgently required by them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that is a very good question. Since we terminated the regular scheduled Aeroflot flights between Moscow and Mirabel, the fate of Canadians who would normally have travelled back to Canada by these Aeroflot flights has been a worry and a concern. We have extended all assistance to these Canadians, and where they will make other arrangements, as they must, to return to Canada with other airlines, we will assist them financially so that they will not be out of pocket because of this particular incident.
Up to the present there has been no danger whatsoever to these Canadians, and the authorities in Moscow up to the present have co-operated to ensure that they will be able to return to Canada by other methods.


CONTENTS OF DIPLOMATIC NOTE
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who indicated to the House that a note securing, hopefully, compensation for the victims of this tragic incident has been delivered in Ottawa and in Moscow. Would the Minister be good enough to table the note so that all Canadians know exactly its terms and what is being sought on behalf of the survivors of these victims?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 do not think it is normal practice to table these international exchanges, but there is something that I can tell the Hon. Member at the present time, namely, that we indicated to the Soviet Union that we had proposed to establish a claim against the Soviet Union arising from the airliner incident. We have not put any quantification on that claim up to the present

September 12, 1983
Oral Questions
time. That is a very difficult thing to do and a rather offensive, in a sense, or unpalatable thing to do when human life is involved. But it has to be done, and we will be undertaking consultations and discussions with family members before we will make a lump sum demand upon the Soviet Union. We intend to do that, and we know that that will be done by other countries as well.
I believe it will take some time and considerable effort to secure results because of the unsatisfactory attitude which the Government of the Soviet Union has taken as a result of this particular incident.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As the House knows, the Minister referred to the contents of the note, and as a rule it is taken for granted that the tabling of the note will be forthcoming.


APPLICATION OF CANADIAN-SOVIET PROTOCOL ON CONSULTATIONS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my second question to the Prime Minister who will recall that on May 19, 1971, he signed a Canadian-Soviet Protocol on Consultations with the Government of the U.S.S.R. in which was included Clause 2 that seems to contemplate the type of incident that has occurred. It indicates that, without delay, there shall be an exchange of views between the two countries on what might be done to improve the situation. Would the Prime Minister indicate whether any steps have been taken under the provisions of that protocol with respect to consultation with the Soviets to determine what in fact transpired, and why the incident occurred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the then Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of State for External Relations, in the very first gesture of response by this Government asked the Soviet charge d'affaires precisely to embark upon consultations and to explain the circumstances of the tragic happening. The other gestures taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in dealing with Soviet authorities both here and in Moscow have precisely been doing that, asking for consultations, asking for explanations, asking for reparation, and taking some measures of our own.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO COMMITTEE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that obviously these consultations have not been taking place, would the Prime Minister indicate if, in his view, the terms of the agreement have in fact now been broken? Second, would he consider referring this agreement and related agreements to the Standing Committee on External Affairs of the House so that there can be a meaningful review of what exactly, first, the Government of Canada has done with respect to this matter and, second, what the Soviet reply has been?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the Soviet Union replies from time to time, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Acting Minister in his place will be happy to inform the House of the exchanges. It is clear from the earlier answers of the Minister that thus far we have not had an explanation which we deem satisfactory, and on the subject of reparations we have not had a satisfactory answer either.


RESPONSIBILITY OF SOVIET UNION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. The Soviet Union has taken a long time even to acknowledge responsibility for this barbarous act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They have not done that yet.


John Edward Broadbent: The Secretary of State for External Affairs is saying that they have not done it yet. My understanding is that they have acknowledged that they shot down a plane.
My question, to either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, concerns the question of guilt. Could either inform the House as to whether or not the Soviet Union has in any way acknowledged up to this point moral responsibility for this act and, if not, what kind of follow-up action does the Government plan to take to bring forward such acknowledgement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, up to the present the Soviet Union has not accepted moral responsibility for its action; it has not accepted any responsibility. It has clearly evaded accepting any responsibility. It has clearly transferred the entire responsibility for this event on to the shoulders of the Government of the United States. That is one of the most depressing aspects of the Soviet response. Not only have they failed to acknowledge any responsibility, but they have served notice on the world that they will repeat the incident if necessary. I regard that as a very retrograde statement by the Soviet Union in a context when they ought to be acknowledging responsibility and admitting to the world their guilt in this particular instance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON COMPENSATION ISSUE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it was precisely in the context of the knowledge that we on this side of the House have had up to this moment, that the Soviet Union had not acknowledged its guilt, that I posed the question that I did. I therefore want to ask the Minister another question in this context. Since the Government has demanded compensation and has said to the Soviet Union that it must acknowledge its guilt, but the Minister has told the House the Soviets are not going to do it, what serious expectation does
September 12, 1983

the Minister have that any compensation for the families or relatives of Canadian victims will be forthcoming? If there is no compensation, what does the Government plan to do?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have embarked upon a process which I think has to be pressed forward very aggressively in the field of civil aviation, and with respect to compensation we have served a notice of claim. Other countries have served a notice of claim. We know that in a previous example where we sought damages from the Soviet Union we waited for two years before we received a response. I do not think they are going to come forward very easily or quickly. However, 1 think we have to continue to assert aggressively (a) their responsibility and (b) the necessity of compensation, not only in our direct contacts with Soviet officials, but also at the United Nations and at the International Civil Aviation Organization.
We have to ensure that the weight of public opinion worldwide is registered upon the Soviet leadership so that they will respond. As I stated, up to the present time they have not responded adequately or satisfactorily to the wave of indignation that has swept the world. Neither have their explanations been found plausible in the countries of the West.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CALL FOR INVESTIGATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister has referred to the United Nations and to the International Civil Aviation Organization which is meeting in Montreal this week. Does the Government of Canada have any specific proposals that it plans to take either to the United Nations or to the international body that is meeting in Montreal this week, in order to establish some kind of international changes that might at least militate against the possibility of this kind of horrific action ever occurring again?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, we were, 1 believe, the first country to propose at the United Nations that an impartial investigation be undertaken by the Secretary General into all the allegations and to counter allegations that have been made with respect to this incident. We are still pressing at the United Nations to empower the Secretary General to have an impartial investigation. Likewise we will press at ICAO in Montreal to secure an impartial investigation of all the facts and also to do what the Hon. Member suggests as a reasonable objective. I think it is an overwhelmingly important objective, namely, to ensure that in the future the rules of international law will be observed and that this incident will not be repeated, because no traveller can travel these routes in the future without some great fear or unease that a similar event will occur. Therefore, procedures to ensure an avoidance are absolutely necessary. We will be pressing forward with those in Montreal and in the other international organizations.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In congratulating the Minister on his appointment, I hope that during his brief tenure he will be able to address himself in a meaningful way to the plight of the unemployed.
Today, following on the heels of a release by Statistics Canada showing an unemployment rate among young people of 19.4 per cent, Canadian Press obtained a document commissioned by the Minister's Department which states "High unemployment amongst youth will be a major factor in keeping the over-all unemployment rate high during the next few years." The document then stated that we can expect one in five young people in this country to be unemployed into 1985. That is unacceptable to this House and to most Canadians. 1 ask the Minister what he intends to do about this totally unacceptable situation which is full of disastrous consequences for this country.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his kind words of welcome. I would say in return that, knowing he is one of the most compassionate and experienced Members of the House, I look forward to his advice and counsel. I hope that he will be in his position for a very long time to offer me that kind of assistance in the years to come.
There is no doubt that the problem of job creation, particularly for young people, is a pre-eminent and dominant concern of this Government. We do not find, as he does not find, those projections to be acceptable. We are already devoting considerable resources to assist in the employment of young people. This year we are spending something like $1 billion of federal funds for that purpose. The average is something like $2.5 million a day going to these programs to assist young people, both in training and direct job-creation programs. I do not argue for a moment with the Hon. Member that we may simply stay satisfied with that level of effort. We are exploring a variety of options to improve our record in this area.


RATE OF JOB CREATION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I hesitate to remind the Minister that unemployment among young people has on average been over 20 per cent since July of last year. This is not a new problem. The Minister knows that during an economic downturn young people are the first to be fired and the last to be hired. Therefore, given the fact that last Friday Statistics Canada indicated a sharp downturn in the economy, a 75 per cent drop in the rate of new employment in this country over the previous four months, where is the economic climate within which the Minister promises to perform for these young people? He has now had a chance to examine the policies of

September 12, 1983
Oral Questions
his predecessor and the disastrous policies of his seatmate, the Minister of Finance.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the economy is improving and, along with it, jobs. Something like 300,000 jobs have been created in Canada over the last eight months. Young people benefit from that job creation just as much as others who are unemployed. Not only young people benefit, but women entering the work force. As the Hon. Member knows, we have consolidated our programs in an attempt to connect better with young people and to respond more effectively to the services which they need. If the Hon. Member has alternative programs which he would like us to consider, I would be delighted if he would bring them forward so we could examine them and, if they are of value, accept and implement them.
There is not going to be any immediate magic wand solution in responding to this problem. However, we do have proposals to present. I hope we will be able to do that in the context of the Speech from the Throne. I hope that Members opposite will proceed as quickly as possible with the termination of the present matters of debate before the House of Commons so that we can bring those proposals forward.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. My question is related to the disastrous crisis which exists in Atlantic Canada's fishing industry and the Minister's announced unilateral federal plan to form one large nationalized Newfoundland company, including a large part of the Newfoundland offshore fishery. How can the Government expect that its presence in the fishing industry will strengthen that industry when the provincial Government, labour, and the private companies concerned are solidly opposed to the restructuring plan and are solidly opposed to such heavy-handed government involvement?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to remind my hon. friend that if three or four companies have financial difficulties, I have met with each of them and have asked them why. Believe me, the reasons have nothing to do with Government policies, and they have the honesty to tell me about it. While they are having difficulty, over 700 small companies are in business, are making money, and are managing their business.
As for those three or four companies to which the Hon. Member is referring, may I remind him that the federal Government, and only the federal Government, has put money on the table. The federal Government is the only one. It is not the unions, it is not the companies, it is not the bank, it is not the provincial Government. We are the only ones who have put
$75 million on the table. We have put our money where our policy is and where our mouth is.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I would remind the Hon. Minister that it is not three or four companies of which we are speaking. Those companies represent some 12 companies throughout the length and breadth of Newfoundland.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT HERRING FISHING SEASON
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There is another area of fisheries problems, namely, the Northumberland Strait herring fisheries about which the Hon. Member for Central Nova has already expressed his concern over the fact that the fishermen have been cut off from harvesting the fish which are there in abundance and which provide them with their livelihood. I would ask the Minister if he would re-think this situation and extend the season this year until a more thorough review of all the factors can be made.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind Hon. Members about the main fact. The fact is that the biological advice 1 have received is that that herring stock is in a dismal state, and unless we want to allow the collapse of that stock we should reduce the catch as much as possible. This year 1 have increased it by 4,000 tonnes. I have extended the period for fishing, and already the catch this year has exceeded the catch of last year. I think it would be irresponsible on my part, since my first responsibility is to the management of the resource, to allow an extension. 1 met this morning, for instance, with the Minister of Fisheries of New Brunswick and spoke with my counterpart in Nova Scotia, and all of the biological advice indicates that it would be most imprudent to allow over-fishing.


NEWFOUNDLAND REPRESENTATION IN CABINET
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it is in the context of the economic crisis in Newfoundland. There are
43,000	Newfoundlanders unemployed at the moment; 19 per cent of the labour force unemployed at the best time of the year for employment. Within that context, the fishing industry and the offshore industry are in chaos. The Government, conspiring with the Bank of Nova Scotia, has put the three offshore trawler companies into receivership, disrupting markets in the United States and endangering thousands of jobs.
In the middle of this chaos there is no Cabinet representation from Newfoundland whatsoever. Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he will replace the Hon. Member from White Bay whom he dismissed, and the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's who was there for the ten days that shook the world and who has, for personal reasons-we do not know what those reasons are-resigned? When will the Prime Minister appoint a new representative who can begin to focus on some of these problems with respect to the federal Govern-
September 12, 1983

ment? When will it be and who will it be? How soon will the announcement be made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that the Minister of Fisheries deals with fishery problems in every Province of Canada including Newfoundland. Problems with the offshore, if the Hon. Member is looking at energy, are dealt with by the Minister for Energy for Canada. I would not think it fitting to suggest that this Cabinet is not dealing with Newfoundland's problems because there happens to be no Minister from Newfoundland at this time.
The Hon. Member should be better informed himself of these problems when he suggests that it is the federal Government that has put the companies into receivership. He knows full well that it is the banks that have put the companies into receivership because the provincial Government has not been able to find satisfactory an agreement proposed by the federal Government to solve the problem. Therefore, the banks acted on their own. They did not act on behalf of or at the instigation of the federal Government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, while the Prime Minister was in the Greek Islands, I was in my own island, Newfoundland, and I know what is happening in Newfoundland. The fishing industry is a failure. The offshore industry is paralysed. Truckers who take frozen fish from Newfoundland and bring back fruits and vegetables are now stopped from doing so. They have not been paid. There is an economic crisis.


AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, it has already been admitted that there was an agreement between the Government and the Bank of Nova Scotia. Will the Prime Minister produce the agreement between the Government and the Bank of Nova Scotia? Why has the Government permitted or directed the Bank of Nova Scotia to put these companies into liquidation and to cause the problems which are now under way, particularly when the main company, Fishery Products Limited, is owned and controlled by the Canada Development Corporation, a federal company incorporated by the House? Why is the Prime Minister acting to expropriate shares owned by the CDC and to cause these problems by means of a conspiracy with the Bank of Nova Scotia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member talks about an agreement with the Bank of Nova Scotia. 1 am informed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that confidentially a copy of that agreement has been shown to Mr. Peckford. He knows the content of it and it would be for him to object or to make remarks about it.
In so far as agreements that we have made are concerned, the Hon. Member will recall that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did sign an agreement with Mr. Morgan, the Minister
Oral Questions
of Fisheries for Newfoundland-two agreements as a matter of fact. They were repudiated by Premier Peckford, and I think, in fairness, that if the Hon. Member was really on his island and not dreaming, he would know that one does not have to speak Greek in order to realize that Mr. Peckford shares the blame for the disaster in the fisheries industry.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, last week the Government admitted that the recession in Canada was not entirely caused by world-wide pressures but that some of its own policies had helped to deepen the recession here in Canada. Considering that the recession was many times more severe in Canada than in the rest of the industrialized world, I must say, Madam Speaker, that this admission came as a welcome change in the Government's approach to the truth.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last Spring the Government approved 270 special recovery projects. The idea was to create jobs which were to be implemented in early Spring or early Summer. As of last week, Madam Speaker, the Government had only begun 13 of these 270 projects. I would ask the Prime Minister when the Government is going to begin to act.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I have the designated responsibility for the program in question, the Special Recovery Capital Projects. The target for those projects was that they would be begun within six months, which is towards the end of October, and that the expenditures would be made, for the most part, to the extent of 60 per cent at least within two years. That could be March, 1985. I am very pleased with the progress that is being made. As Hon. Members know, these projects were part of the package put forward by the Minister of Finance and were specifically designed not only to create jobs in the short term but to provide much needed economic infrastructure in a number of areas. The jobs were selected on the basis of those criteria.
There are now, a total of 270 projects, Madam Speaker. Originally there were to be only 100. These have been broken down into activities from coast to coast which are currently providing economic stimulation in a wide variety of sectors, and I hope that Hon. Members on all sides of the House share our enthusiasm for these jobs and recognize how important they are and were to the Canadian economy especially during this period of recession from which we are now emerging. In fact they make up a very substantial investment package during a period when investment intentions of Canadians have been shown to be particularly low.

September 12, 1983
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think most of us in the House will recall very specifically that there was a promise that those jobs would be on line in early summer, or, for some, even in late Spring. That is another promise which was not kept. I suspect the Prime Minister was hesitant about answering because of the promise that he did keep and that his Government has kept. As a westerner, I remember that 15 months ago in Banff he mentioned that, if he had to, there was one thing he could do, and that was to scare the hell out of Canadians. He certainly has done that.


EMPLOYMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Two years ago in the House we were reminded that there were over ten million people employed full-time in Canada. Since then over half a million people have lost full-time jobs that will not be replaced. The Government has set specific targets for inflation. Why will it not do the same now for employment? Will the Government set a specific target for employment levels and then bring in concrete programs to achieve that target?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the Hon. Member that Canada is creating jobs at the present time at a faster rate than any other industrial country in the world.


John Carnell Crosbie: That is absolute bunk. Tell the truth for a change.


Marc Lalonde: Under this Government, this was the situation in the ten years between 1970 and 1980. As we are coming out of the recession, we are creating jobs in this country faster than the United States, faster than any country in Europe, and faster than any other industrial country that my hon. friend can think of.


John Carnell Crosbie: Faster than a speeding bullet. What nonsense!


Marc Lalonde: I challenge my hon. friend to demonstrate the contrary. We are very concerned about job creation and we are attacking this problem very seriously and very systematically.
As the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration has indicated, we have created some 328,000 jobs since last November, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Today in Canada there are 800,000 more Canadians at work than there were last November. I invite my hon. friend to remember that record.
[ Translation]


RESTRUCTURING OF PROGRAMS
Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I also wish to congratulate him on his recent promotion within the Cabinet.

We respect the initiative shown by his predecessor in office who brought in many fine programs for the creation of employment. We have heard about the 328,000 jobs that have been created in the economy. The Minister recently indicated that he would be undertaking some reorganization of programs in place and that he would be making that announcement soon. I wonder if he is in a position to indicate what that reorganization will be and what impact he sees as far as numbers are concerned, whether it be in money or individuals.


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his congratulations.

It is true, as was announced in the budget last Spring, that we have undertaken a restructuring and reinforcement of a variety of job-creation programs under the Commission of Employment and Immigration. That consolidation and reinforcement goes into effect today. In effect the old programs have been placed in four major new thrusts of Canada Works, of Career Access, of the Job Corps and LEAD, the Local Employment Assistance and Development Program. Each of those programs is focused on a different area of the job-creation problem. Under these programs we expect to spend between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion to create jobs in Canada this year and next.
I could go on in some detail to outline the purposes of the programs and the way in which they will operate, Madam Speaker. All Members of the House will receive, either today or tomorrow, a very extensive kit outlining the criteria and the application of those programs, and I urge them to study it with care.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker,
I have a question concerning farm finances and I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister will know that last Spring the Farm Credit Corporation asked for an additional $600 million to meet its demands. The Minister of Finance subsequently approved $250 million, which has virtually all been used up.
I should like to ask the Minister if he has made representations to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation to obtain some additional funding so that it will not simply become a lender of last resort.
September 12, 1983


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Farm Credit Corporation is a Crown corporation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I am glad to see that even the Leader of the Opposition says it is a good one. I believe it is the eleventh largest lending institution in Canada at the present time. This year will be its biggest ever for lending money to farmers, and 56 per cent of its funds will go to refinancing farmers from the private sector, from the banking institutions and other lending institutions. That is the greatest extent to which we have ever become involved in taking over the responsibilities for loans from these other lending institutions.
1 have received a full report on the Farm Credit Corporation but I have not had time to look at it. 1 will be glad to report to the Hon. Member tomorrow what the position is at the present time.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, the Minister knows that 1 am new to my position so 1 thank him very much for informing me that the Farm Credit Corporation is a Crown corporation. I was not aware of that before!


ROLE OF CORPORATION
Charles James Mayer: Let me repeat the question, Madam Speaker, and ask the Minister for a yes or no answer. Has he approached the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Farm Credit Corporation for permission for it to meet the needs of the farm community and not simply become a lender of last resort? Could I have a yes or no answer for the Minister?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member knows the lending policy of the Farm Credit Corporation. I am sure he has studied the legislation and knows that we are following the lines of the legislation as far as we can go.


An Hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Eugene Whelan: We are lending under the rules and guidelines set down by the legislation.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Minister will know that many Canadians are reported to be concerned about the rising incidence of extra billing and user-fees. As a participant in the debate on medicare, she is aware of the concern that many Canadians have about it. This is a concern which even the new Leader of the Opposition had to acknowledge finally. Even though he began
Presence in Gallery
his by-election campaign by saying that medicare was not an issue, he had finally to admit that it was, although he only came up with half a solution when he did so.
May I ask the Minister if we can expect a concrete proposal to be put before the House, before the provincial Ministers of Health and before the country, in whatever way she chooses? When are we going to get a concrete proposal? Could she give us some timetable showing when we might expect that the babbling will stop and the action will start?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes of course, Madam Speaker. It would have been impolite-and the Hon. Member would have been the first one to shout at me this afternoon-if 1 had not waited for the provincial Ministers who wanted me to go to Halifax last week to listen to their proposals. But they did not have any proposals to make and I am sorry to say that the meeting was quite a waste of time for many people involved in it. I really regret that they had not done any homework whatsoever. The Canadian Government's position paper was put out at the end of July and in it the position, which is well known by all Canadians, is expressed. The Bill which will finalize it is in the process of getting Cabinet approval right now.


INQUIRY OFTHE MINISTER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, one way that I suggested the Minister could indicate she is sincere about medicare would be to make a concrete proposal. Another way in which she could indicate she was sincere-


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member will ask the question, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: -would be to indicate-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: Question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will the Minister indicate to the House that she is serious about saving medicare-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF NOVA SCOTIA
Madam Speaker:: I think I ought to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our galleries of the Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Buchanan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 12, 1983
Oral Questions FINANCE


EFFECT OF LIQUOR TAX
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister will know from his travels that the price of liquor in the United States, even before he increased his tax by 13.3 per cent, was about half what it is in Canada. This has caused a lot of damage. Will the Minister tell us if he has conducted any studies as to the cost to his treasury caused by the fact that a great deal of liquor is purchased in the United States and brought into Canada either legally or illegally? What is the cost? Has he had any studies?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see that my colleague travelled in the United States this summer. I stayed in Canada.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You know, Madam Speaker, if the Minister had any responsibility for job creation, he would know that jobs could be created in the-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. I must remind the Hon. Member that he is not to comment on the answer of a minister. He must move to a supplementary question, if he has one.


IMPACT ON GOVERNMENT REVENUE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I would like to know if the Minister has any study to indicate how the revenue was damaged in totality by the increase in tax, either the excise tax or the loss in revenue from personal income taxes of people employed in the hospitality industry, or corporate taxes from businesses in that industry?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have two comments. First of all I would like to say it is rather ridiculous to ask if there exists a study on a tax increase which took place on September 1, and what the impacts were. Even the Hon. Member should realize that his question is preposterous.
As far as the other question is concerned, the Hon. Member knows how much money is raised by governments provincially and federally. I would like to remind my hon. friend that the largest share of revenues coming from taxation of liquor is taken by the provinces, not by the federal Government. Over the last ten years the share of taxation taken by the federal Government on cigarettes and on liquor has gone down, and has essentially been taken over by the provinces.
As far as the impact of such tax increases on consumption is concerned, it is very hard to assess because there are many factors intervening. Price is one, but also changes in consumer behaviour, switches to other forms of liquor consumption and, as far as cigarette consumption is concerned, as the Hon. Member knows, a number of Canadian have, thank God,
abandoned smoking, and I would be very happy if there were fewer and fewer Canadians abusing both cigarettes and liquor.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given the fact that there is a long parliamentary tradition requiring the Prime Minister to ensure there is nothing prohibitory in the background of any Member of Parliament or person whom he asks to become a member of his Cabinet, would the Prime Minister tell us whether, during the course of his announcement this summer, he inquired of the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's as to any reasons why he should not be a member of the Cabinet and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, when I propose appointing someone to the Cabinet, I do meet with that person and we have a conversation on various subjects, during which 1 assess my view of his or her ability to discharge the functions which I plan to impose on him or her. 1 had that conversation with the Hon. Member.


ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is reported in the press to have indicated that she only knew, about an hour or an hour and a half before she was sworn in, the fact that she was to become a member of the Cabinet. I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that this is an unprecedented short term of office for any Minister of the Crown, whether he does not feel there is a responsibility upon him to give us some reason why the resignation was accepted? And when is he going to appoint a replacement for the very important responsibility relating to mines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as to the remarks attributed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, they do indicate that until the shuffle of Cabinet is complete I am still in the process of choosing between different people. We on this side have the advantage of having so many qualified members to become Ministers that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is true that some of the decisions are made within days and some are made within hours of their effective appointments. Insofar as the particular Member is concerned, I understand he has the agreement of the House to rise on a question of privilege at 3.15 p.m., and the Hon. Member may receive some answers at that point.
September 12, 1983


THE ADMINISTRATION
Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, I rise to make a personal statement. I understand there have been consultations-


Mr. Nielsen:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I heard the introductory words of the Hon. Member which were that he was rising to make a statement. If it is not a question of privilege on which he is rising, I would suggest the Chair has an obligation to seek the unanimous consent of the House prior to the making of such a statement.


Madam Speaker:: I thought the Hon. Member was going to refer to the unanimous consent. I was just waiting for him to terminate his sentence. However, the Hon. Member knows, and I believe he has spoken to some of his colleagues, that he must ask for the unanimous consent of the House.


Mr. Pinard:: Yes, Madam Speaker. Earlier this morning I spoke to the Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and to the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), and asked them to give unanimous consent or find out whether it could be obtained, to allow the Hon. Member to make a personal statement. Their reaction was positive, provided that if the Member for Yukon concluded that the statement required a reply, he would be free to act accordingly. We do not think the statement will be political. We think it will be very short, and that it will be a statement of facts, and in the circumstances, he gave me to understand he would have no objection to a personal statement that was not a question of privilege, provided he would have a chance to reply if he found it necessary.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Government House Leader is quite correct in pointing out that he did consult with me with respect to the intentions of the Hon. Member in seeking to make a statement. The Government House Leader is also quite correct that I assured him that the Members of the Official Opposition would provide that consent since it was my view, considering the likely nature of the statement which is going to be made, that it affects that Hon. Member's personal privileges as a Member of the House, and on the basis that it is in substance a question of privilege, we do give that consent.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, my views were also sought, and on behalf of my colleagues I indicated that we would likewise give consent.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Statement-Mr. Simmons


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for his observations. When he interjected, I was about to say I was rising to make a personal statement rather than a statement on privilege because, in my view, it is a larger issue. However, the House can decide that when it has heard me. I was about to say, also, that I understand there have been consultations, as has since been confirmed, and if I do have unanimous consent I would like to proceed with my statement.


Madam Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, let me come, then, immediately to the point of my remarks. In so doing let me welcome the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and thank him and his caucus, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and his caucus, my good friend the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and our caucus, for affording me an opportunity to address an issue which will be of some interest to the House.
I propose to take the next few minutes of the time of the House to provide as full an explanation as possible of the circumstances surrounding my resignation from Cabinet on August 22.
In my letter of resignation I cited personal reasons for my decision. Subsequently, I stated publicly that, since my reasons were private, and without any public dimension at that time, I had elected to exercise a right which I believe is the unfettered right of every person in this country, whether a public office holder or not, and that is the right to discuss one's private matters with others, including the press, or not to do so.
If I may say so with reference to the press, just in passing, I believe the press has handled this issue with the persistence and, with two very glaring exceptions, with the responsibility which has always been its trademark.
I had good reason, Madam Speaker, for exercising that right as you will shortly see. I can tell you now that the private reasons for my resignation relate to a tax matter. I became aware subsequent to my appointment to Cabinet that a recommendation from the Department of National Revenue that a charge be preferred against me in relation to certain unreported income had not been dealt with by the Department of Justice. I shall return in a little while to the background of that recommendation. First let me deal with the matter solely in the context of my appointment to, and my resignation from, Cabinet.
On the evening prior to the day of my being sworn in as Minister of State for Mines I had an indication that an invitation to join Cabinet may be forthcoming from the Prime Minister. On the strength of that indication I proceeded to reflect on the implications of Cabinet membership on my

September 12, 1983
Statement-Mr. Simmons
personal affairs and on my family, and to discuss these matters with my wife who, by the way, had the good sense to be born several years ago on this particular day. In the process of that reflection, Madam Speaker, I reflected on the tax issue which had been ongoing for more than two years. Prior to that evening, Thursday, August 11, I had already concluded in consultation with my lawyer that I had reasonable grounds for believing that the legal aspect of the tax matter had been resolved in my favour.
Further, I noted that the indication earlier that evening of a possible invitation to join Cabinet was confirmation, and especially the invitation itself would be even more clearly so a confirmation, that the legal aspect of the tax matter had indeed been resolved. I reasoned that an invitation to join Cabinet would have been preceded by a security check which, among other things, would have revealed any outstanding legal aspects of the tax matter.
I now know that my reasoning was falsely based in two crucial aspects. First, there was no security check prior to my appointment to Cabinet. Secondly, the timeframe indicated to my accountant and me during a meeting with Revenue Canada officials was not adhered to and consequently the recommendation went from Revenue Canada to Justice considerably later than we were assured would be the case.
Hindsight is 20/20. I now realize all too graphically that I should have raised the tax issue with the Prime Minister during our August 12 meeting. I apologize to him and to the House for not having done so. I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that my reasons for not doing so were predicated neither on naive hope nor on treacherous calculation. Rather, as I have said, it was based on two premises, both of which appeared at the time to be eminently reasonable, both of which we now know to have been falsely based.
There were, Madam Speaker, in theory at least, options open to me other than offering to resign. I could have tried to continue in Cabinet; perhaps I would have survived a few days, a few weeks, perhaps indefinitely. Whether or not survival in Cabinet was theoretically possible is entirely beside the point. There is only one way to be in Cabinet-because you have legitimacy, because you have the full right to be there. When I was sworn in, I had that legitimacy. Once the circumstances which triggered my offer to resign arose, I no longer had unbridled legitimacy. Questions would arise. Should 1 be in Cabinet in those circumstances? If the answer to that question is no, maybe not, even maybe; if the answer to that question is anything but an unqualified yes, then my full legitimacy as a Cabinet Minister would have been abridged, circumscribed, emasculated, compromised.
Then, Madam Speaker, there is the issue of accountability; the public's right to know. I felt it would be wrong to continue in Cabinet once I had learned that the legal aspect of the tax matter was still outstanding, irrespective of whether a charge would ultimately be laid or not. Secondly, there was a fairly easy, pragmatic choice to be made: either to damage somewhat my credibility by resigning from Cabinet so ridiculously soon after my appointment, even if my reasons never became
public, or to ultimately destroy that credibility altogether by continuing to hold a position for which I now lacked unbridled legitimacy.
So you see, Madam Speaker, my decision to resign was an important one, yes; a decision with wrenching implications for me and others, yes; but for all that it was not an especially difficult decision for me to make and that is why I, within minutes of hearing of the Justice circumstance, requested the Secretary to the Cabinet to be in touch with the Prime Minister as quickly as possible and, on my behalf, offer him my resignation.
Those who know me well will, I am sure, place the judgments I have made in these matters in the perspective of others I have made over the years. If they do that, 1 will not be ill served by the resulting conclusions.
Let me return, then, Madam Speaker, to the issue of the Revenue Canada recommendation to Justice. The Department of Justice has now made a determination and 1 will say in a moment what that decision is. First, you will now see why it was neither prudent nor in my best interests to disclose at the time of my resignation from Cabinet the specific nature of my private reasons for doing so. It was important that I not do or say anything publicly which could have had the effect of interfering with the decision of Justice. Further, only if Justice were to decide to lay a charge would the reasons for my resignation take on a public dimension and 1 would then be governed by the public's right to know.
Just a comment in passing on the confidential status of personal income tax affairs of Canadians generally. The law clearly provides for that confidentiality. But, any law is only as good as the people who administer it. I can only express the hope that the "highly placed Government source" who reportedly discussed my private tax affairs in public has a more competent, less malicious understanding of his other job responsibilities and of the legal parameters within which he is supposed to be operating.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, the Department of Justice has made its decision. It has decided to lay a charge on the ground of intent to avoid the payment of taxes. This is, of course, not the place for me to state my views on the subject. I will have adequate opportunity to do that in the courts of the land, an opportunity of which I shall be taking full advantage. I am satisfied, and my lawyers are satisfied, that the evidence we shall lead before the courts will exonerate me. I have the profoundest confidence in the ultimate justice of our legal processes. I have every reason to believe that the Department of Justice will take the appropriate initiative almost immediately and I welcome an early opportunity to clear the air once and for all.
I came into public life over 20 years ago, and into elective politics 10 years ago, because I wanted to have a direct say in how things get done in my Province and in this country, because I believed I could contribute to that dialogue and in
September 12, 1983

some small way influence for the better the outcome. That continues to be my belief and my objective.
The tax issue will, without a doubt, occupy some of my attention in the days ahead. 1 do want you to know, however, Madam Speaker, that it is my full intention, subject only to the constraints of time, to continue to the best of my ability to represent the diverse and important interests of the people who sent me here.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his understanding and support in this matter. I thank the many friends who have come to my support, and through you, Madam Speaker, 1 would want to thank my colleagues in this House for allowing me this opportunity to provide this explanation.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has just completed a fairly lengthy statement which we will want to study with care and if it becomes necessary at all, we may wish to reply tomorrow.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Spadina (Mr. Heap), Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), was filed with me on June 29, 1983, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia.
If the House agrees, I would suggest that we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings.
Is that agreed?


Mr. Lewis:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the Chair's indulgence in this matter? During our consideration of when objections had to be filed to this matter, it was not clear to us whether it was within 10 or 12 parliamentary days or calendar days. Is the Chair now determining that whatever the time gap is should be calendar days or is it parliamentary days?


Madam Speaker:: I will have to check that. I do not have the Standing Order or the legislation at my fingertips. I will have to check that and inform the Hon. Member.


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 29, 1983, with the exception of three, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson), one of the petitions presented by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), and one presented by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) do not meet the requirements as to form.


Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, may 1 suggest that it will determine whether or not it is in order to accept those objections and have them printed? If it is not in order to accept them, you will require unanimous consent of the House and we will want to consider that before giving it.


Madam Speaker:: I had to assume that this was in order since it was referred to me by the Table. However, we can delay the printing of these objections until tomorrow when the matter is clarified.



INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an approved order in council appointing the Hon. Herbert Eser Gray, President of the Treasury Board, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of Public Works, the Hon. Yvon Pinard, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Hon. Roy MacLaren, Minister of State (Finance), to act with the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of Chapter H-9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970 intituled: An act respecting the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker:: Again it is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the Hon. Members for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield), Windsor West (Mr. Gray), Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), Laurier (Mr. Berger), Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters), Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain), Kitchener (Mr Lang), Guelph (Mr. Schroder) and Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimai'el) was filed with me on June 30, 1983. It is obviously within the delays. I do believe that it is parliamentary days. These were filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, Chapter E-2, R.S.C.
26998

September 12, 1983
Petitions
1972 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario.
We will delay that in case there is a doubt as to the delay which is permissible.



INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT PRESENTATION OF FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. I present it in Canada's two official languages.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



THE CABINET


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 46(2), I am tabling, in both official languages, copies of Order in Council, P.C. 1983-2782, designating the acting ministers.
In accordance with recent practice, I ask that this document be appended to today's Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to have this document appended to Hansardl


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The above document is appended to today's Hansard.]


PETITIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present to the House of Commons a petition which has been signed by some 138 Members of the Tamil Association in Ontario who have immigrated to Canada from Sri Lanka. These people are deeply concerned by the manner in which Canadian foreign aid is being used to discriminate against the members of the Tamil population who still live in Sri Lanka.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition signed by businessmen from Langley, B.C., in my riding of Fraser Valley West, expressing concern over the increasing number of violent actions against members of the RCMP in performing their duties.
The nature of the petition is to bring public attention to the importance of our law enforcement system, especially those individuals entrusted with peacekeeping who are coming under increasing violence from lawbreakers.
The purpose of the petition is to request stricter legislation against those who resist arrest or create violent disturbances in ours and other Canadian communities.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move the adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance and indeed grave national concern. As all Canadians are aware, the fishing industry is a major employer on our east and west coasts, and is in process of being paralysed following years of Government neglect.
The critical conditon of the industry is a matter of major national concern because of the one hundred thousand Canadians from coast to coast who depend directly or indirectly on the industry for their livelihood.
The attempted nationalization of the off-shore fishing industry of Newfoundland by the Government, aided by the Bank of Nova Scotia without the consent of the industry, has created further chaos.
The confusion brought about by precipitate government action following on years of neglect and indifference, has driven producers to the wall, deprived fishermen of their livelihood and threatened the survival of a major resource industry.
On the issue of urgency, it is quite clear that the Government has no intention of providing an opportunity to come to grips with this far-reaching issue in a meaningful way.
The Canadian fishing industry is not prepared to accept another long-distance solution imposed by Ottawa, which simply means more centralization, Government intervention, and the takeover by the state of the industry.
Unless we act immediately, there will not be a fishing industry left in this country.
September 12, 1983


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that in deciding whether a motion to adjourn to discuss this matter is in order, the Chair must decide whether the matter constitutes a genuine emergency which is so urgent that it must be considered this very day. Beauchesne states that the matter:
-must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
While this clearly is an important matter, the Hon. Member has not convinced me that it meets the exacting standard I have just quoted.
Many Speakers in the past have considered the problem of continuing as opposed to acute problems. The conclusion has, most often, been that however grave an ongoing situation may be, because of its continuing nature the House will have other opportunities to debate it. I refer the Hon. Member to the many citations in this regard.
1 just want to note for Members that the manner in which the request for debate was written was much closer to a motion of non-confidence in the Government and it makes it increasingly difficult for the Chair to focus on that particular Standing Order.
I am satisfied that such is the case and therefore 1 must reluctantly find that this matter does not satisfy the requirements of the Standing Order and I cannot accept the Hon. Member's request to discuss this matter under Standing Order 30.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


B. Keith Penner: that the first report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 783, 4113, 4629, 4754, 4785, 4795, 4796, 4805, 4829, 4848, 4853, 4856, 4858, 4866, 4868,
Order Paper Questions
4890, 4908, 4924, 4930, 4934, 4936, 4958, 4965, 4967, 4979, 4983 and 4986.


Mr. Corbett: 1.	In the 1978-79 fiscal year, was legal action instituted by the Department of Justice under the Income Tax Act against incorporated companies and, if so (a) how many companies were involved (b) how many were taken to court (c) of those not taken to court, how many settlements were made monetarily favourable to the Crown, excluding costs?
2.	How many of the total actions instituted by the Department were against small businesses as defined by the Small Businesses Loans Act (FDBD) and how many were taken to court?
3.	Of the total number of cases settled without court action, how many involved small businesses and how many were settled monetarily favourable to the Crown, excluding costs?
4.	How many registered partnerships was legal action instituted against by the Department and how many involved doctors, lawyers and accountants?
5.	What is the average cost to the Crown of litigation instituted under the Income Tax Act by the Department against small businesses which (a) goes to court (b) does not go to court?
6.	What was the total cost of litigation instituted by the Department under the Income Tax Act against (a) incorporated companies (b) partnerships, in the
1978-79 fiscal year?
7.	What was the total amount of revenue realized by the Crown as a result of legal action instituted by the Department against (a) incorporated companies (b) partnerships, in the 1978-79 fiscal year and of that realized from incorporated companies, what amount would be attributed to small businesses?
8.	What is the average estimated cost to a small business to defend itself against an action instituted by the Department under the Income Tax Act?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: 1 to
8. The Department of Justice institutes legal action against taxpayers, on behalf of the Department of National Revenue, in respect of the collection of unpaid taxes and the prosecution of tax evasion. The substantial number of cases of tax litigation, however, arise from appeals filed by taxpayers to the Tax Review Board and Federal Court of Canada against decisions made by the Department of National Revenue as to the assessment of income tax payable.
While records of actions and appeals are maintained, they are not kept in the manner posed by the question and the information requested could not be obtained without incurring prohibitive costs and would still be quite incomplete.
See also question No. 2,767 answered January 26, 1982.


Mr. Cossitt: Are parts for farm machinery, ordered by Canadian farmers from the U.S. because such parts were not made nor readily available in Canada, held up by customs officials on arrival at the border for periods of up to and including three weeks and, if so (a) for what reason and is one reason that Canada Customs stated they must first determine that the parts were not to be used for purposes other than agricultural before releasing them (b) does the Government realise that this causes Canadian farmers, particularly those in Eastern Canada, inconvenience and the loss of use of a piece of machinery (c) will the government take immediate steps to alter the process and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, on what date?

September 12, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Pierre Bussières: (a),
(b)	and (c). The Department is not aware of any delays or reasons for delays in releasing parts for farm machinery. Canada Customs musts first determine that parts for farm machinery are not to be used for purposes other than agricultural before releasing them. In this regard, the importer of record must satisfy customs officials at time of entry that the parts are for use on farm machinery.
It should be mentioned, however, that the importer is not always the end-user. Satisfactory evidence, therefore, must be submitted at time of entry in the form of end-use certificates, purchase orders, or similar documentation to substantiate that the parts are for farm machinery. When an importer is without the proper customs forms at time of importation, he can avail himself of the immediate release procedure (bond required) which is normally used when the importation is of commercial nature (i.e. goods for resale). In cases when the importer of record is the farmer and he can satisfy the customs official that the part is for his farm machinery, the goods are documented on a casual import entry and released immediately.
When the legislation stipulates that the parts imported must be for use on farm machinery the Department must ensure that this requirement is met.
The present practice of obtaining satisfactory evidence at time of entry is the best method of ensuring that the parts imported are for farm machinery.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a firm hired on behalf of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to conduct a survey of vacation travel by Canadians and, if so (a) did the survey look at both domestic and international travel (b) what were the results (c) to what use will the results be put (d) what amount did the study cost?


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Yes, Traveldata International of Toronto, (a) Yes. (b) Marginal decrease in foreign travel by Canadians and a small increase in domestic travel in 1981. (c) The results of this study will be used in developing marketing strategies to promote the tourism plant in Canada by the Canadian Government Office of Tourism. Other users are the departments responsible for tourism in the Provinces/Territories, and the Tourism Industry in general, (d) $100,000.


Mr. Mazankowski: Was a study done on behalf of the Department of Transport to examine the development potential for the 150-seat new technology aircraft for the 1990s and, if so (a) who performed the study and at what cost (b) what was the purpose (c) what were the major conclusions and recommendations (d) what steps has the government taken to implement the recommendations?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In so
far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: No.
(a)	The Department, assisted by the Development Centre of the Department of Transport and Peat Marwick consulting firm, is preparing a study at an estimated cost of $66,000. (b),
(c)	and (d) In the process of evaluating the market for this class of aircraft, the Department is working with Canadian industry and negotiating with leading manufacturers of commercial aircraft. No recommendations have been made as the evaluation is still incomplete.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Which Department of Transport airports in the Atlantic Provinces are equipped with an indoor entry way to aircraft to protect passengers from severe cold and inclement weather and which airports are not so equipped?
2.	What is the criterion used for determining the need for installation of indoor entry ways to aircraft?
3.	Are the Atlantic Provinces discriminated against in this regard and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1.	in the Atlantic Provinces only two airports, Halifax and St. John's, are equipped with indoor entry ways to aircraft called "passenger loading bridges".
The following Transport Canada airports do not have passenger loading bridges: Charlottetown, Churchill Falls, Deer lake, Fredericton, Gander Int'l, Moncton, Saint John, N.B., St. Anthony, Stephenville, Sydney, Wabush and Yarmouth.
2.	Transport Canada policy is that the Department may provide a passenger loading bridge where there exists an annual passenger volume of 250,000 or more at an airport, and, in addition, at least 125,000 passengers from loading bridge compatible aircraft, enplaning and deplaning annually at the aircraft gate in question.
Air carriers are entitled to install their own loading bridges where an air carrier normally utilizes a particular aircraft gate for at least 35 per cent of the operational day at the airport, or for the busiest 16 hours of airport operation.
3.	The Atlantic Provinces are not discriminated against in the national application of this policy.


Mr. Howie: On (a) January 1, 1981 (b) January 1, 1982 (c) January 1, 1983 (d) the first day of the month in which this question is answered, how many (i) permanent (ii) casual inside workers were employed by the Fredericton, New Brunswick central mail sorting depot?


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Canada Post Corporation Informs me as follows:
September 12, 1983

Part (a) January I, 1981: Part (b) January 1, 1982: Part (c) January 1, 1983: Part (d) April 1, 1983:
60 full time indeterminate 11 part time indeterminate
67 full time indeterminate 5 part time indeterminate
67 full time indeterminate 4 part time indeterminate
67 full time indeterminate 4 part time indeterminate
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I. Yes. Charges are still under examination by the Public Service Commission of Canada.
2.	Yes. Mr. Hope was utilized as a technical adviser. He is the only person with the technical competence and knowledge of fire prevention relative to the federal service at the level of the position.


Mr. Howie: On (a) December 1, 1981 (b) December 1, 1982 (c) the first day of the month in which this question is answered, how many (i) permanent (ii) casual letter carriers were employed by the Canada Post Corporation in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


David Berger: The Canada Post Corporation informs me as follows:
Part (a) December 1, 1981:	48 full time indeterminate
2 part time indeterminate
Part (b) December 1, 1982:	48 full time indeterminate
1 part lime indeterminate
Part (c) April 1, 1983:	48 full time indeterminate
1 part time indeterminate


Mr. Murta: With reference to travel expenses incurred by the CBC Agriculture and Resource Liaison Officer (a) has there been any reduction in travel expenses for this Officer (b) what amount was spent on his travel over the past five fiscal years?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b) It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530 answered November 6, 1975.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was there recently an investigation into the alleged harassment of staff by the former Fire Commissioner of Canada, Mr. Alex Hope, and, if so, what was the outcome of the investigation?
2.	Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to use the services of Mr. Hope as an advisor on the competition being held for the job of Fire Commissioner although there are among the candidates for that competition, persons who have brought charges of harassment against the former Fire Commissioner?


Mr. Howie: Since April I, 1980, what amount was (a) loaned (b) granted for new housing units for native Indian persons in New Brunswick?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: (a) Approximately $3.3 million, (b) Nil.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many New Brunswick households applied for grants under the Canadian Home Insulation Program in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983?
2.	How many of the grant applications arc not settled to date?
3.	How many families, in total, are presently waiting for the applications for CHIP grants to be settled?


Roméo LeBlanc: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) 8,436, (b) 15,439, (c) As of April 27; 2,972.
2.	As of April 27 there were 3,297 applications in process.
3.	Same as 2, above.


Mr. Howie: Since April I, 1980, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with poultry production?


Eugene Whelan: There has not been any direct financial assistance given under the Agricultural Stabilization Board Programs. New Brunswick is a member of the National Marketing Agencies for poultry products, eggs, chickens and turkeys. These supply managed programs are entirely self-supporting and do not receive any federal moneys for their operations.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year (a) 1980-81 (b) 1981-82 (c) 1982-83, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with fruit farming?


Eugene Whelan: Assistance paid to farmers in New Brunswick for fruit farming is as follows:

September 12, 1983
Order Paper Questions			
(a) 1980-81	(b) 1981-82	(C) 1982-83Crop Insurance Program	$ 14,329	$ 19,376	$ 20,441Agricultural Development Subsidiary Agreement II	274,512	225,664	184,014Advance Payments for Crops Program	5,939South East New Brunswick Program	3,596Agricultural Stabilization Board	-	70,189	16,489$288,841	$315,229	$230,479


Mr. Beatty: L Is the Department of Communications considering requiring that customer-owned equipment attached to the telephone network be labeled as having been approved under Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee standards?
2.	Is the Government considering a charge of $1 per telephone for the use of the label and. if so, for what reason?
3.	What amount per year might be derived from such a program and in what way would that amount be used?
4.	Could such a program result in a cost of up to four or five dollars per telephone to consumers?


Francis Fox: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	Customer-owned equipment approved under the Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee standards requires a DOC label under the Terminal Attachment Program of the Department. This program commenced April, 1976.
2.	A fee of $1 per label for terminal equipment has been in effect since April 1976 to recover a portion of the costs of the Terminal Attachment Program. Under the CRTC Telecom Decision 82-14 of November 23, 1982 all telephone sets manufactured after June 1, 1983 will have to be DOC certified and bear a DOC label. In view of the increased volume of the telephone sets which will have to bear DOC labels, the label fee applicable to telephone sets has been reduced to 20 cents effective May 30, 1983.
3.	The total revenues from the Terminal Attachment Program approximate $300,000 per year. These revenues are intended to cover costs for the services of technical assessment, testing certification and labels for manufacturers and suppliers of terminal equipment attached to the telephone networks of federally regulated carriers.
4.	The cost to the manufacturers will be 20 cents per label for telephone sets.
Any additional cost to the manufacturer is the cost associated with attaching the label to the telephone which is estimated to the negligible, with efficient organization and application procedures. The final cost to the consumer is an all inclusive
one which will depend on production volumes and market forces.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	How many hours of closed-captioned programming will be (a) produced (b) exhibited by the (i) French (ii) English language service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?
2.	Is the CBC employing Canadian or foreign technology for its closed-captioning?
3.	Is the CBC employing Telidon technology for its closed-captioning and (a) if so, what equipment is being used (b) if not, for what reason?
4.	How many machines for the insertion of closed-captioning in the broadcast signal does the CBC own?
5.	When the CBC has programming closed-captioned, does it do the work itself or docs it contract to have the work done by others and, if by others, by whom is the work done?
6.	What amount will the CBC spend in the fiscal year 1983-84 on closed-captioning for (a) purchasing programs (b) captioning programs (c) other related expenses?
7.	Does the CBC have any plans to close-caption (a) its news and public affairs programs (b) House of Commons broadcasts and, if so, what are such plans?
8.	Does the CBC plan to take new initiatives in 1983 to provide programming for the hearing impaired and, if so, what are such initiatives?
9.	Does the CBC feel it has a special responsibility to provide programs to the hearing impaired?


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) and (b) Approximately 250 hours of Canadian closed captioned programming in each language will be broadcast annually by the CBC. The captions for these CBC and other Canadian-produced programs will be prepared by the Canadian Captioning Development Agency (CCDA). U.S. programs scheduled for telecast on the CBC English network will also be presented with closed captions when accompanying captioning is available from the U.S. supplier.
2.	The CBC has been using technology developed in the United States for inserting captions in Line 21 of the vertical blanking interval of the television signal. Encoding equipment for this purpose was installed to enable captioning of Canadian programs to become a reality in Canada in 1981, the International Year of Disabled Persons. American-made encoders were purchased since, at that time, there were no Canadian-made encoders compatible with the Sears TeleCaption Adapter, which was the only available decoder. The CBC is now acquiring Canadian encoding equipment which has since been developed. It will enable captions to be decoded in the home with the same decoding device. This Canadian equipment is designed to complement that used by the Canadian Captioning Development Agency (CCDA).
3.	The CBC intends to transcode its existing Line 21 captions to Lines 15 and 16 to make captioning an integral part of its Project IRIS teletext service, which employs Telidon technology. The Canadian equipment mentioned in No. 2 above is being ordered from a leading manufacturer of Telidon products for the insertion of CCDA captions on Line 21 and it
September 12, 1983

is designed with the potential for future insertion of captions on Lines 15 and 16 also. Future funding of Project IRIS and availability of teletext decoders at reasonable cost to the hearing-impaired will determine when teletext captioning would be practicable.
4.	Three.
5.	Closed captioning of CBC programs is done by the Canadian Captioning Development Agency (CCDA) under contract.
6.	(a) In 1983-84, it is estimated that some $15,000 will be spent on closed captioning originally done in the United States for American programming purchased by the CBC. (b) CBC expenditures in 1983-84 for closed captioning of Canadian programming will amount to approximately $1,200,000. (c) Related expenses will comprise approximately $300,000, of which some two-thirds has been allocated to cover the onetime capital cost of captioning equipment.
7.	(a) The CBC plans to include closed captions with news and public affairs programs as soon as possible. Some public affairs programs have been captioned during the past year, but many of these, like news, are not available in time for captioning to be done prior to broadcast. The CBC considers the addition of closed-captioned news and public affairs to be a high priority objective. Television newsroom equipment for the insertion of news captions is currently being evaluated by the CBC. It is hoped that this evaluation will prove sufficiently promising to permit some closed captioning of news to be undertaken experimentally in 1983-84. The Canadian Captioning Development Agency (CCDA) is also interestred in live, or real-time, captioning, (b) The House of Commons Question Period is currently being presented with sign language interpretation. Captioning will be introduced when a satisfactory method of real-time captioning has been developed.
8.	Yes, as outlined in the reply to 7 (a) above.
9.	Yes. The CBC believes that hearing-impaired viewers should have access to the same programs that hearing viewers enjoy to the extent that technology and resources can reasonably be expected to make them accessible.


Mr. Blackburn: 1.	With respect to Canada Pension Plan disability applications (a) how many disability applications were made (b) how many disability requests were approved since the inception of the Plan?
2.	For each year since the Plan has been in existence, from the time of the first application to the date of final approval or rejection, what was the average length of time for the applications to be processed?


Mr. Jim Schroder (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) Approximately 366,000 applications in total have been made for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits which first became payable in 1970. The Canada Pension Plan came into effect in 1966 but no disability benefits were payable until contributors had the opportunity of
Order Paper Questions
making contributions for five years, hence no disability benefit was payable prior to 1970. (b) The approximate number of these applications approved for payment is 255,000.
2. The statistics to indicate the length of time required to process a Canada Pension Plan disability application, from the time of receipt of the application to the time of approval or rejection, are available from 1979 only.
Since 1979 the average processing time for Canada Pension Plan disability applications in each year is listed below:
Number of days from receipt of application Fiscal Year	to date of first payment
1979-	1980	-	142	days1980-	1981	-	146	days1981-	1982	-	121	days1982-	1983	-	105	days
In addition, it should be noted that 50 per cent of the Canada Pension Plan applications put into pay in March, 1983 took less than 84 days from the time of application to the time of first payment. For benefits approved in April, 1983, 50 per cent took less than 80 days for the same process.


Ms. McDonald: 1.	For each year since 1970, what were the number of charges, convictions and types of sentences by sex and status (i.e. prostitute or customer) both on a national basis and for major cities under Sections 171, 173, 175, 176, 179, 181, 182, 183, 193, 194 and 195 of the Criminal Code?
2.	(a) What are all the details of the internal monitoring of Bill C-127 of the First Session of the 32nd Parliament by the Department of Justice (b) arc there any women's groups involved in the monitoring and, if so, which ones?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: 1. Statistics do not exist in the form requested.
2. (a) The Department of Justice is proposing to maintain a close federal and provincial co-operation with respect to the evaluation of the impact of Bill C-127. Provincial Deputy Ministers responsible for Criminal Justice will soon be contacted to seek their comments and suggestions on a proposed evaluation plan.
The proposed evaluation would seek to determine the impact of Bill C-127. More specifically, it would ask:
1.	Is the new law (including its evidentiary provisions) resulting in the improvements it was designed to promote? Are more victims reporting offences, more charges made, more convictions registered? Are trials less onerous for victims? Have attitudes changed? Can the law be administered and enforced effectively?
2.	Do major interest groups, the victims, the personnel of the criminal justice system institutions consider that the amendments balance the interests of the accused and the victims? Is there evidence to substantiate their views?
The details of the study will be developed in consultation with the parties involved. A tentative initial proposal includes four parts: (i) a longitudinal study of cases from report to police until disposition, including interviews with key actors;

September 12, 1983
Order Paper Questions
(ii) a statistical comparison of relevant criminal justice system activity before and after passage of Bill C-127; (iii) a survey of Crown prosecutors; and (iv) a survey of sexual assault centers.
(b)	The evaluation strategy provides for consultation with women's groups in general, and more specifically with groups associated with sexual assault centers in Canada. Details of this consultation have not yet been determined.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Committee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


James Duncan Schroder: 1. Yes, per Section 117 of the Canada Pension Plan.
(a)	(b)(1)	<b)(ii)	(c)*Members as of May 17, 1983	Occupational Representation	Current Appointment	Remuneration to Date During Current AppointmentArthur, John	Retired Represents public at large	Appt'd: Mar/83 Expires: Dec/85	As of May 17, 1983, no claims submitted yet.Baldwin, Robert (Chairman)	Labour Representative	Appt'd: Apr/82 Expires: Dec/83	$1,394.50Broad, Anne	Retired Represents public at large	Appt'd: Jan/82 Expires: Dec/84	$3,018.05De'Ath, Joan	Labour Representative	Appt'd: Apr/82 Expires: Dec/84	$4,272.66Duludc, Louise	Self-Employed Lawyer	Appt'd: Mar/82 Expires: Dec/84	$1,120.35Granger, Robert	Senior Executive Private Industry	Appt'd: Mar/83 Expires: Dec/85	As of May 17, 1983, no claims submitted yet.Hogan, William	Self-Employed Industrial Safety	Appt'd: Mar/82 Expires: Dec/83	$2,851.55MacDonnell, Heywood Chartered Accountant	Appt'd: Oct/82 Expires: Dec/85	As of May 17, 1983, no claims submitted yet.McCarthy, John	Retired Represents public at large	Appt'd: Apr/82 Expires: Dec/83	$1,144.13Patenaude, Nicol	Self-Employed Doctor	Appt'd: Mar/82 Expires: Dec/84	$2,177.58Thoem, Valerie	Self-Employed Management Consultant	Appt'd: Apr/82 Expires: Dec/83	$2,281.72Unsworth, George	Chartered Accountant Appt'd: Mar/82 Expires: Dec/84	$2,970.35
* Members are paid a per diem allowance (presently $125 and $175 for members and Chair respectively) for each day they attend Committee meetings or attend to matters related to Committee business. In addition, members are reimbursed for travel and living expenses incurred in the course of Committee business, in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. The amounts shown in the above list include both the per diem payments and the travel and living expense reimbursements.
(d)	All costs associated with the administration of Advisory Committee activities consistent with the mandate set down in Section 117 of the Canada Pension Plan are defrayed by the federal government.
2. (a) Terms of reference as per Section 117(5) and (6) of the Canada Pension Plan state:
(5)	It is the duty of the Advisory Committee to review from time to time, as it deems appropriate or advisable, the operation of this Act, the state of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund and the adequacy of coverage and benefits under this Act, and to report to the Minister the results of such review.
(6)	The Committee shall each year prepare a report to the Minister on its activities during the immediately preceding year, and a copy of such report shall be included in the annual report of the Minister under section 118.R.S., c. C-5, s. 117; 1974-75-76, c. 4, s. 53; 1976-77, c. 36, s. 25.
(b)	In the fiscal year 1982-83, the Advisory Committee considered: the level of and eligibility requirements for CPP disability benefits; current and future funding provisions, investment policy and contribution rate under the CPP; the provision of benefits to homemakers under the CCP; and the role CPP retirement benefits should play in the overall retirement income system.
(c)	In 1982-83 the full Committee met twice and there were five Sub-committee meetings. Section 117(3) of the Canada Pension Plan stipulates that the Advisory Committee shall meet at least once a year in the city of Ottawa, and at such other times and places as it deems necessary in order to carry out its duties.
(d)	Per Section 117(5) of the Canada Pension Plan, the Advisory Committee submits its reports to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the fiscal year 1982-83, the Minister made public the Advisory Committee's report entitled Proposed Changes to Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits.


Mr. Benjamin: Did VIA Rail Canada Inc. receive notice from customers, agents or employees about passengers having to stand on trains running between Capreol and Hornepayne and, if so, what action is the company planning to provide suitable accommodation to meet the needs of passengers?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc. advises as follows:
VIA has operated one baggage/dormitory coach and one cafe coach (72 seats) on trains No 7 and 8 and this capacity has been sufficient to handle the demand most of the time. Since the beginning of March, 1983, one additional coach (76 seats) has been added to trains 7 and 8 on eight different
September 12, 1983

occasions. Standees were reported on a few occasions, mostly during weekends.
In order to meet additional demand during the summer one extra coach (76 seats) will be added between Capreol and Hornepayne for the period shown below:
Train No. 7: On Thursday and Saturday from June 1 to June 30, then on Thursday, Saturday and Tuesday from July 2 to September 5.
Train No. 8: On Friday and Sunday from June 2 to July 1, then on Friday, Sunday and Wednesday from July 13 to September 6.


Mr. Murphy: |. What amount did the government and the Canadian National Railways spend on the CNR line to Churchill during each of the past five years?
2.	What expenditures are being planned for each of the next five years?
3.	Have studies been done by the Canadian National Railways and the Government on the Churchill rail line over the past five years and, if so, what were such studies?
4.	Are studies being planned for each of the next five years and, if so, what are such studies?
5.	Have studies been done or are studies being planned with respect to the use of hopper cars on the Churchill line and, if so, what were/are such studies?


Jesse Philip Flis: The management of Canadian National Railways and Transport Canada advise as follows:
1. Under the Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation Program, expenditures by the federal Government to the end of March, 1983 on Canadian National's Herchmer Subdivision totalled approximately $29.4 million. Expenditures during the past five years were as follows:
Gov't, fiscal year	Amount $(000)
1977/78/79	2,984
1979/80	6,669
1980/81	5,312
1981/82	5,825
1982/83	8,588
A further $763,000 is planned in 1983 under the current 1983/84 work program to cover the cost of surfacing after rail relay and to install ties in Churchill Yard. Since the inception of the Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation Program, Canadian National has restricted its expenditures on the Herchmer Subdivision to maintenance accounts and has not made capital outlays.
2. The current rehabilitation agreement between Canadian National and the federal Government expires on March 31, 1984. New funds will be necessary to cover expenditures for items such as bridge rebuilding as well as sink hole and grade stabilization on the Herchmer Subdivision. Canadian National has been instructed by Transport Canada to prepare an integrated multi-year rehabilitation work program jointly with CP Rail for submission during the summer of 1983.
Order Paper Questions
3 and 4. Yes. Concurrent with Prairie Branch Line Rehabilitation work on the Herchmer Subdivision, Canadian National entered into a contract with EBA Engineering Consultants to carry out embankment stabilization research on the line. The consultant's final report, submitted to Canadian National in September, 1982, shows promise, but it has not been resolved what action may be appropriate nor whether provisions will be made in future Federal Government Rehabilitation Programs to provide for continuing or new restoration procedures.
CN is working closely with Transport Canada on this matter and is recommending that at least one more season of monitoring existing test sites be carried out. It appears that the installation of heat pipes would help to control thaw settlement problems in the short term. However, there are too many unknowns with no technical assurance of long-term effectiveness to support the risk of this type of investment at present.
Another major concern is that the unstable subgrade problem is not restricted to the Herchmer Subdivision but also extends south beyond Gillam. There is no point in undertaking stabilization of the Herchmer Subdivision while neglecting the Thicket Subdivision.
5.	Yes. The continued instability of the Herchmer and Thicket Subdivisions makes it impossible to guarantee that Canadian National will be able to handle hopper cars on the line to Churchill even with 100 lb. rail.
Transport Canada recently initiated a proposal whereby CN would co-operate with National Steel Car Corporation regarding the possibility of designing a hopper car with a lower centre of gravity and weight carrying capacity suitable for use on the Churchill line and light steel branch lines.
CN is also currently examining programs to extend the existing life of the box car fleet and/or replace the existing fleet with like equipment. Included in this type of program is, for example, the possibility of retrofitting journal brasses to roller bearings.


Mr. Fennell: Since its inception, by year, what amount of Government assistance, special programs and/or grants were given to the Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Limited?


Roméo LeBlanc: The
Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Limited was incorporated April 9, 1981. Total funds advanced are as follows:
Fiscal Year	(5000's)
1981-	82	11,3011982-	83	9,9171983-	84	2,214
September 12, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In ihe past five years, did the Government contribute financial assistance or guarantees for any ski resorts in Quebec and, if so, what amount was given or loaned, to whom and under what conditions of repayment?
2.	(a) Was a request made for government financial assistance for the ski resort on Rigaud Mountain in Quebec (b) was the request denied and, if so, for what reason?


Edward C. Lumley: 1. In
the past five years, the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Industry Trade and Commerce have not allowed Quebec ski resorts any loan guarantees. The Departments have, however, granted financial assistance for five projects in the form of non-repayable subsidies as follows:


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the National Research Council of Canada and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Council?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows:
1. Pursuant to the National Research Council Act (Section 5(1)) the Council consists of a President and not more than 2 other members to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
Members of the National Research Council of Canada
Mont Tremblant (1980-81-82) through the Subsidiary Agreement on Tourism Development	$8,000,000	
Thetford Ski Club (1982-83) Special employment-related initiative	$	311,000Mont Fortin Ski Club Inc. (1983-84) Special employment-related initiative	$	300,000Chikanki Ski Resort (1982-83) Special employment-related initiative	$	20,500Petite Riviere Saint-Fran?ois (1982-83) For an audio-visual presentation of the region	$	23,000
2. (a) No. (b) Not applicable.
Dr. L. Kerwin President
National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0R6
Dr. R. E. Bell
Rutherford Professor of Physics McGill University 3600 University Street Montreal, Quebec. H3A 2T8
Dr. A. Benedek President
Zenon Environmental Inc.
845 Harrington Court Burlington, Ontario. L7N 3P3
Mr. W. A. Cumming Executive Vice-President National Research Council of Canada Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0R6
Dr. A. Cabana Dean
Faculty of Science Sherbrooke University Sherbrooke, Quebec. JIK 2R1
Miss J. Clark Ogilvy & Renault 1981 McGill College Avenue Montreal, Quebec. H3A 30
Dr. B. M. Craig Director
Prairie Regional Laboratory National Research Council of Canada 110 Gymnasium Road, U Campus Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. S7N 0W9
Dr. J. D. Keys Philip A. Lapp Limited 14A Hazelton Avenue Toronto, Ontario. M5R 2E2


Mrs. Cossitt: Does the National Research Council of Canada publish a grey and black information folder to enclose press releases and information packages and, if so (a) what is the cost per year of publishing the folder (b) what is the purpose of enclosing these documents in a folder of this type (c) what is the name and job designation of the highest official authorizing the publication (d) what is the name of the firm that prints the folder?
Mr. R. De Coster President
Societe d'assurance-depots du Canada 2172 Parc Bourbonniere Sillery, Quebec. GIT 1B4
Dr. D. J. Doyle
President
Doyle Tech Corp.
Suite 202
4019 Carling Avenue Kanata, Ontario. K2K 2A3
Dr. F.E.F. Dunford
Associate Professor
Faculty of Administrative Studies
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba. R3T 2N2


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the answer is as follows: Yes.
(a) Approximately $160 per year, (b) These folders are designed to enclose information packages to facilitate their retention in one place and are used for prospective employees. On one recent occasion they were used for a group of press releases pertaining to announcements of Special Recovery Capital Projects for the National Research Council, (c) Mr. Ray Dolan, Chief, Personnel Services Branch, (d) Buchanan Printers, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Mr. D. A. Eisenhauer President
Atlantic Bridge Co. Limited 81 Tannery Road P.O. Box 1120
Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. BOJ 2C0
Dr. U. M. Franklin Professor
Department of Metallurgy and Materials Science
University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1A4
Mr. J. G. Fredette V ice-president-Quebec Monenco P.O. Box 6088
Montreal, Quebec. H3C 3Z8
Dr. P. A. Larkin Professor
Institute of Animal Resource Ecology University of British Columbia 2204 Main Mall
Vancouver, British Columbia. V6T 1W5
Dr. G. LeBlanc Associate Professor Department of Chemistry University of Moncton Moncton, New Brunswick. El A 3E9
Dr. E. J. LeRoux Assistant Deputy Minister Research Branch Agriculture Canada Sir John Carling Building 930 Carling Avenue, Room 761 Ottawa, Ontario. K1A 0C5
Dr. J. C. Madden President
Microtel Pacific Research Limited 8999 Nelson Way
Burnaby, British Columbia. V5A 4B5
Dr. P. M. Maher Dean
Faculty of Management University of Calgary 2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta. T2N 1N4
Mr. M. P. Smith
Assistant General Manager-Credit Scotiabank
The Bank of Nova Scotia Toronto Regional Office 44 King Street West Toronto, Ontario. M5H 1H1
September 12, 1983

2. Chairperson, The President is the Chairperson for the Council and does not receive compensation or benefits for this role.
Directors. Section 12 of the National Research Council states:
"12. (1) The members of the Council, other than the President, shall serve without remuneration, but each such member is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and other expenses incurred by him while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties under this Act.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a member of the Council other than the President may, for any period during which he performs with the approval of the Council any duties on behalf of the Council in addition to his ordinary duties as a member thereof, be paid such remuneration therefor as may be authorized by the Council. R.S., c. N-14, s. 12; 1976-77, c. 24, s. 58."
The current rate of remuneration under this clause is $200 per day.
President. Order in Council appointee in a salary range equivalent to DM-1, effective July 1, 1982; $75,360 to $88,670.
Vice-presidents. Salary range July 1, 1982; $58,724 to $74,200.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Film Development Corporation and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Corporation?


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows:
1. CFDC Board Members
Mr. Ed Prevost President &
Chief Executive Officer,
La Brasserie O'Keefe,
990 Notrc-Dame West, Montreal, Quebec H3C 1K2
Mr. James De B. Domville, Government Film Commissioner & Chairman of the National Film Board,
P.O. Box 6100,
Station "A",
3155 Cote de Liesse,
Montreal, Quebec H3C3H5
Mr. Claude Morin,
Produits Petro Canada,
Public Affairs,
1 Place Ville Marie,
18th Floor,
Montreal, Quebec H3B4A9
appointed Chairman on April 1, 1983 for five years
ex officio January 8, 1979 for five years
appointed member on August 1, 1980 for 5 years
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Claude Bruneau, Corporation du Groupe la Laurentienne,
Executive Vice-President,
507	Place d'Armes,
Montreal, Quebec H2Y 2W8
Mr. David S.R. Leighton, Chairman of the Board, Nabisco Brand Ltd.,
1123 Riverdale Avenue S.W., Calgary, Alberta T2S 0Y9
Mrs. Muriel Sherrin,
Director,
Toronto International Festival,
508	Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5V 2B3
appointed member on June 18, 1981 for five years
appointed member on July 16, 1981 for five years
appointed member on December 2, 1982 for five years
One vacancy
2. In the case of the Chairman, the Honorarium has been fixed by the Privy Council (P.C. 1982-1411) at $325 per day for activities related to CFDC Board matters.
In the case of the other Board members, with the exception of the Government Film Commissioner who does not receive any fee, honorariums are fixed by By-Law no 1 of the Corporation, approved by the Minister of Communications on March 27, 1982. This fee is $225 per day for activities related to CFDC Board matters. The Council members are reimbursed for any reasonable travel expenses.
The CFDC has an Executive Director who is responsible for the Corporation's operations, rather than an operational president or vice-presidents. The Executive Director receives a salary at the "GIC 7" level, set by the Privy Council (P.C. 1982-4056).


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What is the composition of the Board of Directors of the Canada Council and what is the address and occupation of each individual?
2.	What is the compensation and what are all the benefits paid to the chairperson, directors, president and vice-presidents of the Council?


Francis Fox: I am
advised by the Canada Council as follows:
1.	See list below. (It is assumed that this question refers to the Chairman and members of the Canada Council, since there is in law and usage no "Board of Directors" and no "President" or "Vice-presidents").
2.	(a) Compensation: (i) Chairman, and Vice-Chairman acting for the Chairman: an honorarium of $325 per day while on Council business; (ii) Members of Council, including the Vice-Chairman in his ordinary capacity; an honorarium of $225 per day while in attendance at meetings of the Council; The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members are also reimbursed for actual and reasonable travel expenses, (b) Benefits paid: None.
Members of the Board of the Canada Council
Chairman
Mavor Moore	University Professor,
Toronto	Actor, Playwright

September 12, 1983
Order Paper Questions
Vice-Chairman	
Jean-Jacques Fortier Montreal	Businessman
Members	
Gordon Dowsley Willowdale	Financial Planning Officer
Peter R. Dufficld Montreal	Business Consultant
Celia Franca Ottawa	Consultant in Dance Administration
Gerald Fraser Saskatoon	Businessman
Marc Gagne Ste-Foy	University Professor
Nicholas Goldschmidt Toronto	Artistic Director-Music Festivals
Julien Hebert Montreal	Professor of Design & Sculpture
Marilyn Huband Winnipeg	Community Services
William Kilbourn Toronto	Writer and University Professor
Sandra Lynne LeBlanc Calgary	Community Services
Elizabeth McGowan Charlottetown	Community Services
Patrick O'Flaherty St. John's	University Professor
Penny Petrone Thunder Bay	University Professor
Ruth Schiller Osoyoos, (B.C.)	Community Services
Marcel Sormany Edmunston	Retired University Administrator
H. Arnold Steinberg Montreal	Businessman
Norman Young Vancouver	University Professor


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did the Government on its own or in co-operation with the Government of any Province make any arrangement with the State of Louisiana to provide the State with French language teachers and. if so, were the teachers sent upon (a) the request of the State of Louisiana (b) the decision of (i) the Government (ii) the Government in co-operation with the Government of any Province?
2.	Was there any type of agreement or contract made between (a) the Government and the State of Louisiana (b) the Government, any provincial Government and the State of Louisiana to employ the teachers to teach French in Louisiana and, if so, what were the terms of the contract or agreement?
3.	What was (a) the length of time the teachers were contracted to teach the French language in Louisiana (b) the amount of financial compensation or support paid to the teachers during the calendar year (i) 1981 (ii) 1982 (iii) 1983 for teaching the French language in Louisiana, including all travel expenses to and from their starting point in Canada and their destination in Louisiana, the actual wage received for teaching, and any funding for accommodation while teaching in Louisiana?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. No. The Government, however, through our Consulate General in New Orleans subsidizes programs of a cultural nature managed by CODOFIL (Council for the Development of French in Louisiana). CODOFIL is an independent organization established by the Louisiana Legislature and subsidized in part by that elective body. CODOFIL is also granted subsidies by Canadian provincial Governments.
2.	No. French language teachers are hired directly by CODOFIL.
3.	See above.
[ Translation]


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 30   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS U.S.S.R.-SHOOTING DOWN OF SOUTH KOREAN AIRCRAFT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the immoral shooting down of a South Korean civilian aircraft by the Soviet Union resulting in a loss of 269 lives including those of ten Canadians. Such a grave event demands immediate government action to ensure the protection of Canadians and citizens of other countries who travel on civilian aircraft on international routes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking leave to debate a very grave and important question. Again, I must refer to Beauchesne which states that the specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration for discussion for which the adjournment of the House is sought under Standing Order 30:
-must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
I have come to the conclusion that within the terms of Standing Order 30(4) the subject matter of the proposed motion is indeed a proper subject for discussion within the terms of this rule.
September 12, 1983

May i favour the House with a brief explanation of the procedure. In the circumstances the House may either give its consent that the matter be considered, in which case it will be considered this evening at eight o'clock; alternatively if the House does not give its consent 1 will ask those in favour of having it considered to rise, and if 20 or more Members rise it will be in order to consider the motion at eight o'clock this evening.
Does the House agree to the urgent debate on this particular matter?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The debate will take place at eight o'clock this evening.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau that Bill C-152, an Act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I had just undertaken to commence my remarks when the lunch recess occurred. As Members are aware, this Bill that we are debating has now been split as a result of our Party's stand.
The present Bill will deal with the reorganization of DREE, or DRIE, as it is now known. I have mentioned this before, and will say it again, that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was a particular Department of great interest to the rural parts of Canada and, of course, to the disadvantaged parts of Canada. This new Department called DRIE-and I hope it does not mean that money will dry up- is just a subsidiary of Industry, Trade and Commerce. 1 know that right across the country grave concern has been expressed about how important this Department is going to be and whether it will get the high priority it should. Unlike earlier regional development incentives, these grants, loans and guarantees are now available across Canada. That might be a two-edged sword. Whereas DREE areas were specifically allocated to the have-not areas, the new set-up actually provides grants across the entire country, even for the most buoyant economies. To those of us from the smaller areas and out in the country the idea of Metropolitan Toronto and some other big centres being eligible for grants will probably raise some concern. At least we know they are in tier one, meaning that large centres will not get the high percentages available.
Government Organization Act, 1983
But industry, which has in the past looked favourably on some of the remote rural areas and has set up in those areas because of the incentives, grants, tax advantages and labour situation which was satisfactory, may say, "With a smaller percentage of grant, we will remain in the industrial heartland where there is a greater pool of labour and where there may be slightly higher taxes." By and large they weigh it in the balance and decide to stay where they are or, in the case of new industry, it locates in those areas. It was for those reasons back in 1969 that DREE was formed and came out strongly in favour of disadvantaged areas. Many of us in rural areas, many of whom represent DREE designated areas, will be looking at this matter with some concern as to whether it will be an advantage in the long run.
The maximum level of support in each of the 260 census districts is determined by a development index calculated on the base of the employment rate which is weighted 50 per cent, 40 per cent on per capita disposable income and provincial fiscal capacity. As 1 mentioned, there are four different tiers of grants. Of course the first tier is for the entire country. The tier in which a census district is located will determine the maximum sharing ratio, the maximum amount repayable and the minimum approved capital costs. Clearly there are problems with this index.
As I mentioned earlier, one area in my riding, the Parry Sound district, was eligible and will remain eligible under the third tier, whereas the regional municipality of Muskoka, another part of my riding, was not eligible and now becomes eligible on a lower grant basis under the second tier.
There are major problems. The first is that many labour force regions are extremely large, as is the case in my particular riding. It is possible that the high unemployment rate of one census district will be offset by a lower unemployment rate of another. The second problem is that unemployment rates tell only part of the story. It is uncommon, for example, in my riding for the number of unemployment insurance beneficiaries to exceed the official number of unemployed. People do not look for jobs when there are none available. Hence they are not counted among the unemployed. Whereas the unemployment figures show that there are 1.5 million unemployed, when we take into consideration the great number of people who have exhausted their benefits, who have been unable to find work in recent years and who are either eking out an existence with their savings or have had to resort to welfare assistance, we realize that indeed the situation is very tragic.
I am aware that the new Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) mentioned that a very large sum of money has been designated-I believe it is $1.2 billion- over a period of time to provide jobs. Hopefully this will get under way. Also 1 assume that some of this money will be channelled through the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to provide jobs.
We are aware of how many young people are unemployed. The figures are quite staggering. Earlier I heard a figure of

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
around 20 per cent. Also an announcement was made concerning a special youth department which will zero in on employment and jobs for youth. Let us hope that these jobs will be meaningful and permanent ones, not 16-week or 20-week jobs to qualify young persons for future unemployment payments. I know that young people are very dismayed. Some have almost given up the hope at their young age of obtaining anything in the forseeable future.
The breakdown of the tiers is certainly worth mentioning. Of course, the fourth tier is where the economy is at its lowest, where 5 per cent of the population has the greatest need. I believe the third tier is 5 per cent to 20 per cent and the second tier is 20 per cent to 35 per cent of the population. Of course, the balance of the country comes into the first tier.
This Department must consider the importance of small business. The small business sector, as I understand it and as has been mentioned time and again, provides over 50 per cent of the jobs in Canada. In recent months it has provided the most stimulus for new jobs. I hope the new Department will place particular emphasis upon the small business sector and ensure that funds are available for it. It was mentioned previously that industry by and large prefers tax incentives to grants. I appreciate that, but I want to emphasize that in disadvantaged areas which are endeavouring to attract new industry tax incentives will certainly not be any great carrot for it to locate there. These grants must be available.
Also I hope there will be a greater speed-up in the investigation of applications. As a rural Member I have had many applicants ask me to look into their applications to see what is the holdup. Of course, I have approached the regional offices and I can say that the officers in charge are certainly most helpful. Time and again they have said, "It takes time". Many prospective industries coming into an area cannot wait an interminable length of time. I hope the new Department and its officials will see to it that the applications are processed much quicker.
Another point worthy of mention is the fact that many grants hinge on both provincial and federal co-operation. For example, infrastructure payments are paid percentagewise by both levels of Government. In some cases the municipal Government participates. In the past, as a federal Member of Parliament I have approached officials in the regional office of DREE. They have stated, "Mr. Darling, you do not have to worry at all. We have done everything. It is ready to go. The only problem is that the Province is holding it up." Then I immediately contacted the provincial counterpart and got the same story. They would say, "Everything is fine. We have done everything but the federal Government has not given its royal assent as yet." I guess it is the old story of blaming someone else, but I know the process could be speeded up a great deal if both levels of bureaucracy got their acts together, and if there was any hitch in one or the other they could iron it out themselves. In two or three different cases I have had possible industrialists finally throwing up their hands because of the red tape and the delay. They were told that it would be several months down the road, so they just gave up. I know of
several small industries in one area which are still on hold or waiting for something to come up. This is not going to help job creation.
As I said before, 1 am aware that the federal Government knows how serious the situation is. It knows the state of the economy. Even though we in the Opposition are just guessing, I would assume that in the very near future the federal Government will have to make an announcement of a great amount of money available for job creation.
Apparently the economy is on the upswing, although it was mentioned today that the graph seems to be going down. Let us hope that is a temporary situation. Whether we like it or not, we are in for a pretty tough winter as far as jobs are concerned. The unemployment situation will be very serious for many, if not all, constituencies in Canada.
This morning the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) quoted figures with regard to the sizeable amount of money going to various regions under the new DR IE Program.
I believe he stated that for the Province of Quebec, the amount will go from $98 million to $124 million. The Atlantic Provinces will get a considerable boost, from $109 million to $230 million. My Province, Ontario, has the most unemployment in the country. I concede that is logical because it has the greatest population. The amount will be increased from $33 million to $40 million, not a very large sum.
I mentioned earlier that for a number of years I served on the DREE committee. Until a year or a year and a half ago, I assumed that DREE grants were for the same amounts across the board. Eligible districts or regions of Ontario received DREE grants of 25 per cent, give or take, based on the capital cost of equipment, machinery and equipment. In some cases the grants were made having regard to the number of new jobs generated.
When the DREE committee visited the Maritimes, my eyes were opened. Along with other Members of the committee. I visited the great Province of Newfoundland. When I heard that the grants there were not in the order of 25 per cent, as 1 thought but in some cases as high as 90 per cent, I scratched my head. On visiting New Brunswick, 1 was again told of very substantial DREE grants. 1 am aware there is high unemployment in that area, but in parts of the Province of Ontario there are also great pockets of unemployment. The melon was not being divided as fairly as possible. I see you are beginning to rise, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude my remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Member rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? The rules provide for a ten-minute period of questions and answers.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I would ask the Member who just spoke to state briefly the Conservative Party position, if there were in government, as to whether they would keep the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Would they keep the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, as a few members said
September 12, 1983

they would, or would they do away with it, consolidating it into a larger department, as other members have suggested?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had been here this morning, he would know that that question was posed by one of his illustrious colleagues and was answered.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It was not answered.


Stan Darling: It was answered. 1 will give the same answer. We certainly have supported the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. A great many are now concerned that it is a subdepartment of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I can assure the Hon. Member that I say that definitely we should have a specific Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. It is a very important Department. I could name several other ministries or Departments which do not add nearly as much to the economy as the Department that provides grants and jobs for the entire country, including the Hon. Member's own area.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his answer. To quote him, he said he was one-


Stan Darling: Of many.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: One of many Members who support keeping the Department. Does that mean, as I think it does, that there are others who would not keep the Department? Again I ask him the question so that I can get a straight answer. I do not ask for his own individual position or the position of some or even all Members of his Party. What is his Party's position as to whether they are going to re-create the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, all I can do is to repeat what I have already said. The Hon. Member should have been here this morning. I repeat that 1 am confident that our Party will see that there is a Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to speak to the matter before the House. It is of considerable importance to a significant area of my constituency, particularly the census division of Brandon. 1 lament the passing of DREE, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. That Department did succeed, at least to some degree, in redressing some of the regional disparities which have so often hampered the growth of industrialization in Canada.
One advantage of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was to provide incentives for the less industrialized areas, particularly in the Province of Manitoba. It did that in such a manner that a number of jobs have been created since 1969. According to my statistics, 20,000 jobs were created in the Province of Manitoba since 1969. That was the result of some 850 grants totalling $225 million, leading to a total investment of over $1 billion in terms of 1982 dollars.
What concerns me is that the new criteria before the House as part of the DRIE Program as distinct from the DREE
Government Organization Act, 1983 Program will mean that large segments of western Canada, particularly my own area of Brandon, and areas such as Selkirk in the Province of Manitoba, will not be eligible under this program as they were under the last program for this type of financial assistance.
I am told that 77 per cent of the projects which occurred since 1969 as a result of DREE would not have occurred under DRIE. That is a very staggering percentage. I am also told that 34 per cent of the expansion that occurred in Manitoba as a result of DREE would not have occurred under DRIE. This means there would be $470 million fewer dollars invested in the Province of Manitoba and a loss of 10,000 jobs; 10,000 jobs during a time of high unemployment. That is something which the Province of Manitoba cannot accept.
Those who established DREE were well aware of some of the peculiar difficulties which exist in western Canada, difficulties which have retarded the even economic development of this country. There are too few large urban centres to serve as markets for manufacturers in our region. We have a tremendous distance to cover before we can produce goods and get them to the large eastern markets. As a result of that distance, we are in a situation where we have to face very high freight costs which will work very much to the disadvantage of local manufacturers in all of western Canada, particularly in the area of Manitoba from which 1 come, in communities such as Brandon.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure all of the Members of the House are aware, Government policies in the past have led to the structuring of freight rates in such a way that we have been encouraged to export our primary goods and we have been discouraged from producing manufactured goods. Unfortunately, there is nothing in this legislation which takes that particular disadvantage into consideration.
As you may be aware, Mr. Speaker, one of the historical by-products of our natural disadvantages has been the growth of a considerable amount of alienation within western Canada. This alienation has resulted in the past in such developments as the secessionist movement in the 1880s which was led by a group called the Manitoba Northwest Farmers' Union. There was also the growth of the Progressive movement in the 1920s, which was a rejection of the traditional Party politics as we know them. In 1935, there was the emergence of the Social Credit movement, which was extremely anti-eastern in terms of its orientation. Even more recently and more disturbingly, in the 1970s and 1980s we have had the growth of a western separation movement. To give credit to the Government that sits across from me in the House, the DREE Program helped to lessen that alienation to some degree. Unfortunately, what it has now proposed will not do that, and in fact, it may lead to an intensification of that alienation.
In my opinion, the spirit which motivates this particular Bill is admirable. That is, there is a desire to streamline the legislation. But unfortunately, the criterion which has been employed is disastrous in its impact upon small communities.

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
As you may or may not be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the community of Brandon, a city of some 40,000 people, has been placed in the same category or tier, tier one, as the cities of Edmonton, Calgary and Toronto. That means that those people who are interested in investing in our community and people such as elected municipal officials and those responsible for the development of industry within our community are now at a tremendous disadvantage. In the past, they had the opportunity to encourage industries to come to smaller western communities because they could apply for DREE grants and, hopefully, receive them. Any industry coming into our community now is no more eligible to receive assistance than those that exist in larger urban communities. As a result, because of the natural disadvantages which exist, we are not likely to receive the new kind of industry which we are seeking.
It is ludicrous to think, Mr. Speaker, that a community such as Brandon situated in western Canada, a community of only
40,000	people, has the same opportunity to attract new industries as cities with a million people or more.
What is wrong with this program, Mr. Speaker? What is basically wrong with it is that the criterion which has been employed for the establishment of tier one, tier two, tier three and tier four has been too narrowly defined. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the principal criterion that is applied is unemployment statistics. I come from a community which is essentially a small urban market centre serving a fairly large rural area. One of the developments which occurs in such a centre is that out of necessity, and tragically so, we lose many of our young people to larger urban communities. In fact, it has been said that we have had to export our unemployed. The statistics, therefore, are grossly misleading. While we do have unemployment statistics showing less than the national average, what those statistics do not indicate is the number of people who have left to go to eastern Canada, to Provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia.
In addition, another criterion employed in the establishment of tier one, tier two, tier three and tier four is the level of income. I therefore find it very difficult to understand how our community, which Statistics Canada recently indicated was ninety-ninth on a list of 100 in terms of per capita income, could possibly find itself placed therefore in the tier one category.
We need a reclassification if this Bill is to achieve the objective which it purports to achieve. We need a reclassification that takes natural, regional and geographic disadvantages into consideration. Some consideration must be given to the distance factor and to the freight costs which our manufacturers must take into consideration. Some consideration must also be given to the amount of local capital which is available. Unfortunately, under the provisions of tier one, new industries coming to Brandon my community are not eligible to receive financial assistance. Even in the case of expansion, the project must be worth a quarter of a million dollars in order to qualify.
During the course of the campaign for the recent by-election, I visited many small businessmen. I was impressed by their enthusiasm and I was impressed by their spirit of innovation. What distresses me, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation does nothing to encourage the small businessman. It does nothing to encourage anyone who wishes to expand but has a project that is valued at less than a quarter of a million dollars. Unfortunately, it does absolutely nothing to encourage any investor or any businessman to establish a new venture in the Brandon census district. It therefore seems to me that those who have drafted this legislation have failed to take the natural disadvantages which exist into consideration, and furthermore, they have failed to take the size of communities into consideration size and they have failed to bear in mind that unemployment statistics can be very misleading. Therefore it is important that this Bill be redrafted and, if not, it is important that this Bill be defeated.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise to speak for a short time about this particular Bill concerning regional development and the consolidation of various Government Departments that deal with regional development. A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, you heard me direct a question to a Conservative Member as to what the Conservative policy was. I asked him about his Party's policy in this area, not about his own particular opinion. Trying to get an answer on policy from the Conservative Party in Canada is like trying to nail down jelly. As my friends wake up, I say to them that at some point they will have to tell the Canadian people what they stand for.


Miss MacDonald:: We did in Mission-Port Moody.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: They certainly did not in Central Nova where the Party leader was unable to set down exactly what the Conservative Party policy was when dealing with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I know that things look rosy for Conservative Members today, but at some point-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Were you in Mission-Port Moody?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I was in Mission-Port Moody. The people wanted to get rid of the Liberal Government. But at some point the people are going to ask what we are going to put in its place; another dilettante, perhaps, or a Party with no particular policy? We will wait and see-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What about Vancouver-Kingsway?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We will wait and see what Conservative Members have to offer. So far, they have been unable to enunciate policy. So far, they have been favouring some policies that I think are detrimental to Canadian people, specifically the so-called cruel and harsh restraint policies of Premier Bill Bennett in British Columbia which they have supported under the table. Those things will be debated in the future, but let me say something about this particular Bill. Let me speak about the problem with this particular Bill as I see it. My real concern is with the second part of this Bill, the consolidation of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the DREE Department or the Regional Economic Expansion
September 12, 1983

Department. What I think it means, Mr. Speaker, is that what the Bill will do, in fact, is make Industry, Trade and Commerce a major Government Department responsible for all of the internal business dealings in Canada, to put it broadly, whether large or small business, and the Department of External Affairs will deal with foreign trade as well as foreign matters of state that do not concern trade. I will point out later some of the problems that this will create, but in terms of regional development, what does this Bill mean?
We all want regional development in Canada. At least those of us from the West do. The Hon. Member who last spoke put it very well when he spoke about the need for having development in the smaller towns of Canada and the need to move away from central Canada and get some industrial development in other parts of Canada. In a long and narrow country like Canada, that need has been a consistent problem.
As I understand it, the way this Bill works is that DREE as a Department will be gone and Industry, Trade and Commerce will have project directors in each Province who will assess the regions and the projects and will report to a group in Ottawa called MSERD. It sounds a bit absurd, but it means the Minstry of State for Economic and Regional Development, or MSERD, as only those in Ottawa can say. The idea is that this will plug the regions into a high level of Cabinet and the employment Minister, I think, will then go directly to the central inner Cabinet with these regional concerns. Now that sounds good on paper. That sounds like the way regional development should be created, but there are some concerns. I found out about these concerns specifically last weekend when the NDP caucus held its retreat in Nova Scotia. The concerns were that if the Department of Regional Economic Expansion were abolished-a department created specifically to meet regional needs-and regional Development was put into the larger Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, perhaps some of the principles of regional concern will be forgotten. Perhaps they will not receive as high a priority as if there were a separate Department. That is what Alexa McDonough, the Leader of the NDP in Nova Scotia and other people there, told us. I have heard Members of the House say that in pretty well the same language, today.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is going to favour the big guy. It will favour the big corporations that it is dealing with and will forget about the little guy who more often than not is involved in regional development and the creation of jobs in the region.
That is why we are concerned and very suspicious about this reorganization, Mr. Speaker. We are suspicious also that the Liberal Party may try to channel more money into, and put more emphasis on, one specific part of Ontario, namely southern Ontario, in order to pick up votes for the election that is coming. It seems that the election, the Government, turns on which Party wins those particular seats.
Government Organization Act, 1983
In sum, the Committee will have to look at whether this kind of scheme, which looks all right on paper, will really work to serve the regional interests.
There is a problem when foreign trade is combined with the Department of External Affairs. If I may paraphrase Lord Durham, we have two great Departments, one looking after affairs of state and the other looking after foreign trade, now in the bosom of one, the Department of External Affairs. It seems to me that this gives rise to conflict very much in the way that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gives rise to conflict. As an example, take the Korean airliner which has been shot down and the problem that that creates with the Soviet Union; one part of the Department must deal with this problem while the other part of the Department must deal with the grain trade and trade in manufactured goods with the Soviet Union. In this way a conflict is built in. When the Bill goes to Committee it will have to look into that aspect.

Mr. Speaker, there are problems connected with Bill C-152, and we will have to discuss them in Committee. 1 also think we need an industrial stragegy for all the different sectors in this vast country of ours.

It seems to me that industrial strategy goes far beyond a Bill like this. It involves an assessment of our strengths in every region, getting development money into the regions, and making a plan. We must make the plan or the private companies, the big multinationals, will plan it for us in the interests of their shareholders. We must make a regional plan on behalf of the whole country. We cannot write off the Government, as the Conservative Party suggests with its new Reaganomics. That is not in the Canadian tradition nor is it in the Conservative tradition if they look at that, but as far as 1 can see that is what they propose to do.
What we have to do is to take the combination of private and public interests with the small business in the regions. The Government must take over one of the Canadian banks in order to direct capital to job creation and to small businesses in the regions. At the present time bank loans are going to the Domes and to the Nelson Skalbanias of this world. Money is not going to small business in the regions. That is the kind of new policy that the NDP would look for. This is the way to create jobs in Canada.
This Bill is just a tinkering with the existing system which is not working and is not creating jobs for Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and answers are not permitted after the eight hour period of debate. Members are limited now to ten minutes. I recognize the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell).


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) for showing up in the riding of Mission-Port Moody. He obviously assisted us greatly in winning that seat.

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
I should like to explain to the Hon. Member that this Party does have a position. One of our positions is to create jobs. That is the policy of the Progressive Conservative Government that will come into force after the next election. The Hon. Member feels that we do not have any policy, but we do, Mr. Speaker; we are developing it. Give us time and we will come in and create jobs. Many auto workers will be behind this Party 100 per cent.
1 think this Bill will create more confusion in the business community of the country. We will have a Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and we will have a Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Trade has been moved from its traditional place over to External Relations.
Perhaps some large lobby group could understand what the Government is trying to do, but the medium and small business people do not have a clue nor do they have the money or resources to try to survive in Canada. The failing of the Government is that it is not assisting industries to get started or new businesses to get started and thus create employment in Canada.
The Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, MSERD, will have offices in every city in Canada and so will the Minister for Regional and Industrial Expansion. A businessman will have to try to figure out which office he should contact.
This whole situation means a proliferation of the bureaucracy. It also allows the Government to circumvent its six and five formula which it claims has been such a bonanza for Canada. It has done nothing for the country, Mr. Speaker, but protect the civil servant.
I believe that one area will benefit greatly from the IRDP grants that come under the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I believe that Cornwall should really benefit under the program. As $300 million has been designated for this, it is about all it can do to carry on a few new industries for a couple of years. What will happen to those industries afterwards is the big question.
Let me go back to some of the responsibilities of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Trade outside of Canada has been removed but Trade and Commerce within Canada has been added. When a company is trying to design a manufacturing facility and to distinguish between what goes out of the country and what stays in the country, it finds out how much it has for export and how much for domestic consumption. It does not assist industry to have to deal with one Department on one subject and with another Department on another. Furthermore, I do not believe the Government should be selling the product. I believe the private sector should be given the incentive to sell its own products. There are no salesmen in Government but there are salesmen in private industry who can sell these products.
The major criticism that we have is that we are going back to grants. Grants have not been successful. Even though we support DREE 100 per cent, it has not been successful in accomplishing the development of further expansion in those
parts of the country that require assistance because of a tremendous loss of employment. It has also thrown into this new ministry small business and, Mr. Speaker, small businesses do not have the expertise, the personnel nor the lobby groups. The Canadian Federation of Business and the Canadian Independent Association of Small Business have both condemned this Bill as not giving any assistance to the small business community. And when you realize, Mr. Speaker, that about 85 per cent of the businesses in this country are small businesses, you can see that this is very important to the mass of people out in the country. Therefore, I do not know why the Government has put this change through because it is accomplishing nothing. What it should be addressing is the creation of jobs and putting the emphasis back into the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to create new jobs in Canada. The intent of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was to look after international industries, attract foreign industries to this country and attract Canadians to invest in businesses which could create employment. This is not being done by this new Department. Furthermore, two Departments are being put together which were at odds with each other. Industry, Trade and Commerce was looking after the survival of successful business and DREE was put in place to assist marginal industries to become successful and to create labour in those parts of Canada which do not have their fair share of industrial employment. These two Departments are now thrown together, and who is going to get the emphasis from this Government? I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Government is intent on reducing the number of businesses because the more businesses there are, the larger will be the consistuency they have to deal with which is unhappy with their policy. I would say very simply that we on this side are very much in opposition to this change. We are very much in opposition to this Bill. It only restructures something for the bureaucracy. It does nothing for the citizens of Canada.
Part of the purpose of this new organization, this new ministry, is to decide to whom and where the money should go. The people who should decide that, Mr. Speaker, are in the marketplace. A bureaucrat who has never been in the private business world, a bureaucrat who has very seldom been outside Ottawa, has no concept of what can be successful and what cannot. There is, through this new organization, absolutely, no co-operation with the provincial Governments, which could help the bureaucrats in indicating what industry can survive in the Maritimes or in northern Ontario and what industry will survive in southern Ontario.
An analysis is needed. Fill-in is needed from the business sector. This responsibility should be left up to the people in the marketplace. What they have done, I believe, is to destroy the benefits we had under DREE and the benefits we had under Industry, Trade and Commerce, which have been thrown together as if in a Mixmaster, hoping that something better will come out. Usually when you use a Mixmaster and mix things up, they come out sweeter. 1 believe, Mr. Speaker, this is going to come out sour and everyone will be unhappy. The
September 12, 1983

only people it will benefit are those people who are great friends of the Liberal Party.
This is not a sound way, Mr. Speaker, to generate jobs in Canada. Today we have the highest unemployment in this country's history. We are going through a serious recession. We are not out of it yet. We need to remove the money from the bureaucracy and put it back into the people's hands. Grants do not do this. I maintain that tax incentives to individuals who may invest in the small, medium and large business are a direct way to get this country going. It will never survive through the grants system, Mr. Speaker, which is based on political patronage.
I have just one question, Mr. Speaker, and 1 will sit down. I would like the Minister, at his convenience, to reply to the Auditor General as to what has happened to the $2.7 billion up to March 31, 1982, for which there is little or no accounting. This is something the Government did not finish before it started a new Department.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are sitting on the edge of your chair, which indicates to me that I should sit down. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this Bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in discussing Bill C-152 we have seen quite a bit of painting, or the use of a large calcimine brush, a whitewashing brush, if you will, on a very large brick wall.
This Bill looks innocent until you start to read it, and then you realize the implications of what is being done. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) participated in this debate and indicated that this is what the people in British Columbia consider his Party should contribute to the improvement of economic conditions and government in this country, both at the provincial and the national levels. Therefore, his rather intemperate remarks with regard to laying out your policy like a supermarket ad indicates the bankrupt policy of the New Democratic Party because it is still saddled with the Regina Manifesto of 1933. That is how they think.
In any event, what are the positions which have greater implications? I suggest to Hon. Members of the House, those who are here, that the amendments to the Financial Administration Act have a great deal more implications than ten times the business with regard to DREE. That legitimizes the present set-up for CDIC, that game of beans under the nutshell, "Now you see it, now you don't", depending on which shell one has moved.
Let us start with this Bill from the beginning. This is a re-organization of the Department of External Affairs. This puts the cap on what has to be the biggest bureaucratic empire which has been put together in the history of the Canadian Government. There is all of External Affairs, all of what had been Trade and Commerce, international commerce, and then on top of that you have what is known as External Relations. The ministerial part of this is a troika headed by a man whose impact on this country during the last three years has been the most disastrous we have ever known.
Government Organization Act, 1983
The former Minister of Finance was responsible for the fiascos of 1980, 1981 and 1982. This country was set back a generation by those budgets. But that is the man who is now being put back in charge of this troika. Then, for some reason or other, it has been decided that after 20 years Industry should disappear. 1 recall the time under the Hon. Mike Pearson when, with a great deal of fanfare, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was established. The development of industry in Canada was added to the old portfolio of Trade and Commerce. The Hon. Bud Drury was made the first Minister. It made sense at that time and it seemed to work rather well. Then DREE was established in 1969. Well, I have known of a number of pork barrels to be created. I know, for instance, that the archbishops' palace in Quebec City was restored under economic expansion grants when the Speaker of the Senate was the Minister in charge of DREE. It was in his constituency. The Hon. Member can say what he wants; I can see him mumbling in his beard down there. But I saw the big signs.
[ Translation]
Restoration of the Archbishop's Palace in Quebec City. Hon. Jean Marchand, Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.

How many soft drink plants were established in various Provinces? How many plants to manufacture mobile homes? One was opened in British Columbia and one was closed in Alberta. There were no discussions with the provincial authorities, nothing.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pelletier:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on a point of order.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would not wish to mislead the House by saying that the Archbishop's Palace in Quebec City was restored by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. In fact, the present Archdiocese is not at all at the location mentioned by the Hon. Member. I am sure he was mistaken when he said that the present Archdiocese of Quebec City was built by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The buildings concerned were historical buildings.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to accept the correction or comment made by the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). However, it makes no difference whether what we have here is the remains or the former site of the Archbishop's Palace. The question is, what connection is there with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which is concerned with industrial development? Is this supposed to help tourism in the area? Mr. Speaker, I think this is stretching things a bit too far. Let us not get carried away! In other cases, hundreds of millions of dollars have been literally

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983 wasted, right across this country. Some provinces received more than others. Certain things were done. In my own province, you know what they did for a big industrial park, to get around the maximum of $5 million per facility? They simply put up a fence down the middle of the site, and so they were able to get $5 million for each half.
You know, people are getting cynical. Now, what is being proposed in this Bill is to get rid of the Department of Industry altogether. International trade goes to External Affairs, and becomes External Relations. Now, trade is a specialized subject, and the Minister responsible for this Department may be the best diplomat there is but he is not a businessman. I am not very keen on this marriage of two philosophies, which is just not going to work out. As one of my colleagues said earlier, a nice Cabinet shuffle, a lot of window dressing and bureaucrats who are going to reap the benefits of all this.
Mr. Speaker, before I finish my comments, I would like to say that I hope we will be able to obtain many more explanations in Committee, especially on the third section of the Bill, which intrigues me because I have heard the President of the CDIC testify before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and it just does not fit. They are creating another pork barrel, without accountability.

That portion, Mr. Speaker, setting up changes to the Crown corporations, will have to be examined in committee with the closest of attention because I have already seen some of the results of the operations without the legal framework. As a matter of fact, CDIC has been, frankly, illegal-maybe not illegal; illicit is a better word-for nigh on two years. We want to see not only legitimacy, we want to see how there will be accountability for moneys and an assurance that they will not be lumping together Canadair, de Havilland, Massey-Fergu-son and the other one which I do not know the name of that they have in the portfolio, as well as some others that they may acquire or set up so that everything can be well hidden from the long-suffering Canadian public which has paid and paid and paid billions and billions of dollars through the incompetence of the present administration.


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-152 regarding Government reorganization. I think everyone will agree, especially the Canadian public, that we cannot think of a group which needs reorganization more than the present Government. As a matter of fact-well, they moan and groan over there but if they spent some time in their ridings, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you will agree, they will have heard the same things we did, and the groans are in support of what I am saying and not in objection. What is actually needed more than reorganization is rejuvenation of the Government of Canada. We are prepared to do that and will be doing so in the very near future, as soon as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) screws up enough courage to call an election.
I would like briefly to discuss reorganization and my concerns regarding the Ministry of Trade entering into External Affairs. As a spokesman for our Party on immigration, I lived through the problem of overseas immigration officers coming under External Affairs rather than the Ministry of Employment and Immigration. In essence, they were answering to two bosses. My sympathies went to the then Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) for the problems he experienced since he was involved with his departmental staff in Canada while the immigration officers, who were making the decisions on the front line in the various embassies and consulates throughout the world, were answering to the Department of External Affairs. Naturally, confusion arose and there was great duplication in attempting to get information about what had happened to an application. Of course, Immigration had to refer to External Affairs in order to go to the immigration officers. As we all know, it was bureaucracy at its finest.
We now see that the Department of Trade will also come under External Affairs. I have had some experience with foreign trade. At one time I worked for the Hon. Claude Bennett in the provincial Government of Ontario when he was the Minister of Industry and Tourism. We were involved in trade matters to a considerable extent. One fact that we discovered about trade was that it was the small businessmen who needed the help with respect to exporting and becoming involved in foreign trade. By and large, if large companies have an introduction from a Government, they have no problems with follow-ups and carrying on foreign trade. They have the wherewithal to hire the expertise and deal with the myriad of details one must go through in foreign trade. The small businessman does not have this capability.
We now find that the small businessman comes under the Department of Industry and Commerce while the trade aspect is within another ministry. Suddenly the responsibilities have been split again, resulting in more confusion within the business community. I feel sorry for the businessmen in this country who already have enough problems filling out all the forms and reports that they must make. They are harried to death by the Government and this simply gives them another Department with which to deal.
Anyone who has recently talked to the staff in that Department will know that they are at their wit's end. They do not know what is happening in their Department, which I believe is probably symptomatic of the present administration. They cannot proceed with programs because of the great deal of uncertainty. They do not know how the program will be administered or by whom. This is a serious situation and I believe that the bureaucrats would much rather stay with the original system than see the Department of Trade go to External Affairs. For that reason, I am very concerned about this change.
Let me talk for a moment about DREE, DR1E and the other famous initials one must get used to when one comes to Ottawa. I am also concerned about the arrangements pertain-
September 12, 1983

ing to new business. I believe we have all had experience with companies, especially larger companies, moving into areas as a result of incentives. Once the special treatment has been completed they tend to fold their tents and return from whence they came, or disappear.
I hope the new Department referred to as DR1E will spend much more time with small businesses in some of these communities. These are small businesses that have a growth potential and Canada's entrepreneurs, those with good ideas, who can be assisted.
My experience with the Department of Industry and Tourism in Ontario showed that it was the small business sector that needed the help far more than the large industries. Large industries are able to operate on a tax basis whereas the small businesses, while it is fine to give them a tax break, face difficulties if they have no profits. Tax breaks do not mean a thing to them without profits. I am very concerned about small businesses in Canada. Special emphasis should be put on small business and entrepreneurs who need capital to start out and to grow. I suggest that the two major failings of business in Canada today, apart from some of the Government policies, are the lack of capital and poor management. It is incumbent upon us to help especially small business people get started, far more than large businesses which tend to take care of themselves, by providing the growth potential they need.
I can state that small businesses make a far greater contribution to a community, especially smaller communities outside major urban areas where the growth potential is gradual. For example, there is an aluminum industry in Hawkesbury which started out very small. It has grown and hired many employees. This company makes the aluminum tubing for all the Cuban cigars that are smoked today. It is an example of a company that started small and, with the help from the Ontario Government and the federal Government as well, was able to make contacts and to expand. That is an example of a small business in a small community which was provided help and provided employment in that area. As well, it has a certain loyalty to that community which an established large company may not provide once its incentives had expired.
One provision which I appreciate in the new set-up is the classification of all of Canada. Sometimes there are very genuine needs in a community such as I represent which is an industrial community as well as one where people commute to the city of Toronto. There is a genuine need to establish industry in that area as well. There may be the legitimate establishment of an industry because a certain nearby market makes it economical to establish there. They may need help getting started. We must have entrepreneurs in Brampton-Georgetown as well as in Metro Toronto, Parry Sound-Mus-koka and all across Canada.
I close by saying that I am greatly concerned about some of the reorganization that is occurring. I am worried that duplications are taking place and that it is causing extra work for the private sector by creating the necessity to become involved with these two different ministries. I am concerned about the confusion and uncertainty that at present exist in the
Government Organization Act, 1983
Ministry. Anyone who has had any dealings with it will see that. I hope the reorganization does not go too far before we form the next Government so we can take a more positive look and we can rejuvenate the present structures that we have today.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) hit the nail right on the head in more ways than one. He described, for instance, this new Department called DRIE. I want to say that for Atlantic Canada it is from DREE to DRIE and there will be no bucks left for our part of Canada. In what a mess we in Atlantic Canada are being placed!
I have sat in this House for a few years. I remember when we had the Atlantic Development Board. It later became the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. The Atlantic Development Board was for Atlantic Canada. But all of a sudden we had a new Department that is for Atlantic Canada, for Quebec, it is for here, there and for somewhere else. The resources that were being committed to us were being depleted even then.
I remember also when we had a Department of Trade and Commerce. Suddenly we had another Department imposed upon the Department of Trade and Commerce called the Department of Industry. What a great way to produce additional civil servants in this country. When the Government created that new Department of Industry it gave itself the privilege of hiring people that were the Government's friends. This was done almost without civil service competition. The Government just brought in its friends. After the Department was established, what did the Government do? The Government amalgamated the Department of Industry with the Department of Trade and Commerce. Now we are being told that the only half decent people we have around the world working to assist our businessmen, large and small, are those in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who will now be mixed up with External Affairs. Rather than opening doors for businessmen around the world they will be going to tea parties and receptions in the hope they can cover all the bases. Where is poor old Atlantic Canada going to end up? On the short end of the stick. Everybody will be involved in either foreign affairs or business affairs but never thinking about the part of the country that needs the dollars. This is especially true of the small businessman whom we see and we hear about and who is facing such desperate straits.
We are looking at the fishing industry which is coming apart at the seams. We have bankruptcies all over the place. Jobs are being lost all over the place. Now the Government is taking the only instrument we had that might have been of some value to the small businessmen. I am not talking about National Sea and other big companies; I am talking about the little companies in my constituency and in the constituency of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LeBlanc). These companies have been looking after themselves pretty well but they do

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983 need help. 1 am afraid for those fishermen. I am afraid, with this new amalgamation, that there will be less attention given to those healthy fishery operations that do exist. It is not only the small guy who is in trouble in Atlantic Canada, but it is the big guy that is getting all the attention. The small guy is not getting enough. That is the same with all forms of industry. In my constituency there have been too many bankruptcies. Some of those bankruptcies might not have occurred if the small businessman could have had more attention than he was receiving.
This Bill will not help anyone in Atlantic Canada. It is another step backwards. When my leader was campaigning in Central Nova I was pleased he indicated that DREE should be sacrosanct, that it should remain, that it should be for Atlantic Canada, that it should produce the kinds of benefits that give us the chance to be first class citizens rather than the second class citizens we are and have been for some time with this Government in office. The simplest and easiest way to make people in Atlantic Canada first class citizens is to have this Government out that is here now and to have this alternative Government in to give this country some of the stimulation it needs by having sensible tax incentives. These are especially needed for small businessmen, who are the backbone of this country, who are being let down day after day and are being betrayed by this Government that does not care about any form of business. Big business, by and large, can look after itself.
We have to be concerned about the small-businessman who is getting it and has been getting it in the neck for quite a number of years from this Government that does not care about anything or anybody except itself and its friends. It is hard for me to imagine that a Government would involve itself in a company that could lose $1.4 billion in one year. That is almost inconceivable. But that is what happens when this Government involves itself in big business. I hope to God this Government does not get involved in small business, otherwise we will have nobody left to pay taxes.
The other day I had a great revelation. 1 am always looking to see where defeated Grits go. I was watching a program about the aerospace industry. Who appeared on TV but Barney Danson, the President of de Havilland. Can you believe it, Barney Danson, the President of de Havilland?


Mr. Turner:: He was talking about the Arrow.


Robert Carman Coates: And that is about all Barney would know how to talk about. That is the sad fact of the matter. He was Minister of Defence. He was an army man. He certainly could not have been a very good Minister of Defence because he was defeated. But there he was on the television screen. He was pretty good compared to the Canadair people because he only lost about $425 million. But there it is, another defeated Grit getting his payday at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in multimillion dollar numbers. There are too many defeated Grits lounging around in big paying Government appointed offices. I hope they enjoy themselves, Mr. Speaker, because they have about one year left. If I know this Government, it
will try to run out its term, especially if the guy who is not a quitter stays. Each day, each month, each year, the Gallup poll will show the Liberals going down and down. We may even see the socialists ahead of them before the next election.


Charles Robert Turner: We have been down before and come up.


Robert Carman Coates: We have to put some common sense into Government operations. This cannot be done by proliferating the number of bureaucrats imposing themselves on the poor little guy who is trying to make a buck and who is having a hell of a hard time. We have to use some common sense. That is not done by amalgamating Government departments proliferating certain civil servants jobs, nor is it common-sense always to leave out the Atlantic Provinces.
I oppose this Bill. I hope it never gets passed, but if it does, it will most certainly be very detrimental to Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to speak briefly on this topic. It is of great concern in my constituency. We are one of the few areas in Ontario in which DREE is active. There were three areas: northern Ontario, the Cornwall region and the Renfrew-Pembroke area which were covered by DREE in its true form. The introduction of this Bill is similar to a shuffling of the chairs on the Titanic. Government Members want to show some activity. They do not know where they are going, so they move everybody and everything around. The people who will make the most money will be moving companies in Ottawa as they move, desk by desk, Departments from one building to another.
Many people in the underdeveloped regions of the country felt that DREE would take a special look at their circumstances. In the Renfrew-Pembroke designated area, for example, unemployment runs from 16 per cent to 22 per cent. This is only a matter of 50 miles from Ottawa, the capital of Canada. We do not have to look at the Maritimes and parts of Quebec which have been underprivileged in the sense of economic development for a long time; right here in Ontario, which everyone thinks has the wealth of the country, there are depressed regions.
The people of my area knew the system of obtaining money and attracting industries. Of course, there have not been many industries in Canada to attract in the last few years because they have not been expanding but rather contracting under the present Government and laying off people. We knew the system and we had some success. Now we find that we are lumped in with the majority of the rest of Canada under the second tier. We did not make it to the third or fourth tier where the larger dollars will be.
My constituency is in the second tier, except for two particular parts which fall under the first tier. I am not looking for assistance in the areas designated under the first tier because Kanata and West Carleton are close to Ottawa, have high technology and have done quite well, no thanks to the Government. They have done it on their own. The industries in those
September 12, 1983

two areas have pointed out that the best way to get ahead is by not applying for Government grants because they cost more in accounting and legal fees than the grants are probably worth. By the time they end up obtaining it, there are many strings attached. In depressed areas in Renfrew, Arnprior, Calabogie and Pembroke there has been some success in attracting major facilities, which will definitely increase the number of employed people once they are running at full steam. We were more pleased with the smaller designations under DREE rather than the designations under DRIE which cover the entire country under four tiers.
Another aspect of the Bill about which I am not very pleased is the moving of the Department of Trade out of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and into the Department of External Affairs. I have not played a great role in the Department of External Affairs, but my understanding is that it now has something like 156 undersecretaries and deputy undersecretaries. They are really deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, but External Affairs likes to have a somewhat different jargon because it is involved with protocol, foreign dignitaries and so on. It is so wrapped up in its protocol, in foreign dignitaries, in the nicety of things and having cocktail parties for each other that it forgets to get down to doing business. One of the beauties of the Department of Trade was that it was all about business. Now that it will be under the Department of External Affairs I am afraid that protocol, cocktail parties and the niceties of intergovernmental exchanges which do not amount to an awful lot of action will be more important than hard-nosed business talk, economic deals or trade between two countries or two industries.
Many years ago the Department of Trade was under the Department of External Affairs. Back in the mid-fifties it was made a Department of its own. Subsequently it was folded into Industry, Trade and Commerce. But trade has developed a great importance in the country. Canada thrives and survives on its trade. At present we participate in trade with Iran. I know we are not supposed to talk about it because we do not have any diplomatic or external affairs relations with Iran; we are not allowed to. They have broken off and we have broken off, but we do participate in trade. Now the Department of Trade will be subjected to the Department of External Affairs. I have heard a great amount of displeasure expressed by public servants in the portion of the Ottawa area I represent. The people in Trade were accustomed to a lot of driving force and trying to get a job done. They were not accustomed to playing around with the rules of etiquette, niceties, getting dressed up and attending cocktail parties. Although External Affairs is very important-it is a necessity-I do not think a quiet, academic type of Department such as the Department of External Affairs should become involved with an energetic, outward going and aggressive Department like the Department of Trade. Certainly Trade should not be subjugated under External Affairs. I am very concerned about this. Also I am very concerned about the triple-headed monster which has been created in the Department of External Affairs and about the 156 deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers, who
Government Organization Act, 1983 of course are called undersecretaries and assistant undersecretaries over there. It is just bureaucracy gone wild.
I also have a concern for Canadian businessmen. Canada is encouraging businessmen to get out and expand foreign trade. We need it; it is important to our survival. The biggest impediment to business people expanding, making new contacts and expanding trade or even their operations at home is a lack of stability. Business people want to know what are the rules. They want to know the tax rules and the trading rules. They want to know what people to contact, whether they should go to the trade commission or to the embassy. Over the last number of years every businessman has been completely confused by the income tax rules. They do not know what to do and cannot plan. There are people who do not put money into businesses or who want to expand their ventures because they do not know where they are going. Now another roadblock is being placed before them. The traditional routes for trade or export assistance are being destabilized. It is another impediment to the business community.
It is really an embarrassment for the Government to have to bring in this Bill. Hon. Members on the non-Cabinet benches of the Liberal Party are embarrassed because the Government has deemed that it cannot find people over there of sufficient quality to be Parliamentary Secretaries. It is making an amendment to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act so that it can go fishing for appointed Liberals in the Senate. When it cannot find people in its own ranks, it indicates that the Government or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does not have faith in those who have been elected and support him in the House. 1 think they are very embarrassed about it and that at the very least the Bill should be withdrawn.
I am not happy about the Bill going ahead. What is unfortunate is that the Government, once again without authority of Parliament, has gone ahead, made half the changes, and spent all the money. It got the movers in and moved the furniture. It will create a larger bureaucracy. It is a case of shuffling the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. I do not think it will improve for Canadians either our Department of External Affairs or, more important, our Department of Trade, which should be lean, aggressive and hard fighting.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate even though some compare it to closing the barn door a year and a half after the horse has escaped and thoroughly fouled the barnyard. It is true that most of the damage of the old arrangements which are addressed by Bill C-152 has already been done. However, we have other horses to worry about and there is no indication that this Government has learned any lesson from the mistakes which are addressed in this Bill.
As Hon. Members know, this Bill embraces a New Department of External Affairs Act and makes a number of changes affecting parliamentary secretaries, as was just stated by my colleague for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). Both of these amendments have their disturbing aspects, but I would

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983 like to confine my remarks to a discussion of matters tied to the former Department of Regional Economic Expansion because of its special concern to me.
DREE is, of course, dead. It was knocked off in January of last year and the Government has been stomping on the grave ever since without, as has been pointed out, the benefit of any legal authority. Any attempt now to exhume the corpse of DREE would be as messy as the execution.
Members on this side would like an assurance that a serious commitment to regional development will continue to exist. Unfortunately, the evidence does not provide much hope in this regard despite the lip service paid to the subject by the Government benches.
We have been told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston) and other Cabinet Ministers that the disappearance of DREE marks a change in federal Government priorities and that it will mean a greater emphasis on development in the have-not regions of Canada.
The Prime Minister for example, told a press conference in January, 1982 that the Government reorganization "will provide a Government-wide focus on regional economic development". He went on to say, "It was no longer acceptable that a single Department be responsible for regional development", adding that all Departments would have to concern themselves with regional development in the new Government-wide approach.
That sounded very desirable. In other words, the Prime Minister was saying that regional development had become just too important to have its own Department, kind of a bizarre statement, I would suggest.
it became so important that it did not need a Department to oversee and co-ordinate the regional incentives of the Government. Although this point of view was later discredited by the Senate report on Government Policy and Regional Development, Cabinet Ministers, to the embarrassment of this Government, continue to mouth the Prime Minister's nonsensical words, that somehow you can improve the delivery of an important service by dismantling the co-ordinating function. The most recent example of this was the Government House Leader who said in the House of Commons on May 27, and I quote:
Regional economic development had reached a level of maturity which made it necessary to integrate its objectives in the activities of all Departments with an economic input.
That is strange thinking indeed. The word "integrate" means to draw together, to co-ordinate, and yet we see that disbanding of the co-ordinating agency. It makes no sense at all. One can only assume that the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue, the Department of Transport and others have not yet reached this so-called level of maturity or they would have been integrated along with other Departments in the regional development scheme. Obviously this line of reasoning is little more than claptrap.
Certainly there is a need to co-ordinate the work of DREE with other Government bodies, but it is testimony to this Government's inability to co-ordinate the activities of its various Departments that when it recognizes such a need, its solution is to take the co-ordinating agency away, to be absorbed by other Departments. That is reverse logic. What we have here is the same old wolf in sheep's clothing. In the process or reorganization, it is the people of Canada who are going to be fleeced.
This was the case with External Affairs and Trade, Regional Development and Industry, and recently the same merger solution was applied to Science and Technology and the new Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. Whenever this Government confronts a problem, rather than streamline and inject efficiency and common sense into the solution-finding mechanism, it creates more problems by creating more agencies and dismantles rather than improves the agencies presently available.
I mentioned earlier that we have other horses to worry about getting away from us. It appears that the Science and Technology horse slipped out of the stable this summer while Members were absent from this place. The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) announced in July that he was increasing the importance of his Ministry by reducing its staff by one-third, from 170 to 120, and shipping his former employees off to another Department. That is convoluted logic. The importance of the role of the Minister and his Department are increased by cutting the size of the staff and in the same process not providing improved guidelines and criteria by which the important service is to be delivered. It seems totally illogical.
1 read this morning that the new science adviser to the Minister of State for Science and Technology is having a terrible time bringing in people from the private sector to assist him in evolving, managing and administering a comprehensive policy for Canada. That is small wonder when that Minister had to lay off 50 of his employees, shrinking his Department by one-third. What competent and able senior scientific administrators in this country would come to work for a Minister whose Department was faced with that type of scenario? I suppose if the Minister really wants to make science and technology important by this logic, he will reduce his departmental staff by zero. That is exactly how the DREE Program was treated.
Forgive me if 1 become concerned when the Party that campaigned on low energy prices for Canadians in 1980 now promises to put a higher priority on regional development, and science and technology for that matter, by killing the Department concerned. They lack credibility. What happened in 1980 and what happened with wage and price controls in 1975 will happen again here. We will be promised one thing and get the opposite. It is something like the story the Prime Minister told many years ago. You may not see who was in the wheelhouse and the horizon may be shifting to the extent that you thought you were heading for a new and brighter era, but you would
September 12, 1983

probably not recognize the island where you got off when you finally arrived.
This illogical approach is really at the heart of the mess we have in our country today. It is the reason why, following the two by-elections just completed and in Gallup polls throughout this country, as well as with the excitement surrounding the entry into Canadian political life of a new and exciting leader, Canadians are demanding an election. They are tired of these old folks opposite who implement such illogical solutions to the pressing and important problems of the day. Obviously regional development, like science and development, needs a strong advocate in Parliament. These concerns that we have heard about will only be given proper attention if they are articulated by a Minister who does not treat them as part-time jobs.
The Prime Minister, in announcing the reorganization outlined by Bill C-152, bemoaned the fact that the existence of DREE allowed other Ministers to disregard regional concerns. This may have been the case, but it would have been easier to fix the problem had the succession of Liberal Ministers handled their jobs properly over the years rather than seriously neglecting their obligations.
Over the last decade, DREE spending was allowed to decline in real terms by 27 per cent. It went from 2 per cent of total Government expenditures to less than half of that over the past decade or so. These funding problems were magnified by an expansion of DREE's geographical mandate which went from only the least developed regions to almost all parts of the country. For obvious political reasons, the Government now finds it desirable to have more flexibility in the areas it can choose for DREE spending, as has become the case with DREE in recent years.
It is little wonder that the Prime Minister became dissatisfied with the progress his Government had made in regional development, especially since this watering down of the funding was combined with administrative sloppiness.
The question we must ask, Mr. Speaker, is what is the purpose of DREE or DRIE or any program of extending regional incentives to create new employment opportunities in order to overcome the problems and serious hardships that are faced by Canadians from one end of the country to the other. Is the Government concerned with genuine solutions to these problems or is it more concerned with the short-term political future? Are we merely seeing legislation designed to give ministerial discretion and discretion to Members on the Government side so that they can hand out these millions upon millions, indeed billions of dollars in order to favour their friends and perhaps stroke the palms of certain voters in certain electorates in order to save their parliamentary seats, or do they really and truly care about the genuine needs of the people across the country who are hurting?
As I said earlier and as I say now to conclude, Mr. Speaker, the polls indicate that the tactic is not working. The Canadian people have seen through it. As we move this Bill to committee, I think that it is only fair to conclude by serving notice
Government Organization Act, 1983
that amendments will be necessary and that as the Bill presently stands, Members on this side have a very difficult time supporting the Bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to point out some of the inadequacies of this Bill because it is an abominable piece of legislation. Although the House of Commons has not approved this piece of legislation, the Government has gone ahead and acted upon it, not caring of course whether or not the Members of the House of Commons will support the Bill because it is confident, I suppose, that its majority will put the Bill through.
I would like to speak first for a moment on the part of this Bill that creates a new External Affairs Department and integrates the trade functions that were formerly with Industry, Trade and Commerce with External Affairs. It helps create a Minister of State for External Relations. That a country can have a Secretary of State for External Affairs and then have another Minister of State for External Affairs boggles the imagination. Surely the Minister who has the responsibility for foreign affairs should have the responsibility for external relations as well.
In addition, there is a Minister of State for International Trade. A three-headed monster has now been created in the Department of External Affairs. It has worked miserably. The administration of the Department is in a shambles. The morale of the diplomatic service which was already bad has been worsened. I would just like to point out that all of this has been done in the face of a Royal Commission report on conditions of foreign service that not for one minute recommended that such action be taken. It pointed out that there was a lamentable situation in the Department of External Affairs, it pointed out the difficulties in morale and discipline that had occurred in administration, and it revealed a very, very unsatisfactory situation in the Department of External Affairs.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed the Royal Commissioner, Mrs. Pamela McDougall, a very distinguished Canadian woman, to study the foreign service and bring in a report. She brought the report in. The Prime Minister did not even have the courtesy to see her to discuss the report that he had commissioned through his Government. When she was questioned by the External Affairs Department several months later, she had not even until then seen the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) to discuss her report with him. I do not think that she has seen a Minister since. She saw some associate deputy ministers. There is a pack of associate deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers and so on in this Department that numbers in the hundreds. That is how this Royal Commissioner who revealed a very serious situation in the Department was treated.
As I understand it and according to an article in The Globe and Mail of this July, it takes 14 charts for the Department of External Affairs to explain what their new administrative structure is. These 14 charts had to be devised by Marcel Masse who inherited this mess when he became the undersecretary of state of the Department a few months ago. The

September 12, 1983
Government Organization Act, 1983
trade side and the political side are fighting over everything, even as to where the coolers should go, who is closest to the cooler and who is farthest away from the cooler. That is the struggle that is going on in External Affairs now under this new arrangement that creates three Ministers where one Minister existed before.
I am against that, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to these changes in the Department of External Affairs. I wish I were the critic for that Department. I would attack the move with vim and vigour, I can assure you, and my successor, old slasher, will, I am sure, carry on the vigorous strain of criticism.


An Hon. Member:: He wrote a letter and he has reformed. He is not the slasher any more.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, if the slasher is reforming, then verily there is no hope for Canada.
Let me move on, Mr. Speaker, to an even more serious aspect of this legislation which has just been touched upon by the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), a very distinguished Member who is moving up in the shadow Cabinet. He is rushing up through the ranks of the shadow Cabinet. His presence is looming longer in the shadows. What 1 refer to now, Mr. Speaker, is that this Bill of course takes the old DREE Department, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and establishes a new Department, DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. The only thing the Government has done in three and a half years is to change an "e" to an "i". The Department of DREE becomes the Department of DRIE.
When it comes to spending money and helping the less advantaged regions of Canada, the Government has done less than nothing. I am glad to see that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) are listening to me. Both of them are now in competition for the elevation to the post of representative in the Cabinet from Newfoundland. These two fine young gentlemen are in a battle now to see which one of them will be elevated. Of course, there is now a third contender, and he has had considerable experience in matters that the ten-day wonder has had experience in, so perhaps he will beat them out and get there ahead of them. We are all watching with bated breath.
There is today one of the Canadian Provinces that has no representative in the Government of Canada. Perhaps it is better for us to have no representative than to have what we have had because for the last three and a half years we have had a representative of the Government of Canada unable to protect our Province.
Here is what has happened to the Province of Newfoundland because the Prime Minister does not like Provinces that are independent or that have views that differ from his own. Under DREE in 1979-80, the Government spent S76 million, all of it badly needed, by the way. The next year, 1980-81, it dropped the spending in Newfoundland to $46.5 million despite the inflation that had raged since, the Liberal inflation
that cut the value of money by a quarter in that period. Then in 1981-82, it cut the spending in Newfoundland and Labrador under DREE to $36.8 million. I heard the absurd Minister of MSERD (Mr. Johnston) say today what great things they were doing with their special program for special projects, a Liberal slush fund for Liberal districts that they still have. This is the spending that they have been cutting, and they have cut it down to $34.9 million in 1982-83, and less than $34 million is to be spent in Newfoundland in 1983-84 under the programs carried on by DREE. That is the progress, Mr. Speaker. The people of Newfoundland are not interested in legislation that establishes DRIE when the spending under those programs in Newfoundland has been cut in half in the last four years. Has Newfoundland become less regionally deprived or disadvantaged in the last four years? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. There are 43,000 unemployed there, as I told the Prime Minister in Question Period today. He would not know that, nor would he care. He does not know what happens in Prince Edward Island or in Newfoundland. He is more familiar with the Greek islands, with Lesbos and Crete, than he is with the island of Newfoundland or the island of Prince Edward Island or Anticosti or Vancouver Island. These are not the islands he is interested in. He does not know that we have
43,000	unemployed.
We do not have a Minister in the Government any longer. Perhaps the Prime Minister is going to shove a Senator into the vacuum that now exists. It will be the first time that a vacuum ever filled a vacuum if he takes one of the Newfoundland Senators and shoves him or her into the Cabinet to represent Newfoundland.
These are the realities, Mr. Speaker-spending cutbacks- in 1979-80 $76 million was spent in Newfoundland, but this year it will be less than $34 million. The Government and the Ministers will go down there and make the announcements unilaterally.
The Minister in this new Department, the Minister for Cornwall-I am not allowed to use his name in the House-is a fine chap. I do not understand why he will proceed in the same direction as his predecessors.
There used to be a General Development Agreement under which the Province and the federal Government, together, undertook certain programs which were usually financed 90-10 or sometimes 75-25. One of those programs was to assist rural development associations of which there are 51 in the Province of Newfoundland. Each received $16,500 per year under the joint agreement while the rural development council received about $70,000. The funding was 90 per cent federal and 10 per cent provincial. That agreement expired at the end of last March and it has not been renewed. It was extended to September 30, but now there has been an announcement that the federal Government is going to move unilaterally. It is going to provide 100 per cent of some funding for the rural development associations themselves under certain programs
September 12, 1983

of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which do not suit rural development at all.
These are national programs for industrial and commercial development. There is no emphasis on the social aspect as there is in rural development. Each rural development association has to make application, on its own, for funding. This is much less satisfactory. There is no reason in the world why the federal Government should go ahead unilaterally to try to deal with rural development associations in Newfoundland when the whole thing has run satisfactorily for five years under a federal-provincial program. It is being done because the Government no longer wants to work co-operatively with the Provinces. It wants to act unilaterally and to show its muscle.
My time is just about over, Mr. Speaker, but I want to end by referring to the report of the Senate Finance Committee under the Chairmanship of Senator Everett. He has said that this system will not work without some form of intergovernmental co-operation. The Committee recommended against what the Government proposes in the Bill and asks the Government to reconsider the decision to abandon the General Development Agreements. Many of these were Liberal Senators. They said that there are disturbing signs that the Government reorganization, while paying lip service to regional disparities, will be focused on the main chance, so-called megaprojects.
This is a wrong move, Mr. Speaker. It is going in the wrong direction. It is retrograde and 1 will vote against it. I am entirely opposed to both aspects of the Bill, external affairs and internal affairs. We are being asked to vote on the consequence of despicable actions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, given the event that will take place later this evening, I wonder if we might not now call it six o'clock?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we agree to your calling it six o'clock, and we shall return to the House at 8 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I understand it is the wish of the House that we call it six o'clock and that debate on
the special motion will begin at eight o'clock this evening. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Leave has been granted for the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 30 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the shooting down of a South Korean civilian aircraft by the Soviet Union and the protection of air travellers.


John Edward Broadbent: That this House do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on September 1 a South Korean civilian aircraft with almost 300 people on board was flying over Soviet territory. At the time it was approached by Soviet interceptors and then it was shot down and some 269 lives were snuffed out.
At the outset of this important debate, Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for the sentiments not only of all Hon. Members of the House of Commons but of the people across this country and, indeed, the vast majority of people around the world, when I say that no matter of national security, no concern about the possibility of espionage, no alleged serious commitment to the defence of one's national borders, can ever justify the wanton murder of 269 innocent human beings.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The snuffing out, as I said, Mr. Speaker, of the lives of men, women and children who had bought airline tickets in one part of the world in order to fly in peace and security to another part of the world is a moral abomination, and the message that it is a moral abomination must get through to the government of the Soviet Union, not only from the Government of Canada, but also from all parties in the House of Commons and from the people of Canada.

September 12, 1983
To compound this deplorable act the Soviet Union, Mr. Speaker, far from acknowledging its guilt, far from stating that a grotesque inhumane error in judgment-if indeed it was an error-took place, has had the moral offensiveness to suggest that if such a flight should take place again in the future it will take the same action again.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that while it is true that nothing now can be done to adequately repay the families of those affected-surely in the community of nations, if the principles for which the United Nations was created mean anything, there is a serious moral obligation on the Soviet Union to acknowledge its own moral culpability, and we, I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), must continue to pursue that.
It is very easy in politics to become totally cynical. It is particularly easy, f suppose, in international politics, where the complexity of human life is all too abundant, to become even more cynical. However, I say, because I believe it profoundly, that at times-and it should happen more often-morality has a role to play in international politics, in the international relations of human beings as they are gathered collectively in states, and this is one of those times. The Soviet Union must not be allowed to simply cynically hope that this issue will disappear. I repeat, the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the people of Canada must be persistent in his demand that the Soviet Union acknowledge moral wrongdoing. That is the least that can be done for those ten Canadians and the hundreds of others who have lost their lives.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada must continue to pursue the claim which has already been made by the Canadian Government for financial compensation to the families of those affected. Once again, we must not simply sit back and allow the cynicism of the Soviet Government to prevail here in the expectation that soon the world will go back to sleep and forget all about this atrocity.
In addition to these follow-up actions on the part of the Government of Canada that I am suggesting on behalf of my colleagues tonight, Mr. Speaker, the Government, both for the United Nations and for the Civil Aviation Conference which is taking place by chance this week in Montreal, should work on some important additional proposals whose purpose should be to ensure the international safety not only of Canadians but of all people who wish to fly from one part of the world to another.
For example, Mr. Speaker, proposals are needed for an international open skies agreement, the purpose of which would be to provide international monitoring services for flights to help ensure that they stay on course, and for binding agreements among the participating nations concerning the safety of passengers should departure from course actually take place. As well, an international agreement ought to be pursued, the purpose of which would be to ensure that any nation wishing to join the family of international aviation must
first provide the commitment to not attack civilian aircraft under any pretence whatsoever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in my comments so far I have not, except by passing reference, spoken about what the Government has done so far. I have suggested that there is follow-up which would be appropriate in the case of moral condemnation and the demanding of financial compensation. In addition I have made two suggestions I think are important, indeed relevant, to be pursued at the international level, and pursued quickly.
1 want to emphasize the morality of what is at stake here. I am aware of the complexity of getting agreement on matters that relate to international bodies, whether it be the aviation authorities or the United Nations to which I said my proposals should be referred, and certainly that is difficult to pursue, but I want to stress that in the final analysis it will not matter much. No international agreement really counts with regard to national behaviour unless the nation in question wants to make it count. That is so fundamental. All kinds of agreements have been designed with varying degrees of effectiveness, and that is why they should not be dismissed, intended to head off regional conflicts or promote co-operation in a whole variety of fields, and to ensure that irrational and inhumane conflict between nation states does not take place. But if a nation state chooses at any point to go to war, it tears up unilaterally an international agreement and nothing can be done about it. A nation state can take any of the wonderful agreements entered into very solemnly at the United Nations and at a given point, if it so decides that it is in its national interest to disregard such agreement, it can do so because there is no authority which can stop it.
Therefore, in making what I think are practical proposals, relative courses of action for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to pursue, I want to conclude by coming virtually full circle to the moral point I made at the outset. That is, the fundamental immorality of the Soviet action. Nothing can excuse the kind of action taken by that pilot. I ask Members of the House to put themselves in the position of flying an aircraft, not just contacting a civilian plane on radar, because those with flying experience well know that the pilot was close enough to visually identify that civilian aircraft. He acted on authority; there is no doubt he had the command, and whatever one thinks of his individual morality, and I sure do not think much of it at all, the morality beyond him is what counts in the Soviet state today. We have to get world opinion mobilized to make very clear that those who run modern societies have to be concerned about human life; that you just do not snuff it out because of a violation of your air space and you think that some spying device might have be present on a plane.
We have to tell the Soviet Union that it is unacceptable to so act, and 1 would suggest that this is precisely the role for morality in international politics. At times even a great power like the Soviet Union, which in this case has acted quite
September 12, 1983

independent of normal morality, will respond in terms of its own power interests if it sees that the rest of mankind finds its action to be a moral outrage. Even in terms of power politics and the rather cynical calculation of self-interest, what the Soviet Union has done, at whatever level of authority the decision was reached, is unacceptable, and if the rest of the world responds as it ought to morally, and we all say to the Soviet Union that this is unacceptable and we are not going to forget, in the future the Soviet Union might at least think twice before so acting.
Beyond that, in this cynical world in which we are living, if nations come together as a result of this deplorable incident to develop the kind of international instruments I have talked about, maybe not only the Soviet Union but any other state- God protect us all-which might contemplate such action, would also think twice. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, if we continue with an expression of our moral concern about man's obligation not only to his fellow men and women in his own state, but to all of mankind, we might at some period in the future get a genuine international community established which is totally committed to international peace.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has been prompt and vigorous in its reaction to this brutal violation of all the norms of international behaviour. I am pleased that the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) have exactly reflected the moral outrage that all Canadians have felt as the result of this incident and has also reflected the deep sorrow we all share with the bereaved families.
We have acted not only to reflect the outrage of the Canadian people, which has a world wide reaction, but also to bear in mind at all times the human dimensions of this tragedy, the loss of innocent lives and the bereaved persons who have been also the victims of this terrible act.
On September 1, within hours of this event, my colleague, the Minister of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pepin), summoned the Soviet Charge to account for this action, describing it as totally incomprehensible and unacceptable. On September 2, I expressed the uncertainty and apprehension which this wanton and seemingly uncontrolled resort to the use of force must cause in the minds of all those who had hoped for an improved level of trust in East-West relations. 1 also said that the world expects the Soviet leadership, which itself is no stranger to the tragic and senseless loss of life, expects the Soviet leadership to abandon its current stonewalling and come clean about this terrible hit and run tragedy.
That evening, at a special emergency session of the U.N. Security Council, which Canada along with other nations requested, our ambassador who was recalled from leave on this occasion said as follows:
The deliberate in-flight destruction of this civilian, unarmed, easily identifiable passenger aircraft by sophisticated fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union, no matter where it occurred, is nothing short of murder. It is a flagrant attack on
the safety of international civil aviation which should never have occurred and must not be allowed to occur again.
On September 3, I sent personal messages of condolence to all the Canadian families who had suffered a loss and I stated that the grief of those Canadians is made more difficult to bear by the callous and incredible Soviet reaction. To the grave injury they have caused, the Soviet authorities are now adding the insult of a blatant cover-up.
On September 5, in announcing Canadian measures against Soviet aviation interests in Canada, I urged that our action prompt a review by the Soviet authorities on the merits of continuing to evade their responsibility for the deaths of Canadians and so many other innocent passengers.
On September 7, speaking at the concluding session of the Conference on Security and Co-Operation in Europe, my colleague, the Minister of State for External Relations, reiterated in the presence of Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko, Canada's now firm demand for an urgent investigation under U.N. and ICAO auspices for the improvement of aviation regulations to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy; for immediate compensation and for the Soviet Union to meet international obligations of the most fundamental and humanitarian kind.
Our bilateral representations directly to the Soviet Union encompassed first, the stiff diplomatic note presented by the Minister of State for External Affairs on September 1 demanding an explanation; a parallel action in Moscow by our ambassador in that capital and my own direct personal message to Foreign Minister Gromyko requesting his urgent and personal attention to our national demands which I now hope will be backed up by the voices of Members of Parliament speaking in this House of Commons.
Our assessment of the Soviet response is that it still falls far short of what we all expect and have a right to demand. Whether to Canada bilaterally or to the world at large, the Soviet reaction is a form of confession by instalment. Their statements have at least begun to express regret at the loss of human life, although not to us directly, and have begun to replace the initial cover-up with a process of selective disclosure.
I regard the facts of the Soviet case as disputed, the logic distorted and the evasion of responsibility as despicable. Nevertheless, the force of international pressure continues to produce new detail and we as Canadians play an important part in that international process.
Canada has held the Soviet Government to account for the lives lost in this tragedy. We have underlined our demands by action and in every instance we have shown the way by taking the lead as a clearly aggrieved nation. Canada was the first country to suspend Aeroflot's landing rights and no one else has decided on as lengthy a suspension as Canada. Canada was the first country to suspend arrangements to expand facilities for Aeroflot at no small cost to our own Canadian interests. We were the first country to call for generous and immediate compensation for the families of the victims. We

September 12, 1983
also followed that up with a formal notice of a compensation claim to the Soviet Government.
1 would like to note the action of other levels of government, unions and private citizens who decided to send a clear message to Moscow. What is very important in this particular case is that individuals and groups are acting independently of national governments to demonstrate their sense of outrage and to call upon the Soviet Government to come clean and take their responsibilities to the world and to provide the required compensation. 1 would like to mention a few among the private actions taken. For example, the Alberta Minister of Economic Development cancelled an imminent business promotion visit to Moscow; Vancouver Deputy Mayor Bill Yee cancelled the visit of a cultural delegation he was taking to Odessa; Canadian airline pilots and longshoremen have spoken out and taken action to emphasize their solidarity and concern. Canadians from every walk of life in many cities gave vent to their outrage by demanding that facilities for the Moscow Circus be withdrawn.
It is clear that Canada led the way on this issue and that this is recognized by a range of countries who have taken parallel action or who are supporting our efforts in multilateral fora. The United States administration has taken steps to wipe clean the slate of any vestige of Aeroflot activity in the United States. The United Kingdom has announced a 14-day ban on flights to and from the Soviet Union. Japan has announced boycott measures and is expected to take further action. Of course, the Republic of Korea has taken a very strong position in multilateral fora and in bilateral consultations with many states in the interest of concerted international action. The pilots association in Scandinavia and Switzerland have decided on 60-day partial boycotts on flights to the U.S.S.R.
At the United Nations, from the beginning of this tragic episode, the Government has clearly recognized the vital importance of concerted action through the Security Council of the United Nations. When the first details of this shocking act began to emerge on Thursday, September 1, Canada in co-operation with the Governments of Japan, the United States and Korea immediately approached the President of the Security Council to call an emergency session to consider the problem. Of the 13 speakers who spoke on September 2, only Canada put forward a comprehensive plan of action which included first, a full and impartial inquiry to be undertaken immediately by the Secretary General.
Second, a request that the International Civil Aviation Organization carry out a thorough investigation with the aim of improving international civil aviation regulations and practices to preclude any repetition of this horrible act and to demand that the Soviet Union offer immediate compensation to the families of the victims.
Canada, as a co-sponsor of the resolution, has worked diligently with like-minded states to devise a resolution incorporating these points. We have made representations to interested parties both in Ottawa and in capitals in other countries.
We have worked unceasingly in New York to ensure the broadest possible support for the resolution. A vote was taken on the resolution at the Security Council not many minutes ago. I am sorry to report to the House that despite our efforts 1 have just learned that the Soviet Union coldly and deliberately vetoed the resolution. The vote was nine to two, with four abstentions. Only the U.S.S.R. and Poland voted against the resolution. This unsurprising but neverthless inhuman action was taken for one reason only, to save face in spite of the undeniably legitimate demands of the majority. Their decision to veto this resolution calling for an international inquiry under the leadership of the Secretary General now rests with the court of world opinion. But the Soviet veto in New York will not stop nations like Canada in pressing forward their legitimate claims and in taking further action.
At the International Civil Aviation Organization based in Montreal, Canada as an aggrieved party has, with the Republic of Korea, been instrumental in calling a special session which begins later this week on September 15. Our aim at this meeting will be twofold. First, to assign responsibility for the tragedy because the Soviet Union has not accepted responsibility at all up to the present time for what has happened. Second, to develop practical and useful procedures to avoid any chance of a repetition of this terrible action.
We will speak out as strongly as required and we hope constructively. We have drafted a strong resolution for consideration by the special session. We will work energetically and tirelessly to improve the mechanisms of civil aviation to ensure that no passenger, wherever he or she flies in this world, will not have to live with the fear that heat seeking missiles could be aimed at the destruction of passenger aircraft. That is the human objective of all our efforts, not only to feel the sorrow for those who have lost their lives and to share this sorrow with their bereaved families but also to ensure that this terrible event will not occur in the future.
There have been some suggestions that we take broad economic sanctions against the Soviet Union. We have not so far adopted this course. It is important to distinguish between things which are satisfying to say and those which are effective to do. First, we think it is important to keep the Soviet Union enmeshed in the international system, not driven further into siege mentality. Second, the lessons of economic sanctions are that their effectiveness is impaired by damage to ourselves by the actions of others which tend to undercut the sanction, and in the case of the Soviet Union by the continental almost autarkic nature of the Soviet economy. 1 want to remind you that Afghanistan and Poland have demonstrated to us the difficulties of co-ordinating a sanctions policy among differing countries with different interests and policies. Thus the measures we are pursuing are selective, restricted to the civil aviation sector and managed within a time frame permitting review, extension or withdrawal depending upon events and the behaviour of the Soviet Union.
We have served notice to the Soviets that a claim for compensation is imminent. We have personal contact with the families of the victims, seeking the information we need in the
September 12, 1983

preparation of the claim. We have also been in telephone contact with them and have told them we will assist them in any way possible. Once our consultations are complete, we will decide on a quantum figure for this claim on behalf of the families and submit it to the Soviet Government. 1 assure you, as I do the families, that should Soviet recalcitrance to discuss the issue continue the issue will move to a prominent place in our entire bilateral relationship.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Whatever sanctions are implemented people are inevitably affected. In this case, the suspension of Aeroflot service has unfortunately caught a number of Canadians in the U.S.S.R. with no direct flight home. We recognized this potential problem from the start but could not let it stand in the way of what the Government considered an effective and appropriate response. To ensure hardship is kept to an absolute minimum, I have asked our embassy in Moscow to provide every assistance to stranded passengers, including financial help to those who need it to get home. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that so far the problem has been managed. Canadians are booking on other flights and where financial loss has resulted, the embassy has come to their assistance. We will continue to do all we can to keep any discomfort to Canadians to a minimum.
The House is aware that the Moscow Circus was to begin a tour of Canada at the time of the tragedy. It had arrived in Halifax and was preparing for its first show. Public opinion resulted in the decision of Provinces, cities and arena owners to cancel the performances. We respect those decisions.
The Soviet authorities have now decided to take the circus home. We have to let them take the circus home. Therefore, I have decided to permit Aeroflot flights to come into Halifax in order to take the property and the animals back to Moscow and in order to take the performers back to their country. I believe that is an appropriate action at the present time.
I want to conclude by saying the Government is taking a series of measures and initiatives in our bilateral relations as I have described; in western councils, at Madrid, at Brussels and in New York. We will continue to do that. We will press forward at the International Civil Aviation Organization to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that our limits of tolerance went down with that Korean airliner. We want to maintain our demands for compensation for the victims, and we want to ensure by implementing every suitable procedure and regulation that this event will not be repeated.
The world is outraged. The world is in a state of disbelief that an event of this proportion should occur ending the lives, so abruptly and without any warning, of innocent people. The world is in a state of disbelief that the Soviet Union has not come forward and admitted its responsibilities and has not come forward with a clear cut policy to the world and with a free and generous offer of compensation. The world tonight waits upon the Soviet leadership.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate tonight on a topic which I think is appropriately being brought before the House, I would like to emphasize at the beginning how the tragedy, which has already been referred to so effectively by the mover of the motion and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), could not have occurred at a worse time. At a time when there are international negotiations continuing with the hope that there will be a meaningful agreement with respect to the control and, hopefully, the reduction of arms in the world, we are caught up in this tragic slaughtering of 269 innocent civilians who chose to take KAL flight 007. I say that because, while we are perfectly correct tonight in condemning, as the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has condemned, and as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has condemned, the action of the Soviet nation in shooting down this aircraft, we must always weigh the facts-and I implore the House to weigh them always-to ensure that a proper balance be maintained, and that we do not inadvertently cause something to be said or do something that would jeopardize ongoing discussions with respect to disarmament, in particular the discussions which are taking place in Geneva.
In that connection I note that in the New York Times of only yesterday the following was indicated:
U.S. negotiators at the Geneva talks on medium-range nuclear missiles have been empowered to make new concessions, according to Administration officials.
Referring to President Reagan it continued:
-one key official said:
"The President has not taken away Nitze's authority to act, but the timing of any new moves on our part has obviously been affected and the whole atmosphere for the talks has been poisoned by what the Soviets did."
I read that into the record both to indicate the hopeful sign that the U.S. administration does have some grounds to be willing to negotiate and that it is willing to offer those suggestions. I also want to emphasize how this incident, according to that Washington official, has soured the tone of those discussions and negotiations.
If I may I would like to stress this evening that we must in this debate do only what we feel we must do in the condemning of the Soviet action. Let us not in the name of mankind do anything which might jeopardize ongoing discussions that may lead to meaningful disarmament in the world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I say that because I too would like to add my words of condemnation of the Soviet action to those which have already been offered in the debate. I listened closely to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated as being the appropriate actions taken by the Government with respect to the tragic shooting down of the Korean aircraft. But I feel we must ask ourselves, while the debate continues, what are the circumstances. Have we done enough to indicate in the most effective possible way our condemnation of the Soviet

September 12, 1983
action? For example, have we taken in meaningful terms such actions related to air travel that might be considered necessary to show the world's revulsion at the Soviet action?
This afternoon I raised a question on the Canadian-Soviet Protocol on Consultations which was signed by the then and present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on May 19, 1971 in Moscow. We note that various things were enshrined in that agreement which I can only feel that the Government today could call upon the Soviet Union to live up to and to perform. For example, in that agreement surely it is worth noting tonight that the Prime Minister of Canada and the Soviet leaders agreed to consultations embracing international questions including situations causing tension in various parts of the world. The protocol went on to indicate in clause 2:
In the event of a situation arising which, in the opinion of the two Governments, endangers the maintenance of peace or involves a breach of the peace, the two Governments will make contact without delay in order to exchange views on what might be done to improve the situation.
Those are direct quotations from the protocol which was signed by our Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1971.
Surely we must consider what has been the Government's reaction to the Soviet envoy's response when we asked him to accept a note in Ottawa concerning the possible compensation for the survivors of the victims who were Canadians. Let me read into the record the news account of what was the Soviet response as reported in The Toronto Star:
The top Soviet diplomat in Canada touched off a diplomatic incident here yesterday when he furiously refused to accept a formal note from the Canadian government demanding compensation for the ten Canadian victims of the Korean airliner massacre.
It went on to indicate:
But he angrily refused to accept it in person from External Affairs' top legal adviser, Leonard Legault, and told him to mail it to the Soviet embassy.
Then he added: "1 think you've got the wrong address on it anyway. You should send it to the U.S. government."
Then the veteran diplomat who is heading the Soviet mission in Canada until the new ambassador is appointed to succeed the former ambassador stormed off back to the fortress-like embassy. Is that not a startling contrast to the tone of the protocol signed in 1971 calling for immediate consultations between the Soviet Union and Canada if an event such as we are discussing tonight should ever occur? At that time let us remember what the then and present Prime Minister said concerning what he had done in Moscow.
At a press conference in Moscow at the time of the signing of that agreement, the Prime Minister, in talking of the need for Canada to diversify its relations because of the overpowering presence of the United States, stated:
-that is reflected in a growing consciousness amongst Canadians of the danger to our national identity from a cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view.
Later in that press conference, the then and present Prime Minister said:
-if they can take time to discuss with us the various aspects of policy and various events in the world which might lead to threatening peace, we are very glad for that... What I do see is that if areas of tension arise that both parties will consult and both parties will take whatever means they can to reduce these tensions.
He concluded by saying:
I think the first thing that we tried to establish was an atmosphere of confidence, of trust.
In view of what has transpired, earlier today I asked the Prime Minister what he felt had occurred under that protocol. Has there been a violation in fact of the provisions of the agreement? I was rather taken back, and I invite all Members tomorrow to read Hansard, to hear what the Prime Minister said. He said there had been gestures on the part of the Government. To use his words, he said the Hon. Member will know that the then Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of State for External Relations, in the very first gesture of response by this Government asked the Charge d'Affaires precisely to embark upon consultations and to explain the circumstances of the tragic happening. The other gestures taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in dealing with Soviet authorities both here and in Moscow have precisely been doing that, asking for consultations, asking for explanations, asking for reparation, and taking some measures of our own.
I believe that the people of Canada demand more than gestures. They demand more than rhetoric. To date I would suggest that perhaps the Prime Minister only inadvertently, but so aptly used the word "gesture" in replying to questions in this House today.
Let me touch on perhaps the most vital part of this debate, that is our compassion, our sympathy for those who have lost, in the case of Canadians, ten of their family. It is only fitting that as the debate continues, instead of talking about numbers with vague references to people who have been victims that we read into the record the names of these ten who were shot down in cold blood as they proceeded on their trip. I refer of course to Marilou Covey, Toronto; Brother Jean-Paul Gre-goire, Laval, Quebec; Mary Jane Hendrie, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Franfois Robert de Massy, Hampstead, Quebec; Georgis Panagopoulos, Toronto, Ontario; Franfois Robert, Longueuil, Quebec; Larry Patrick Sayers, Stoney Creek, Ontario; Mrs. Chun Lan Yeh, Toronto, Ontario; Mao San Lim, Toronto, Ontario and Mrs. Chi Man Leung, Hamilton, Ontario.
In paying tribute to those people, perhaps it would be only fitting to read into the record one small quotation from Mary Jane Hendrie, one of the victims, written to a friend a brief time before her tragic "Flight into Darkness", as Maclean's has referred to it. At the time she wrote:
Count your blessings and overcome your hardships. That is what life is all about. The tragic sense of life is that people allow hardship to overwhelm them . .. But I think it is actually an effort to resist that darkness, when it is overwhelming, that is the beauty of human life-
Those were the words of one of the victims of this tragic shooting. As the debate continues I ask Hon. Members to
September 12, 1983

remember not only the names of the ten victims but the words of Mary Jane to which I just referred.
In concluding, I would like to suggest that while the motion of the Hon. Member for Oshawa is most appropriate, as I said tonight, I would like to see a new element of definitiveness in the motion. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that while the motion prompts the debate that we are now engaged in, it does not specifically condemn the Soviets for their action. As a result, I would propose that the motion be amended as follows:
That the period after the word "routes" be deleted and the following words added immediately thereafter: "therefore this House directs the Speaker to convey to the Chairman of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet the unanimous condemnation by this House of the conduct of the Soviet government in the destruction of this defenceless, civilian airliner and the 269 souls aboard."
In proposing that amendment, I would like to recall what already has been said by the Hon. Member for Oshawa and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that they want to send a message to Moscow. If we want to send an effective message to Moscow concerning the matter before us this evening it cannot be fully done by a debate that may run into the wee hours of the morning. It can be done most effectively by every Member of this House standing up and voting as I have suggested in my amendment to show our unanimous condemnation of what has transpired and what we are all condemning tonight.
I notice that the Hon. Member for Oshawa, prompted by some of his colleagues, said there is no vote tonight. If my amendment, is accepted I would ask for the unanimous consent of this House that the motion as amended, which will then be before the House, be in fact voted upon before we adjourn later this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Before recognizing the next speaker in the debate, the Chair should bring to the attention of Hon. Members that the motion being proposed by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) is a substantive motion, and in the normal course of events, and in view of the nature of the question now before the House, could only be accepted with due notice being given to the House. However, as the Chair understand it, the Hon. Member for York-Peel seeks unanimous consent to have the motion which he has read accepted by the House at this time. I may have misunderstood the Hon. Member for York-Peel, but I think the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is seeking the floor. I will listen to him for a moment.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I might be of some assistance to the Chair. What is before you is an amendment to the motion; it is not a motion standing by itself. I would hope that before making a decision as to whether or not that amendment is acceptable, you would want to hear submissions on it. At the moment, the submission I make is that what you have before you is an amendment, not a motion, therefore not requiring notice.
I do not believe, and I so submit, that it is necessary to seek unanimous consent to put that amendment, but it certainly is
necessary to seek the unanimous consent of the House as to whether or not we vote on the amendment.
I would think, judging by the remarks made by the Leaders of all Parties in their various roles tonight in the opening of this debate, that Members of the House would certainly want to see this amendment put to a vote so that our feelings, obviously the unanimous feelings of the House, would be conveyed to the Soviet Union through the Chair in no uncertain terms.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is certainly evident from the comments I made when moving the motion that if this amendment is deemed to be accepted procedurally, it would have the wholehearted support of Members of the New Democratic Party.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are debating a very important subject under the provisions of our Standing Orders and, more specifically, under the provisions of Standing Order 30, which clearly indicate that we have here a motion to adjourn the House, which is supposed to be approved as soon as Members have ceased to speak to the motion. I submit, with due respect, that there are other ways of moving a substantive motion on this subject, allowing Members to make their positions known by voting separately on the question. In any case, the approach taken by the Conservative Member who is moving an amendment to the adjournment motion is not, in my view, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, and I think it creates a dangerous precedent. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will certainly find other ways, in the course of another debate or through another motion or procedure, to give Hon. Members an opportunity to express their views on this issue within the reasonably near future, but the fact remains that the amendment he wishes to move is entirely at odds with the letter and the intent of Standing Order 30, which we want to see applied in its entirety, and consequently, we have no alternative but to deny the unanimous consent he is requesting for an amendment to an adjournment motion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it may well be that the Government House Leader is correct in his interpretation of the rule, although I cannot bring myself to agree with him. But even in the absence of that and given the subject matter of the debate, and given what the already expressed feelings of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) are, the feelings of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who has expressed the views of this Party, and those of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who moved the motion, and given that those feelings will obviously continue throughout the rest of the debate, I would suggest, and I so ask, that unanimous consent be given-and the House can do anything by unanimous consent-to put the amendment as well as to put the question.
27030

September 12, 1983
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. President of the Privy Council, on the same point of order.


Yvon Pinard: The Hon. Member for Yukon does not seem to have understood what I was saying and I am not going to repeat what I said. I have explained why we could not ignore the letter and the intent of standing order 30. However, since he is saying that with unanimous consent, just about anything can be done, 1 would like to suggest a more intelligent solution. I suggest that the House approve unanimously the words spoken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) this evening in which he condemned, in no uncertain terms, the attitude taken by the Soviet Union regarding the occurrence we are discussing tonight.
Therefore, if the House is willing to state its unanimous support for the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), I think that would be the intelligent thing to do. It is nonsense, however, to ask the unanimous consent of the House for supporting an amendment to an adjournment motion. It does not make sense. I think it would make more sense for the House to say simply, in a unanimous vote, that it fully supports the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech this evening regarding the incident a few days ago in which an aircraft was shot down by the Soviets.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would suggest that there are two tasks before you. I have specifically asked that the Chair request unanimous consent to put that amendment. There is obviously support on this side to grant that consent so that our feelings are unmistakably conveyed to the Chairman of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Soviets, but if that is not the wish of Government Members and they do not want to convey that sentiment in that way, then the Chair is faced with task number two, the need to make a decision as to whether or not the amendment is procedurally acceptable. I would hope that before coming to that conclusion, which the Chair can come to as we move along in the debate if unanimous consent is not forthcoming, that the Chair would want to hear submissions as to the acceptability of the amendment before making a ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. In the first instance the Hon. Member for Yukon was quite right in reminding the Chair that the Hon. Member for York-Peel had not presented a motion but an amendment to the main motion. That was my unfortunate choice of words.
The Chair has heard arguments from both sides of the House and I think it would be wise at this point in time to take the matter under advisement and the Chair will render a decision on the amendment before the House at the earliest possible opportunity. In the meantime I would suggest that we resume debate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is most acceptable to us, of course, but I have asked the Chair to seek unanimous consent notwithstanding the procederal acceptability of the amendment. 1 have asked the Chair to seek unanimous consent now to put the amendment and to vote on it, and so I would ask the Chair to request that unanimous consent now with the knowledge that it will likely be refused by Government Members.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I realize you already rendered a decision stating that you wanted to take the acceptability of the amendment under advisement, and that you would subsequently indicate what you intended to do. Perhaps meanwhile, my colleague, if he is in good faith, will agree to hold consultations with the representative of the New Democratic Party and myself, so that we can try to reach agreement on a mutually acceptable text, since it is clear that in this House, we all have the same views on the subject now being considered. I would prefer to avoid spending much more time debating procedural matters. Mr. Speaker, you have just rendered a decision in which you stated that you wanted to take the acceptability of an amendment under advisement, but we can still hold consultations during the next few minutes to find out whether we could not agree on a text that would have the unanimous consent of all three parties.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the remarks of the Government House Leader that he wants to have discussions with respect to the phraseology of the amendment, and we accept that sincerely and immediately. However, that does not dispose of the right of Members to ask the Chair to request unanimous consent under these circumstances. That is quite apart from the procedural acceptability of the motion. But I accept in good faith the Government House Leader's suggestion. I would assume that the New Democratic Party would do likewise in order to see if we cannot arrive at a mutually acceptable phraseology for an amendment that could be put unanimously; but I reserve my privilege and my right to request the Chair to put the unanimous consent necessary. Any Member can request unanimous consent to put such an amendment.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, there are two points at issue here: first, the Hon. Member's right to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to put an amendment, whose acceptability you said you wished to take under advisement. I submit it is impossible to give unanimous consent to an amendment that is not on the table and that has not been judged acceptable by the Chair. We therefore respect that Chair's decision to take this matter under advisement and to see whether the amendment is acceptable or not. That being said, the second point is that we are willing to meet right away with the House leaders, to discuss a procedure that would be acceptable to all three
September 12, 1983

parties in this House, that is, either an amendment, a motion or a text. I am willing to meet right away with the House leaders in order to find a way to give expression, unanimously, if possible, to our feelings about a subject on which there seems to be quite substantial unanimity.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the intervention of the Government House Leader begs the question. The unanimous consent that we reserve the right to speak is to get the motion on the floor of the House. That is the amendment that the Chair is being asked to rule upon subsequently. The right of a Member to seek that unanimous consent is undoubted.
1 think it is begging the question at this moment. We will engage in those discussions suggested by the Government House Leader in good faith and immediately, to see if we can arrive at suitable phraseology.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated in this debate, I think we all recognize that every so often there is a moment in world events when everybody stops: something happens that provides a common thread of response and emotion. Certainly that was the case a short while ago when, truly, there was a shot that was heard around the world and everyone within listening or watching distance stood back with a sense of horror and revulsion at the events that transpired in an area of South East Asia involving a Korean airliner.
In the debate tonight I think it is the responsibility of the representatives of the Canadian people to try, as much as they can, not only to reflect that sense of immediate reaction but also to ask some very important questions about where we go from here. It would be wrong for us simply to express horror, revulsion and indignation without also asking questions about whether incidents like this would be allowed to happen again. Of course, it is easy to condemn, and to say that this is something about which we all have a sense of strained sadness and tragedy; but the key question which was not addressed by that resolution is what we can do to provide protection and security against future incidents.
The issue really is how we say to the hundreds and thousands of travellers who every day, with a sense of security and with confidence, board an airliner to engage in international travel, that all of a sudden, in the darkness of the night, they will not be snuffed out without any reason or rationality. That is part of the issue that this House of Commons must face this evening. It is not simply a matter of reacting to the event; it also means building some further protection and security so that we will have a better sense that those kinds of events will not take place in future.
Any initiative taken by this Government, by this country, must therefore always be considered in the context of the delicate balance of the international system. How do you give full vent to your emotion while recognizing that the world goes on and therefore you must take account of the realities of the world? We must ask how we can nudge and push and persuade
the international community to provide a better sense of security than existed before.
We must recognize that there is almost a convergence of events that the tragedy of the Sakhalin Islands brings home in a very vivid and dramatic way. That is, that this tremendous magic carpet that has been made available to us through civil aviation, through international flights taking people around the world by the hundreds of thousands, the tremendous opening of the world so that we can taste and experience the wide variety of life on the globe, is also touched with an element of insecurity and danger. Within each of those areas that we pass through are a lot of concepts, traditions of sovereignty, protection of territory, of military defences that ensure that "What is mine is ringed around with a wall or some kind of curtain of iron or electronic surveillance".
It is interesting to note that we have debated both sides of that issue in the House. There are Members who have said that we must increase our defence, provide for better protection and further reference to our sovereignty, while at the same time we preach the gospel of international interdependence, international communication, commerce and community. This event brings home to us that in many cases those principles have to be brought into harmony; you cannot ignore one at the expense of the other.
This was a civilian airliner carrying passengers on vacation or on business, who had confidence that the system would protect them. Unknown to them, however, they were on a flight of total jeopardy. When they boarded the plane in New York they were confident that the rules established over the years would give them the security they desired or needed. That is the case with all of us when we board an airplane or whatever; we have an implicit sense that all is right with the world. We do not worry until we recognize that there is also a jungle out there where the rules do not apply. There are individuals, and sometimes countries, who say: "I do not believe in those rules of interdependency; I do not believe in those rules of recognition of mutual self-interest and will defend my sovereignty, my territory and my military security to the utmost."
It seems to me that one of the important and necessary lessons of this event is how we can try to provide for an improvement, or progress, so that the tragedy of those lives that were lost may not be repeated. This was the approach taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). In his original statement he expressed the great feelings of sorrow for the families affected and the indignation of Canadians at the wilful, arbitrary and hostile act that was perpetrated. We also recognized that, while feeling revulsion and even indignation, we could not ignore the critical necessity of maintaining the sense of international responsibility and obligation that is inherent in international aviation. Perhaps we can build upon this to provide some further protection for travellers of the future.
My regret about this particular resolution is that it does not encompass that particular spirit. It does not incorporate that sense of trying to forge new international alliances and organi-

September 12, 1983
zations, rule of law and rule of reason. We must try to use this event and build upon it to bring about even an enhanced and more important sense of it.
1 am surprised in part by the Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party who have often expressed those kinds of feelings, whether it be on Central America or on arms control, who have stood for those kinds of principles. They seem to have forgotten that in the words and tone of the resolution which they have presented to us. They have forgotten the critical element, that if we are going to prevent that almost instantaneous spark of conflict which has occurred between the civil, peaceful world and the military world of war, we must provide some protection, some buffer and some rules to make sure that it does not happen again.
1 regret very much that the resolution does not contain that spirit, that sense of feeling which we must build upon. We must use our position as a respected member of the international community to do something further.


An Hon. Member:: What?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 will come to that because I believe there are a number of initiatives which should and will be taken in order to say that this lesson will not be ignored but will be built upon.
Of course, one of the first opportunities is to address the issue of how effective and valuable are the international rules which now prevail in the area of civil aviation, or, indeed, has the level of danger, the threshold of jeopardy, been raised so high between the increase in armament and the increase in military security to a point where the commerce arid traverse of international aviation is now constantly running abut to that particular jeopardy?
As we know, in 1944 the Chicago Convention signed the International Civil Aviation Agreement which required of all nations to establish certain rules of behaviour about themselves and their neighbours, about how planes would fly, one to the other. Most Canadians may not recognize that Canada was one of the pioneers in establishing that rule of law in international flight, that many other countries refused to recognize many of the fundamental freedoms which were established under that convention. Perhaps the most important freedom of the air which was established in 1944 was the freedom of overflight, the right of a plane of one nation to have access over the air rights of another nation in order to go to another destination, a convention which we had signed as a full signatory and which the Soviet Union refused to sign. It was one of the few nations that did not put its pen to the paper to say that it was prepared to recognize that freedom of overflight, that freedom of access.
There is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to begin to redress some of those neglects of the past perhaps, because on Tuesday of next week, beginning in Montreal, by coincidence, there is the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization. At that meeting we will have the opportunity as a country,
which we intend to do through the initiative of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, to bring to that assembly a number of representations as to how we must carefully re-examine the rules and procedures as they relate to civil aviation and determine whether they are sufficient to deal with that new threshold of danger which was so vividly brought home to us just a few weeks ago.
There are a number of technical questions which must be asked. One of the questions which bothers me most, in the way I hope it would bother other Hon. Members, is that voice in the mind which says: "How could it be that a commercial airline straying off course would conduct itself for a period of two hours over hostile territory, followed by fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union, and somehow there was not a recognition and realization on both parts that a horrible mistake was about to be committed and that something had to be done to pull back from that brink of tragedy?"
If you look at some of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, if you go back into the questions of verification and identification, why is it that one pilot cannot radio to another? I mean, how do you wiggle your wings at 3 a.m. in the morning when it is pitch black outside? How do you establish a sense of identification and communication? Where are the rules which establish the proper procedures to ensure that that fighter aircraft pilot and the commercial airline pilot are in some sense of communication? Where does the responsibility lie? Is it on the ground with the controllers? Is it in the air with the two pilots? Surely that question must be asked and must be faced by all members of the international community to ensure that this will not happen again. I believe that is one of the opportunities which must be faced by this country and by ail Canadians, because I believe we have a responsibility to represent that particular point of view.
Therefore, while we properly and without question should be expressing the deep concern of the people most fundamentally affected, the families of the victims of that tragedy, and expressing indignation at the transgression of some basic precepts of international civility and sanity, we must also ask some questions about how we can best construct an improved system in the area of civil aviation so that that enormous world which has been opened to us does not begin to shrivel and shrink under the fear and sense of tyranny of the unknown.
In terms of the initiatives which this Government has taken, Mr. Speaker, the suspension of Aeroflot flights into Mirabel, it was quite deliberately chosen because it was carefully within the boundaries of the jurisdiction of civil aviation itself, which clearly brings home the argument that the whole question of reciprocity, of one country being able to exchange its passengers and travellers with another, has to be held in abeyance until that issue is resolved, and the rules established for that particular sense of communication and travel.
The statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs clearly articulated the requirement that until answers are forthcoming, explanations given and responsibility acknowledged, we will not lift that suspension but will in fact continue it. I believe we have provided a sense of leadership
September 12, 1983

and a sense of direction for many other countries which have now followed in our wake by saying: "If you are going to break fundamental rules, then we had better pull those rules back for re-examination."
It is that particular sense of principle that we tried to establish last Labour Day, and which 1 hope will provide the foundation which we require to take further initiatives in the international community in order to provide for better protection. We will be at the meetings on September 15, the special emergency meetings of the International Civil Aviation Organization, representing a resolution requiring a full inquiry and investigation into the incident of the Korean airliner and the Soviet Union explosion.
Stepping beyond that requirement for investigation, Mr. Speaker, at the assembly itself, the tri-annual assembly, we will also be making the case that the international community, all partners within it, look at the basic fundamental freedoms of international travel, the rules which apply to it and the technical requirements to improve upon it. It would be my hope in the ensuing debate of this House on this particular resolution that Hon. Members of the Commons would express not only their feelings but their sense of commitment to the need for further strengthening and enhancement of the international rule of law, the international sense that you must put into place institutions, procedures, rules and obligations upon all nations if we are to have any kind of interdependence, any kind of acceptable mutual requirement for living together on this particular globe. Whether it is in the field of international civil aviation, refugee problems or arms control, if we do not come to grips with those kinds of issues and come up with answers, then we as people responsible for trying to pull some meaning and sense out of this tragedy in the Sakhalin Islands will have failed in our responsibilities.
So it is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that as the debate on this resolution ensues, the steps taken by this Government do not only express the feelings of the Canadian people but try to go one step further, and that initiatives to build and develop guidelines to provide for protection, security and a greater sense of international responsibility will be supported by Members of this House. Because with the House's support we feel we will have the strength to continue and retrieve something better out of this tragedy that we all so deeply regret.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I know there are a great number of Members of this House who want to participate in this debate and I will not be long. Let me first join with those who have spoken tonight and others who have spoken before this night in offering my condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives on Korean Airlines Flight 007. Let me also identify myself with the remarks of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Leader of the NDP who introduced this motion and this debate. Let me also identify myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), as well as those of the
spokesman on External Affairs in my Party, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).
I was a little bit surprised, Mr. Speaker, at the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy). I hesitate to bring in a partisan note to this debate, but as I sat here listening, I got the impression that somehow it was the system that failed us and resulted in the shooting down of KAL Flight 007. If only we had a better system. Well, Mr. Speaker, humanity, the fundamental human character, provides a standard which says it is simply inhuman to shoot down a civilian passenger airliner. You cannot get over that fact. We have a system. We have international agreements. Supposedly we have a planet made up of human beings not too dissimilar from each other and who find that kind of action repulsive. He says he wants us to join together in working out some new agreement, some new system of recognition, so that this will not happen again. Mr. Speaker, what kind of agreement or treaty can we write which would somehow stop those who have lied about this tragedy, those who gave the order to shoot down a 747 loaded with civilians?
The Minister talks about the goal of a more tolerant, interdependent world. That is recognized as a goal we all seek, but I do not think he is contributing, quite frankly, to better understanding by failing to acknowledge just what happened to Flight 007. The act of murder committed by the Soviet Union in shooting down KAL Flight 007 cannot be condemned in words too harsh. When innocent civilians are killed or injured in a war between armies, by terrorists or revolutionaries in pursuit of political goals, or even by a lunatic or criminal acting alone, we can and do mourn the pain caused by the inhumanity of the perpetrators. But when the act is caused by a deliberate decision of the government of one of the world's superpowers, we mourn the loss of life but we also shudder at the implications for the world.
Accidents happen, Mr. Speaker. Errors in judgment occur. While we may get angry at any loss of life, we can understand the need to forgive when culpability is admitted and regret expressed. But, Mr. Speaker, the shooting down of KAL Flight 007 with the loss of 269 lives was not, according to the U.S.S.R., an accident for which they express regret but a deliberate act which they insist was justified and which they say they would repeat in similar circumstances. That, Mr. Speaker, is frightening because of what it says about the people running this vast superpower.
The Soviet Government, in defending this outrageous proposition, states that Soviet territory is sacred. But this same Government has so far this year alone intruded into North American air space 77 times with military aircraft. Submarines from the U.S.S.R. have intruded into militarily sensitive areas in Sweden and Norway at least three times this year. Now, if the Soviet Union is to be believed or if we look at what they do in practice, of all the earth only Soviet territory is sacred; everything else is available for intervention by Soviet military aircraft and ships.
Imagine the reverse situation, Mr. Speaker. Let us imagine for a moment that a Canadian or American military craft shot

September 12, 1983
down a Soviet civilian aircraft. Imagine what would have occurred? To begin with, within days if not hours we would all know who gave the order. We would know whether it was the pilot, some local commander or the executive. If it was the executive, the Government would fall and be changed immediately. If it was a local commander or the pilot, he would be dismissed instantaneously. We do not know, Mr. Speaker, who ordered the Soviet strike. We do not know if it was the Kremlin, but if the order came from Moscow, what does this say about the people in charge and the system which allows such people to be in charge and to stay there? If the order came from some local military command which the Kremlin is now covering up, what does that say about Soviet military command structures and the ability of the western world to negotiate a believable arms reduction treaty, an enforceable treaty with such a group?
Deplorable as this act of murder is, Mr. Speaker, it does not bring us closer to the Apocalypse. But it does demonstrate that the road back from the abyss will be longer and slower than any of us want or many of us thought.
As the Hon. Member for York-Peel indicated, we must talk. We must not allow this incident to prevent us from talking. We must not allow it to prevent us from pursuing aggressively the road to peace, to disarmament. For that is the only hope for the salvation of mankind. But what we have obviously learned, if we choose to learn it, is that we are dealing with a system, a regime, whose standards, whose morals, whose character is quite different from anything we could comprehend. It means, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that the road to disarmament and perpetual peace is not going to be easy; it is not going to be short. It means, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that in the meantime we will have to maintain, and in fact in Canada's case enhance, our military capabilities. It means that far from taking a step away from involving ourselves in NATO in support of our democratic countries, we as a country must reinforce that commitment in recognition that a democratic country could never perpetrate such a heinous act, and that as long as there are dictatorships of the sort that are now in control of the Soviet Union, we who value democracy, freedom and human rights and who can never justify the wanton taking of innocent civilian lives under any circumstance have no choice but to maintain a position of vigilance and strength.
I believe the history of KAL Flight 007 is known to us. Perhaps more complete detail which we do not know is forthcoming.
The behaviour of the Soviet Union in first denying that there was an airplane, then denying that there was in fact any shots fired at it, finally being forced to admit that it did in fact shoot it down but claiming it had every right to do so, and more horrendously saying that they will do so again, is just and reasonable cause for the House to condemn a government that would allow this to happen and to pass a motion expressing that condemnation to be delivered to our counterparts, the members of the Supreme Soviet in the Soviet Union.
This is not the occasion for a partisan debate about Canada's defence policies or defence position, but I humbly suggest that this event will at least serve some small benefit to Canadians and the free world if we recognize it for what it is, learn the lessons from what has happened and act accordingly in the future. Perhaps we can save innocent lives in the future and save our democratic system. While it will take a long time, perhaps we will reach, through patient negotiation and waiting for the changes which must occur behind the Iron Curtain, that hopeful day in the future when peace is assured for all of us.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be taking part in this emergency debate this evening, and to have an opportunity to express my disgust with the crime perpetrated by the Soviet Union some days ago. I feel that whatever our political allegiance, age or nationality, we were all dumbstruck when we heard the sad news and realized that respect for civilian lives had not prevailed among members of the Soviet army in the course of their monitoring of Russian air space. Mr. Speaker, not only did the Soviets commit this crime, they even had the nerve to deny the fact and subsequently to put the entire blame on the United States, and this while they had 269 deaths on their conscience, including 10 Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, after producing lies and denials and inventing a number of scenarios that were positively obscene, the Soviet authorities went so far as to say that in similar circumstances, they would take the same ruthless action.
I think Hon. Members could usefully reflect this evening on the seriousness of these events and on the ruthlessness of the authorities who committed a positively heinous crime against innocent victims, who want to use this incident to play political games, at the expense of the families of the victims, and who are shameless in their reprisal to confess before the international community to a crime that is among the worst in history that I am aware of, and one that has aroused the indignation of the free world at the intransigent attitude of the Communists.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that I listened earlier this evening to the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), who mentioned the measures he has taken on behalf of the Canadian Government, to lead the way in condemning this despicable deed.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the House are urging us to continue our pressure tactics. I can assure them we shall persist in our endeavours until a full settlement has been reached. However, we also hope to lead the way among members of the international community in keeping the pressure on the Soviet authorities. At the present time, the Soviets are under pressure because of the events in Afghanistan and Poland, but unfortunately, as soon as such events are
September 12, 1983

no longer in the news, observers, politicians and the general public often tend to take the situation for granted, although at this very moment, Soviet soldiers are shooting at Afghan citizens and in fact, the Soviet authorities are muzzling Poland, while now, the record also includes bodies floating on the waves and mourning relatives.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian authorities will continue their efforts. I would like to draw a parallel-perhaps not as serious as the death of ten Canadian citizens-but in January 1978, when Cosmos 954 disintegrated in the skies above our country, the Soviets took exactly the same position. They refused to acknowledge their responsibility just as they are doing in the present case. They did not even want to admit that the satellite was theirs. However, Canada did not despair, did not get discouraged and decided to maintain its position. Pessimists thought we would never get compensation for damages. However, by dint of determination and constant pressure, with a lot of patience and tight negotiating, Canada obtained a satisfactory settlement of $3 million. I can assure the House that in the case we are concerned with this evening, the Government is a hundred times more determined to obtain fair compensation for the victims' families. Actually, 1 hate to use the words fair compensation for ten innocent victims, and no amount of money can replace a father, a mother, a sister or a brother.
But at least I hope that the Soviets will have the kindness and generosity of trying to alleviate the hardships of those who were stranded on the ground.
Mr. Speaker, I am drawing a parallel with 1978 to show that we have no intention of giving up, to show that this unbreakable wall of the Soviet Union may be cracked, and to say that with Canada's leadership and many other countries' support they will not be able to resist much longer, they will not be able to lie outright to the world and forever expect no reaction. 1 should think that many speakers this evening will want to extend their condolences to the families and urge the Government to maintain its pressure until certain conditions are met. First, the Soviets should at least have the decency to acknowledge their responsibilities, indeed to confess before the international community, Mr. Speaker. We saw what happened at the Security Council: those hypocrites used their veto to prevent an inquiry into these incidents.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that in light of the motion of the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) it is imperative to develop practical and useful procedures to avoid a repetition of such barbaric behaviour. Finally, no one will be satisfied in Canada and in the free world until fair compensation has been given to the victims, because the human aspect remains the most significant in the events of the past few days. For a few months now a Soviet propaganda campaign was trying to make us forget Afghanistan and Poland, but in fact their resorting to military force has proved once again that we cannot really take any chances. And that incident has also taught us the frailty of the word freedom.
Deep in my heart, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that all Canadian citizens realized after hearing this tragic news just how frail it was and to what extent the political system and indeed the aggressiveness of certain nations could imperil the existence of many people. I hope that this incident, this accident or this murder, if you will, will give food for thoughts to the community of nations and to all political leaders throughout the world who have weapons, particularly deadly weapons. I think that we should all examine our conscience and that as long as the Soviets themselves do not examine theirs they will always stand guilty in our eyes and nothing will change our verdict of guilt.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that 1 rise in this most serious debate on a subject of concern to all Canadians. And at the beginning of my remarks, I would like to commend all the Members from both sides of the House who have been in attendance until now. There is in my view a minimum of partisanship and a maximum of good will, a sense of national unity if you like, and above all a determination not to exasperate cold-war tensions, and also a concern for the victims of such a hideous crime as was said earlier.
The timing of this tragedy has been referred to by my colleague from York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) as well as others. I would simply repeat that in my view this is possibly the worst moment imaginable for something like this to have taken place. As all Hon. Members know, negotiations are now under way in Geneva with respect to medium-range nuclear missile weapons in Europe. My colleague the Hon. Member for York-Peel read from an article in yesterday's New York Times. I would refer to another passage in the same article which indicated that on this issue, namely the question of medium-range missiles, the United States might be prepared to drop its previous demand for over-all global equality in the deployment of medium-range missiles in favour of equality only in Europe. The article also adds that the Soviets might be prepared to consider dropping their demand to include French and British missiles in the medium-range category.
The talks are obviously at a crucial stage because the deployment of American Pershing missiles in West Germany will start in December if some settlement is not reached. All of us here who want a lasting peace in the world are thus saddened, and I think the best word is vexed, that this tragedy may in one way or another not prevent the deployment of nine out of 108 Pershing II missiles on December 15, 1983 in West Germany.
Other speakers have talked about the human side of this incident. I am sure there is no one here tonight who is not-

-read the many articles on that tragedy. Everyone wonders why such a tragedy has happened a few days ago. Maybe the

September 12, 1983
pilot wanted to save fuel and decided on a shorter route? Maybe there was a hijacking? One may bet on anything, Mr. Speaker. But like anyone else, 1 ask myself this question: How is it possible to murder as was said in so many words, 269 innocent passengers in such circumstances?

Robbie Burns, I think it was, used the expression "Man's inhumanity to man." It is absolutely impossible for any Canadian to imagine something like this happening in the way it did.
My colleague from York-Peel read out the names of the Canadian victims. Let me also put them on the record. Mari-lou Covey, Brother Jean-Paul Gregoire, Mary Jane Hendrie, Francois Robert de Massy, Georgis Panagopoulos, Francois Robert, Larry Patrick Sayers, Mrs. Chun Lan Yeh, Mao San Lim, and Mrs. Chi Man Leung. Let me read what Miss Hendrie's father said:
[ Translation]
He said in French, and I quote:
This is murder. For my wife and myself, the most precious person in the world has been murdered.

Georgis Panagopoulos is remembered by his fiancee, Maryze Jimenez.

-Maryze Jimenez, 19, from Toronto, and I quote:
I do not know what to think.
And I add, and this is not a quote, Miss Jimenez, reservation manager at the Hotel in Toronto, was to join her fiance soon after his arrival in Korea. They planned on getting married.
It is my understanding that the brothers and family of Larry Patrick Sayers are desperately anxious that his identification and other materials be returned. Hopefully his body will also be returned to them for proper burial in Canada. I have also been informed personally that his family is anxious that everything possible be done to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again.
I would like to single out one victim, Mary Jane Hendrie- and I am sure that this could be done for any of the victims- and add a bit to what has already been said about her. I think she was an absolutely extraordinary person. It may give us all a better sense of what happened to refer to one person. She was the eldest of five children. Her two grandmothers have both come to Canada from Dundee, Scotland, to be with the family. She obtained her B.A. Honours degree with distinction from the University of Toronto. She spent a year in Tokyo University in foreign studies. She spoke the Japanese language fluently. She looked hard for a job and found one with an international investment firm. She was on her way to that job when this incident happened. She had won many honours. She received a Sir James Dunn high school scholarship. She had
been on a Rotary exchange. She was an expert in synchronized swimming. She ran the fastest mile at the city track meet. The human dimensions of this have hit all of us very strongly.
I would like to quote Marcel Adam of La Presse who put it as well as anyone could in a recent article headed:

The USSR reveals the true nature of its regime
After having brazenly lied about the circumstances surrounding the incident, the USSR, confronted with the overwhelming evidence brought before the United Nations, have finally admitted to having committed that infamous act with which they were charged, but without the least remorse, without the least intention to compensate in any way for the consequences of this mindless crime against humanity.

Another French editorial appeared in La Presse which I think expressed the feelings of many of us very well. I refer to the article of September 2. It reads:
[ Translation]
Governments and nations that still enjoy the freedom to be indignant already condemn and will go on condemning such a vicious attack against a Korean commercial aircraft by a Soviet fighter North of Japan. But in the face of such a brutal and senseless act that has sent to their deaths 269 powerless and unarmed persons, indignation is not enough. What is still needed, as was firmly pointed out yesterday by Ottawa and Washington, is that Moscow provide the world with the necessary explanations.

The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) made the point very well that we are living in a shrinking world and that we know, each one of us, that the dialogue between the free world and the Soviet Union should be increasing, not decreasing. There are many issues which are vital to the maintenance of a fragile world peace. I do not think anyone in this nation would want to jeopardize that fragile peace. On the other hand, we all abhor and condemn the shooting down of Korean Airlines flight 007. All of us feel that the tragedy was compounded by the continuing refusal of the Soviet Government to accept any fault by its indication that it would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
Would a peace seeking government characterize this act other than as having been a grave error? Would a peace seeking government not have apologized and offered to provide compensation to the victims' families? This brings me to my final point. What do we do now? What further firm but prudent step should Canada take now? I submit that a reasonable step in the circumstances, assuming the Soviet Union does not accept any fault in this matter, is to close down for an unstated period of time all Soviet flights coming to or going from Gander airport.
I obtained some data from the Department of Transport today which might be of interest to Hon. Members. In fairness I must point out that the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) was in error when he said on September 7 in a press release:
September 12, 1983

What remains using Gander is a flight that may occur once a month, probably less than that.
1 would like to draw the Minister's attention to the figures provided by the Department of Transport today. In July, eight Aeroflot flights landed at Gander; in June, there were five; in May, there was one; in April, there were two; in March, there were two; and, in February, there were two.


An Hon. Member:: Where were they going?


David Kilgour: I hear someone asking where they were going. My information is that they were going from Moscow to Gander to Havana, South America, or vice versa. It would be a reasonable further indication of our disapproval of the tragedy and what has happened since. My Party and I salute the Government and give it full credit for the step it took at Mirabel. Hopefully we will take this additional step at Gander with the hope that these flights will be restored quickly. Recognizing that there will be a loss of revenue to people in Gander I hope they will be compensated.
Every Canadian listening to the debate would primarily see it as a moment of national unity. It seems to me that we as Canadians are saying that this is not the way we want the world to be run. We are a young country. We have people from every corner of the world in this land. We want our leaders and our country to behave with restraint, human kindness and compassion and to lead us toward peace. Obviously this act of the Soviets was not an act toward peace. We are as desperately anxious for peace in the world as I know you are, Mr. Speaker. We want a peaceful world, a world that respects opportunity for everyone. That is the message which each and every Member of the House of Commons has received from his constituents. They want us to act wisely but firmly. As I mentioned before, it would be a firm but prudent addition to what has been done if the flights into Gander were stopped.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy but I feel it is important for as many Hon. Members as possible to rise and participate in the debate this evening which has been so properly raised by the New Democratic Party. Indeed it is frustrating for me-and I know it must be frustrating for every Member of the House-to rise to speak about an event, a government and a system which resulted in the deaths of innocent people, ten innocent Canadians and 259 others. It is frustrating because one gains the impression that the words we utter in this Chamber, judging by the reaction from the Soviet Union in recent days, are falling on uncaring, insensitive and perhaps even deaf ears. Frustrating as it may seem, we in the House of Commons as representatives of the Canadian people must stand and be heard in condemning a brutal and cold act of murder.
1 appreciate the importance of giving a balanced and measured response to what has occurred. I realize as well that there can be no possibility on our part of sending out any other signal to those in our country and elsewhere in the world that we in this Chamber unanimously condemn this act and label it precisely what it was, that is, murder.
When my colleagues and I condemn the system of government and the mentality that could allow this kind of savage event to occur, we do not condemn a nation, its history or its people. We do condemn the geopolitical reality of today, a reality that began to evolve immediately after World War II when a country grabbed up territory. At that time other old world empires such as the so-called British Empire were disintegrating. At that time France was re-evaluating its role in North Africa. Other free nations were re-evaluating the colonial attitude. We condemn today a political system which at that same time, out of crisis, deemed it necessary to grab up territory and expand its borders.
The kind of paranoia and lack of understanding of the realities in an ever-shrinking world, as my colleague said, which existed in 1945 still exists today. It has allowed innocent people on a commercial airline to be brutally murdered. This was because of the feeling on the part of the leadership of the Russian nation. Somehow even a commercial airliner and innocent lives must fall before the knife of self-interest and the interest of a sovereign state.
The reaction of the Government of Canada has been appropriate. As the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has asked, there has been a measured response, but it has been a firm response. We were the first nation in the free world to respond in a tangible way and take concrete action.
Some Members have expressed the concern that we not take action that would financially affect the interests of our nation, such as the banning of Soviet Aeroflot flights. I can assure Hon. Members that whether it be in Gander or in Montreal, Canadians do not put a price tag on the integrity of human life. Nor do they put a price tag on the values that we hold dear, values that we have built up in Canada.
1 repeat that I find it frustrating to speak. I somehow feel that I am not being listened to. However, we in the free world, especially those in this House of Commons, must avoid any possibility of sending out a divided message. I appreciate and associate myself with the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member opposite. However, because of the desire to express ourselves clearly in condemning the Soviet Union, I would not want, because of procedural questions, to send out any message. 1 do not believe the Member opposite would want to send out any signal to the Soviet Union that this House is in any way divided. I hope arrangements can be reached to ensure that this House is unanimous in this condemnation.
We must speak. To those who say we must act in even more dramatic ways, I say that we have to accept the real world. I was not around at the time, but as a student of history I can imagine some of the tensions that existed previous to World

September 12, 1983
War II and perhaps to the Korean War. Nations were behaving in a belligerent manner. The tendency was to shoot first and ask questions later. The difference with this event, and I think it is a fair comparison, is that the free world has responded in a unanimous way.
The Soviet leadership must be convinced that the people of this country and every other country in this world, including the people of the Soviet Union, must feel safe when flying on commercial aircraft. All countries must understand that every citizen in this world, whatever political philosophy motivates his government, must not be perceived by his respective government as a pawn to be moved on the geopolitical chessboard in the world today.
As still a relatively new Member of this Elouse, I am pleased that despite the policital differences of the Parties of this House and despite some of the heated exchanges and differences of view that we have had among Members, we can express to a leadership and political force that was formed out of crisis after World War II that we shall continue to say that we will not respond to rhetoric with rhetoric, but to say with common sense and a sense of brotherhood among men of all nations of the world that this kind of bloodshed will always firmly and immediately be condemned by free men everywhere.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party said in introducing this motion for an emergency debate today, nothing, no national security interest, no fear of espionage, no defence of borders can excuse such an act as that committed by the Soviet Union on Korean Airlines flight 007.
Since first learning of the attack, we have been appalled by Soviet actions and reactions; not the actions and reactions that one would expect of what we had thought to be a leading power in the world. At the very beginning there was a screen of silence, total silence on the Korean air carrier having been shot down. Indeed, on September 2, in my first response to the Soviet silence I condemned it and condemned them, as did the Secretary of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin). I said there should immediately be an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, that Canada should play a major role in pressing the issue forward, that the Council should authorized the United Nations Secretary-General to conduct a full inquiry of the matter and, failing that, a general meeting of the General Assembly should be called. That was a statement I made on behalf of my Party on September 2.
When the Soviet Union continued to be silent and made no effort whatsoever to take any responsibility for this immoral act, as the Leader of my Party described it both on September 6 in his press release and again today, all of us in this House, I think, continue to be shocked by such an aggressive and violent act and by the attitude of the Soviet Union, not just toward the United States or toward any single nation, because this is not a matter between the United States and the Soviet Union, but by its total silence with regard to the rest of the world. This
issue is one between the Soviet Union and the rest of the world and, indeed, all humanity.
Almost the final straw, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) as well, came when listening to the television address of the Soviet Chief of Staff, Nikolai Ogarkov, about two evenings ago. I will just read into the record two of the questions and answers that we heard on that evening. The question to the Soviet Chief of Staff was:
Would it have made a difference if there were more than 2,000 instead of more than 200 people aboard, or would that have been justified in defence of the borders of the Soviet Union?
Marshal Ogarkov replied:
I suggest that this is just a hypothetical question having no relevance-
Then a little later on, the question was asked:
If the Soviet Union bears no guilt in this affair as you have said today, why have you not yet told your own people that 269 people died?
Ogarkov: How would we know how many people were on board on the plane? So to report to the Soviet people the number of persons aboard is simply illogical.
By that very statement, Mr. Speaker, the Soviet Chief of Staff did concede what the Soviet Union has up until now, and even today, refused to concede, and that is, that it knew that there were civilians on board.
It is not good enough to say, "Well, they may have been provoked." There may indeed have been some provocation, but one does not shoot down an unarmed civilian aircraft. As I say, there is, I think, no disagreement in the House and no disagreement in the Houses of Assembly of most countries of the world to the absolute basic fact that one does not shoot down an unarmed civilian airliner whether one thinks there was some provocation or whether one thinks there was espionage or whatever.
I recall very vividly that when Israel brought down an airliner, the Soviet Union was very critical, very critical indeed, as we all were. So it has become almost unbelievable that we should have to come here tonight and bring this message to a country, which is a great power in the world and which surely must realize by now that there is absolutely no justification for its act.
Now the final straw is that we have heard that the request to the Security Council of the United Nations that the Secretary General be authorized to conduct a full investigation has been vetoed by the Soviet Union and probably, I understand, by Poland as well. Some people might have said, "Oh, well, there may be other countries, maybe the United States, maybe other countries, that would not want a full investigation because something might come up that they would not want known." I have heard some people say that. Well, that is now out the window. Of those who might have said that, the Soviet Union is the only major power, the nation involved in this tragedy, and it vetoes a request to have the Secretary General conduct an investigation.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it may be possible for us now to go forward to the General Assembly, and indeed I hope it would be possible to have a special session of the General Assembly
September 12, 1983

called. Even if the House unanimously endorses our motion or another motion further elaborating on it, we still, I think, must insist, and all nations like us in the world, and there are many, that we would want to see a full investigation conducted and the General Assembly called into special session to see if this could be made possible.
So from hearing absolute silence, to denial, to admitting that there were civilians aboard, to saying basically that they would do it again, to now vetoing a request to have the Secretary General of the United Nations conduct an investigation, we are, as many other speakers have said, really left to wonder whether the Soviet Union intends to conduct its further international affairs in a similar vein. Many have remarked that we do not want this terrible tragedy, this unwarranted attack, to colour the relations that nations must continue having together, particularly in the crucial area of arms control and disarmament. It seems to me that one of the good signs indicating that the United States will not allow this to interfere with arms control discussions is that it has not called off the negotiations. Indeed, on the contrary, it has encouraged the negotiations in Geneva to continue. It has not engaged in the kind of rhetoric that would so inflame East-West tensions that such negotiations would become impossible.
I hope it does not engage in such rhetoric and I hope that we do not because, as many speakers have said, we must continue to find a peaceful resolution to our conflicts and disputes.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) mentioned that there was not enough that was positive in our motion about what we are to do tomorrow. What do we do tomorrow to ensure the safety of passengers on civilian carriers on international routes including carriers that for whatever reason go off route? Actually, our motion said that we want action taken by the Government to ensure the protection of Canadians and citizens of other countries who travel on civilian aircraft on international routes.
We want Government action to be taken by this Government and other Governments, both in the United Nations and in the meetings of the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is what we are asking for. The Minister of Transport agreed that we must re-examine the rules relating to civil aviation, but all he had to offer was identification and communication. That is very important, but I could not help wondering about it since so many defence experts, particularly in the United States, have said several times over the last ten days that many airlines, Soviet, Cuban, Korean and others, do in fact allow their civilian carriers to participate in surveillance activities of military installations. That is electronic espionage, as some people call it. This comes from particularly knowledgeable people in the scientific defence community in the United States. Unless there are new regulations which will limit landing rights and over-flight permission to aircraft that are not engaging in such activities, then I do not think we can bring the kind of security we want to international air travelers. This is the message that I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will bring to the meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization this week.
All of us in the House want to bring, above all-and I think all Members who have spoken so far and 1 am sure it will be true of the rest-our abhorrence of the Soviet action, our distress at its rejection of any responsibility, our wish that our voices along with the many other voices raised, to the attention of the Soviet Union. We hope they will allow a full investigation by the Security Council and will help all of us, as well as themselves, to ensure that such a tragedy will never occur again.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we had some fruitful talks among House Leaders and I am happy to report an agreement. I would seek unanimous consent to interrupt the debate to allow the Leader of the New Democratic Party to move a motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to interrupting the debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some procedural concern about the motion before us.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the unanimous consent is to allow us to interrupt debate. We will have a separate motion and then we will revert to the debate. There may then be further consent to something else.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to recognize the Hon. Member at this point?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding, and I am sure the Government House Leader will agree, that there is unanimous consent to interrupt the debate to hear a motion put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, seconded by the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), and then the question would be put. That is my understanding.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion, but before doing so I want to clarify the understanding that was reached. It is an interesting consensus that occurs from time to time in the House, for which the people of Canada, I am sure, are profoundly grateful.
In speaking in support of the motion moved by myself earlier, the House Leader for the Conservative Party, speaking on a point of order, indicated the possibility of the House achieving agreement on an additional motion. As a result, there were discussions involving all three Parties which produced a motion that I wholeheartedly move, seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) as follows:
That the attack on the Korean Airlines passenger plane on August 31 by Soviet military aircraft resulted directly in the loss of 269 lives including ten Canadians;

That this utterly unjustifiable resort to the use of weapons of war in the interception of defenceless civil aircraft contravenes universally held standards of civilized international behaviour and international law governing civil aviation;
That the Soviet Government has provided neither a credible explanation of the circumstances nor any full acknowledgement of responsibility, appears unrepentant and unwilling to co-operate in international efforts to prevent a repetition of this tragedy;
Therefore, this House expresses its profound sympathy to the bereaved families of the victims;
Condemns the unwarranted attack on the destruction of the Korean airliner on the orders of Soviet authorities;
Demands a full and truthful explanation of this brutal act from the Soviet Government;
Demands that the Soviet Government co-operate fully in any impartial investigation under the auspices of the United Nations and of the International Civil aviation Organization to prevent any repetition of such a tragedy;
Demands that the Soviet authorities immediately offer full and generous compensation to the families of all victims including Canadians; and
Directs the Speaker to convey the text of this motion to the Chairman of the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The debate has been interrupted in order that the Hon. Member for Oshawa could give notice of a possible motion. The Chair has the problem at this point that there is a motion to adjourn before the House. Could this be
September 12, 1983
set aside? Is there unanimous consent to withdrawing that motion and then the Hon. Member for Oshawa could put the motion of which he has given notice. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not absolutely positive but 1 believe we have now dispensed with the motion that we had before us. I think that what my Leader moved, seconded by the two other Parties, eloquently says what the House of Commons and this Party hoped would be the outcome of today's debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement that the House do now adjourn?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House is now adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock in the morning.
At 10.38 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
September 12, 1983



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office, the next senior minister who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the functions of the Office of Prime Minister, be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
2.	that in the absence from Ottawa of a Minister whose name is set out in Column II of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
3.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of both of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column 1 of the item;
4.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Ministers named in Columns II, III and IV of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of all those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Prime Minister or, if the Prime Minister is absent from Ottawa or unable to perform the functions of his Office, the next senior minister who is in Ottawa be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
5.	that where an Office set out in Column I of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item; and
6.	that where an Office set out in Column I of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, in the absence from Ottawa of the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of the Office set out in Column I of that item, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item.

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN I
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN II
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN III
[Stage Direction]
COLUMN IV SECOND ACTING
[Stage Direction]
OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
NAME
[Stage Direction]
ACTING MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
MINISTER
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Communications
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Consumer and Corporate Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
4a.
[Stage Direction]
Economic
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
4b.
[Stage Direction]
Development Science and
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Technology
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
Employment and Immigration
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
6.
[Stage Direction]
Energy, Mines and Resources
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
7.
[Stage Direction]
Environment
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
8.
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
September 12, 1983
[Stage Direction]
9,
[Stage Direction]
Finance
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. MacLaren
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
10.
[Stage Direction]
Fisheries and Oceans
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
II.
[Stage Direction]
Indian Affairs and Northern Development
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
12a.
[Stage Direction]
Industry, Trade and Commerce
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. P. Smith
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
12b.
[Stage Direction]
Regional Economic Expansion
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. P. Smith
[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. Regan
[Stage Direction]
13.
[Stage Direction]
Justice and Attorney General
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
14a.
[Stage Direction]
Labour
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
14b.
[Stage Direction]
Post Office
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
15.
[Stage Direction]
National Defence
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
16.
[Stage Direction]
National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. C. Hervieux-Payette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
17.
[Stage Direction]
National Revenue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
18.
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. P. Smith
[Stage Direction]
19.
[Stage Direction]
Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
20.
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. Collenette
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox
[Stage Direction]
21.
[Stage Direction]
Social Development
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Miss M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
22.
[Stage Direction]
Solicitor General
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. MacGuigan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
23.
[Stage Direction]
Supply and Services
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
24.
[Stage Direction]
Transport
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
25.
[Stage Direction]
Treasury Board
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. Gray
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
26.
[Stage Direction]
Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 13, 1983