1983-12-14

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, this is a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Government. It says one thing but does another. Take the Throne Speech for instance.
The Speech says: "Environment 2000 will be created to carry out... . national park development", but in practice this Government destroyed a park in Banff to accommodate a former Liberal Cabinet Minister's hotel.
The Speech says: "The Government is to reduce poverty among the aged." But the Government refuses to help needy women between the ages of 50 and 65.
The Speech says: "Extend native rights." And yet it does nothing to relieve poverty on our reservations, where in one case 20 people had to live in a house built for six.
The Speech says: "The Government will make divorce more equitable." During the years of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), morality has gone down the drain; marriage takes second place; and common-law wives are now given privileges not extended to married women.
The Speech talks about building a national partnership for prosperity. In practice this Government attacks the provincial Governments at every turn.
The Speech talks about restraint, yet the Government spent $50 million on compulsory metric.
Like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this Liberal Government will die a terrible death, and the sooner the better.


DUMPING OF UNITED STATES POTATOES ON BRITISH COLUMBIA MARKET
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, two days ago the potato farmers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island won a very important anti-dumping action brought against them by the farmers of
the State of Maine. I wish to congratulate the farmers on their victory over very unjust treatment.
Also, I wish to express the anxiety felt by farmers in other regions of Canada, particularly in British Columbia, anxiety that possibly the success in eastern Canada is going to make the Government less vigilant and dampen the Government's determination to pursue the matter of unjust treatment on the West Coast where the farmers of Washington State are dumping potatoes on the market in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.
I simply want to take this opportunity to urge the Government to pursue the matter of unjust treatment of the farmers of British Columbia in that marketplace with the same kind of vigour with which it pursued the matter in eastern Canada.


THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: First of all, Madam Speaker, I should like to say that we are glad to see you back in the chair of the House. Secondly, I want to take a few seconds to point out to you that yesterday, in a flight of oratory, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) referred to us as the clowns from Quebec. Once again I cannot let that remark of the Hon. Member for Central Nova go unchallenged. First and foremost, it is important to recall that, in this House and throughout the country, Canadians have been ever respectful of one another during the past century. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Official Opposition has yet to understand that every time he says something about Quebecers or refers to Quebec, he never fails to use the word clowns or to make Quebecers believe that he knew what was going on in my riding when he was more than 1,000 kilometres removed from my hometown of Schefferville. In others words, seeking to woo the electors in English-speaking regions or in other provinces by attacking Quebecers, including snide remarks about the personal life of their representatives, does not reflect the way Canada was built and, more to the point, that is not the type of man Canadians want as Prime Minister.
Madam Speaker, I mention this with the hope that the Hon. Member for Central Nova will appreciate that mutual respect and constructive ideas just might be his stepping stone to becoming an outstanding politician-unless he has already lost

December 14, 1983
every ambition to be Prime Minister of Canada one of these days.
* *
*


LABOUR RELATIONS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, recently a great victory for women and, indeed, for all workers, was won by the United Auto Workers Local 1325 in Stratford, Ontario. In a major breakthrough in collective bargaining, the union fought for and won recognition of child care as an important service for employees.
The employer, Canadian Fabricated Products, has agreed to put two cents per hour worked by employees into a daycare fund, contributing a total of $935 per week. In order for this project to be successful as a demonstration program it is essential that the federal Government participate in funding.
I wish to congratulate the union for achieving this genuine success story for women in the labour movement. Over 90 per cent of the 1,170 workers at the plant are women, including the local union president, plant chairperson, and the entire bargaining committee.
Once again the labour movement is in the forefront of progressive social change. Medicare pensions and human rights legislation also began as individual clauses in union contracts. NDP Members of Parliament join the labour movement in urging the Government to take the necessary steps to guarantee universal daycare for all parents and children in all communities. We urge the federal Government to follow this example and expand daycare for federal employees.


CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, for three days we have been hearing horror stories about government spending out of control, and clear examples of the Liberals cooking the books. I would like to focus on this Government neglecting books, a clear violation of Canada's cultural heritage.
In the Auditor General's Report two chapters are devoted to grave concern about the federal Government's lack of attention to our priceless national assets in the National Library and the Public Archives of Canada.
Sir Arthur Doughty, the first Dominion Archivist, said this back in 1924:
Of all national assets, archives are the most precious; they are the gift of one generation to another, and the extent of our care of them marks the extent of our civilization.
The Auditor General warns that not only is security woefully inadequate to protect Canada's cultural treasures; worse, there is totally insufficient funding to protect our national assets from deterioration because they are being maintained in unacceptable temperature and humidity conditions. Surely the Government's spending priorities are entirely out of whack. Only one-half person hour per year has been designated for preservation work in the National Library.
I find utterly incredible the fact that the Government wastes untold hundreds of millions of dollars on its short-term political projects, while Canada's precious national assets succumb to age and lack of proper care.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, a situation recently came to my attention which demonstrates all too clearly the nightmare of red tape that has been imposed upon small business by the Government.
A businessman in my constituency of Brandon-Souris is a distributor of agricultural machinery repair parts. He has been told that, in order to be exempt from duty charges on the products he imports and sells, he must provide detailed records of every transaction. That means a piece of paperwork for items worth only 25 cents. On top of that, he cannot get a straight answer on whether he has to pay federal sales tax on these items. In addition, some larger dealers who are in the same business but have much greater resources are exempt from the very same regulations which he must meet.
His is a story with a familiar ring. Because of the great amount of record keeping involved in some government programs, many small businesses may be inclined to forget about the regulations and forgo the benefits of the programs. If a company simply cannot comply with the regulations, either the extra cost is passed on to the consumer, or the company must discontinue carrying certain products altogether.
It is abundantly clear to owners of small businesses that the Liberals can offer them nothing but pointless interference and prohibitive regulations. The only hope for the small businesses of this country is that the Liberal Government itself will soon be out of business.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, over the past few months the Government has been trumpeting the benefits of high-technology as a panacea for the economic problems we face. Just recently the Minister of State for
December 14, 1983

Science and Technology (Mr. Johnston) sponsored the Canada Tomorrow Conference at a cost of over half a million dollars, to discuss the possible implementation of high-tech applications in Canadian industry.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House an example of the effects of high-technology applications when undertaken with little consideration of the human costs involved. In Midland, Ontario, on Friday, January 13, Bell Canada will close down an office and displace 15 operators. Of course the company will continue to receive its money from Midland, but it will provide 15 fewer jobs in a community which is already hard strapped. Bell Canada has still not announced whether Clinton, Lindsay, Beaverton, and Peterborough will not also be so blessed by the same benefits of its new high-technology applications.
New technology, imposed without consultation and control by workers and smaller communities, has a potential to impose great human and economic suffering. Government has a responsibility to pass legislation to ensure workers some right of control and adequate notice of new technology, especially as, in the case of Bell, the company that is supposed to be government regulated.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, last night the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the Government's intention to rename the Toronto International Airport.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The newly-named Lester B. Pearson International Airport-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Glenn Fisher: -is proudly located in my riding of Mississauga North.


Mr. McDermid:: Wait til Hazel McCallion, the Mayor of Mississauga, gets hold of you.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Lester Pearson built his reputation on high personal and political principles. He was a proud Canadian, as well as a peacemaker and a citizen of the world. His personal generosity was his hallmark, and he used our country's great wealth to build the social safety nets we all enjoy today. The people of Mississauga North welcome the opportunity to honour this great Canadian in our city.
Oral Questions


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, today, I would like to raise the issue of air transportation along the Middle and Lower North Shore and to Northern communities, and also I suppose to the Gaspe peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. Since the Canadian Government through Transport Canada is subsidizing air transportation along the Middle and Lower North Shore to the tune of some $600,000 a year, I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to check with Quebecair and see that the said annual grant is passed on through the rate restructure that will be proposed by the company. Madam Speaker, the problem along the Middle and Lower North Shore is that a return ticket between Blanc-Sablon and Montreal costs $695, with somewhat similar fares from Chevrerie, Natashquan and Sept-iles. I therefore suggest that before handing out grants to Quebecair, it would be important for the Canadian Government to make sure that the rate structure will benefit the people rather than Government bodies only, such as Quebecair in conjunction with the Province of Quebec.


RETIREMENT OF ASSISTANT DEPUTY SERGEANT-AT-ARMS, FRANK YATES
Madam Speaker:: I would like to indicate to the House that today is the last day on the floor of the House for Mr. Frank Yates, the Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms. Mr. Yates, as we all know, has served the House of Commons for 21 years. He is retiring today. I know that Members will want to express their good wishes.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon the Members rose in tribute.]



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In an interview with the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue has described the

December 14, 1983
Oral Questions
request that was made to Kitchener City Council for direct access to its data base as "a fishing expedition". He said that such fishing expeditions have long been carried out with regard to Canadian municipalities, hospitals, school boards, and lists of payments to all doctors in a province from some health insurance plans. Is it the policy of the Minister to authorize fishing expeditions by his Department?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is playing with words. If he reads the article and tries to understand the explanations given by the Deputy Minister, he will realize that a witch hunt or fishing expedition is not at all what we have in mind when we ask for certain data. I have previously had occasion to explain to the House, in answer to questions on the same topic, that when we believe an individual or group of individuals are not entering all their income on their income tax returns, we want to check whether there is additional income that should be accounted for through our auditing operations.


PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY'S COMMENTS ON STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO DEPUTY MINISTER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, one person who clearly has not been convinced by the Minister is the Hon. Member for Kitchener, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, who is quoted in the Kitchener- Waterloo Record of November 26, 1983, as asking how the Deputy Minister, Mr. MacDonald, "could have the gall to state what government policy is. He has no right to do that. I am certainly going to take it up with the Minister."
Did the Member for Kitchener take this up with the Minister? Did he in fact state to the Minister, as he stated to the Kitchener- Waterloo Record with reference to Mr. MacDonald's comments, that "it's proposterous he made the statement. Why does he think we put in the Privacy Act?" If indeed the Member for Kitchener, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, took this up with the Minister, has the Minister agreed with the position that is being taken by the Member for Kitchener, or does he stand with his Deputy?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I did have a chance to discuss the matter with the Member for Kitchener. We discussed the procedure followed by the Department of National Revenue in performing its duties, to ensure that the Income Tax Act is enforced equitably and that each Canadian taxpayer pays his fair share, unlike what the Progressive Conservative Party would like to see. They would prefer to have the Income Tax Act enforced inequitably. Let people who can get away with it defraud the system and let others who have no choice pay more taxes, an
attitude that deliberately ignores the principle of equity that should be applied to all Canadian taxpayers.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL DIRECTIVE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, what the Conservative Party is asking for is equity and respect for the taxpayers of Canada. Is the Minister not aware of the statement that was made by the Member for Kitchener, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board? He said that as a result of his representations and of this request that was made to Kitchener, he expects that this Minister will be issuing a directive to all district offices to put curbs on these fishing expeditions in the future. Did the Hon. Member for Kitchener know what he was talking about? If he did, when will that directive be issued?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in the preamble to his question, the Hon. Member made a comment on equity. I may remind him that the basic principle of equity, in administering the Income Tax Act, is to ensure that we all pay our fair share. Moreover, the responsibility of the Department of National Revenue for ensuring that this is done means that we must perform audits. By requesting certain data from public institutions such as municipalities or school boards we are fulfilling our responsibility, which is to check whether each Canadian taxpayer is paying his fair share of income tax.


COSTS OF APPEALING INCOME TAX ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The Income Tax Act has a built-in roadblock which prevents many Canadians, especially middle class Canadians, from obtaining tax justice. That roadblock is the question of costs. Before people can appeal an income tax assessment they must put the money up front, they must retain a lawyer, they must retain accounting advice, and then, at the end of the day, even when an appeal is successful, they cannot be compensated for their costs. Will the Minister, as a matter of government policy, permit the taxpayer who is successful in his appeal against an assessment, costs for the ordeal?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in any case, the Hon. Member's suggestion would require amendments to the Income Tax Act, which is subject to the tax policy proposed by the Minister of Finance. I will take his suggestion as a representation that I shall discuss with the Minister of Finance.
December 14, 1983


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, that is what I like about this Minister. He will give all possible support, short of help.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ACCOUNTANTS' CHARGE OF UNREASONABLE DURESS
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring up a very serious matter which deals with attitude and the behaviour of the administration of the system. The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants submitted a brief to the Macdonald Royal Commission in which the Institute made a very serious charge. The report indicates that Revenue Canada has threatened to assess more than the amount it believes is proper, as part of the bargaining process to get the taxpayer to accept what Revenue Canada regarded as proper. The conclusion reached by the Institute is that this is unreasonable duress to place on an individual or corporation. Has the Minister investigated this particular charge, how serious is the charge, and what is he doing about it?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am just as concerned as the Hon. Member about the impact of this comment by experts on tax legislation. I have had discussions on the subject with my senior officials, and I can assure the Hon. Member that our objective is that the amounts arrived at by tax audits shall not be in excess of the amount owed by taxpayers to the Government.


BANKS AND BANKING
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. For six weeks in a row the Bank of Canada has posted an increase in its interest rate. This increase is at the expense of farmers and small businesses all across the land. We have learned why this is happening from today's business section of The Globe and Mail. The banks of Canada have posted a record $1.89 billion profit. The Globe and Mail, with its usual perception, explains why this is so, and I would like the Minister to deal with the matter. The article in The Globe and Mail reads:
The way the banks made money in hard times was to widen the spread between what they paid on deposits and received in interest from loans.
In other words, the banks have been over-charging Canadians for money, with excessive interest rates. I would ask the Minister when the Government will produce an interest rate policy that will be favourable to farmers, workers, and small businessmen instead of the banks of Canada.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I would first like to point out to the Hon. Member that, in
Oral Questions
spite of the fact that both in Canada and the United States there has been an increase in bank rates, this has had no impact at all in terms of loans to individuals like the farmers and small businessmen to whom the Hon. Member referred. The prime rate has remained the same as it was in the weeks before, which is 11 per cent, the same level as it is in the United States.
As the Hon. Member knows, we are very much influenced by what is happening in the United States in this regard. We have succeeded, in the last year and a half, in eliminating the former 5 per cent, spread in favour of U.S. rates as compared to Canadian rates. We have brought our prime rate to the same level as that of the United States. We have been successful as a country in compressing any difference between the U.S. and Canadian rates.
[DOT] (U25)
As far as the issue of bank profits is concerned, I have to remind my hon. friend that for 1983 it appears that the return on assets of banks in Canada is expected to be .54 per cent; in 1982 it was .43 per cent, and in 1981 it was .57 per cent. The net interest income, which is a tax equivalent, would make it 2.53 per cent in 1983, 2.50 per cent in 1980, and 2.70 per cent in 1981. In effect, in 1983 we have had a situation where the banks have not been in a better position than they were in 1981 before we were hit by the recession. I should like my friend to bear these figures in mind when he raises the points he has just raised.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I summarized by quoting my favourite source of objective information for what is going on in the Canadian economy, the business section of The Globe and Mail. It was The Globe and Mail, and not the Minister of Finance, that pointed out that the profits of the banks today are at historical record levels at the expense, I may add, of all other Canadians. Whatever the Minister says, he cannot avoid that truth.


INTEREST RATES CHARGED TO FARMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister a question concerning a particular group that is of special concern, and that is the farmers. The number of bankruptcies in the farm sector has gone up by some 16 per cent in the past year. That is not coincidental to the increase in bank profits. In his submission to the Macdonald Royal Commission, the Minister of Agriculture, speaking about farmers, said that the problem is being made worse by increasing costs, including interest rates. Will the Minister of Finance give some consistency in policy and at least take action where the Minister of Agriculture has promised it, and do something for farmers about the exhorbitant interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Government has already taken a number of steps under the strong urging and pressures from the very able Minister of Agriculture. We have announced a number of steps in the last

December 14, 1983
Oral Questions
budget, and a number of steps even before the last budget, with regard to assisting farmers.
The fact is that interest rates were indeed very high, but they have come down quite substantially in the last year. We have been able to achieve this because, in spite of the opposition of the New Democratic Party, there has been strong support in the country for reducing inflation, and for the six and five program in particular. This has helped us all around to bring our interest rates down at least to the levels they are in the United States. We have succeeded in doing this in spite of the opposition of the NDP.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, in spite of what the Minister said, everyone, including farmers, knows that they are experiencing a record number of bankruptcies. As the Minister of Agriculture has pointed out, that has everything to do with the exhorbitant interest rates the banks are charging our farmers.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REDUCE INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should like to come back to the general question of interest rates. The Minister knows that it is not only the New Democratic Party but the Economic Council of Canada, the C.D. Howe Institute, Statistics Canada, the Economic Council of Canada, and all kinds of other groups outside the House of Commons, that have been telling the Minister that, unless we bring down interest rates, the economic recovery that is partially under way will become completely stalled.
Will the Minister live up to the 1980 election campaign promise the Government made to bring down interest rates, so that we can do something about the jobs that are needed so badly in our economy?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would remind my hon. friend that indeed interest rates have come down quite significantly in the last year. As a matter of fact, today you can get a consumer loan at as low a level as it has been for the last 25 years, between 11 per cent and 13 per cent. If you had tried to buy a car in 1970 and you went to a bank, you would have had to pay between 11 per cent and 13 per cent on that loan. This is the type of loan you can get today. Therefore, in terms of reduction of interest rates, compared to where they were six months ago, where they were a year ago, and a year and a half ago, there has been a tremendous success in this country. We are going to try to press on with this.
I invite my hon. friend to come out of his dream world and face the real world where we are very interdependent with what is happening in the American economy. That is not only Canada, but it is the fate of all western industrialized countries. This is why, at the Economic Summit at Williamsburg, at the IMF and in the OECD meetings, we have urged, together with other industrialized countries, the American
authorities to do everything they can to bring down real U.S. interest rates.


EXPORT OF POTATOES TO UNITED STATES-U.S. TRADE COMMISSION'S RULING
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. I guess he is not in his seat right now.


An Hon. Member:: Here he is.


George Roland Henderson: On Monday of this week the United States International Trade Commission ruled that there were no unfair trade practices in the exportation of Canadian round white potatoes. This, of course, was tremendous news for the potato producers and shippers in eastern Canada. However, I am wondering, Madam Speaker, if the Minister could inform the House if this ruling is final and if the eastern Canadian producers can now be assured that no further action will be taken by the U.S. Government?
Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International
Trade)): Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to an anti-dumping investigation against Canadian potatoes in the eastern United States market. We are, of course, extremely pleased that the findings of the U.S. Trade Commission were to the effect that there was no injury done by Canadian exports into the Ammerican market.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Regan:: I think it is appropriate to say a word in that regard about the American administration. As in the case with the danger to our lumber exports a year ago, once again the American administration has shown that it follows a proper judicial approach and it indeed supports trade on a liberalized basis between our countries. I want to pay tribute to the Horticultural-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Gerald Augustine Regan: -Council of Canada-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. This band of brigands has gouged the most vulnerable part of the private sector in this country, the small entrepreneur, the small part-time farmer. I would like to ask the Minister what he
December 14, 1983

intends to do about the process which has been instigated where these people have been reassessed for the last five and six years and have to pay their legitimate expenses back to this Government? They have been forced out of business by the hundreds and thousands. What is going to take place when some of those who have remained in business are able to turn a profit? Is the Minister then going to gouge them on their new profits, or is he going to come back and say-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I will not ask a supplementary question.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. That was long enough for a question. I am very sorry I have to interrupt the Hon. Member.
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I do not believe that rhetoric coupled with a certain form of hysteria is the best way to protect Canadian taxpayers. The Hon. Member mentioned certain tax reassessments for expenses deducted from the income of certain taxpayers. The Hon. Member should know the basic rules of accounting and realize that you cannot deduct just any expenses from your income. To be able to deduct, expenses they must have been incurred to generate income. This is a basic rule of our Income Tax Act. The Hon. Member should also be concerned about other members of our society who cannot deduct one penny of their expenses from their income and who must also feel and believe that they are treated equitably under the Income Tax Act.


DEPARTMENT'S SECTORAL APPROACH TO REASSESSMENT OF TAXPAYERS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, does the Minister not realize, when people take part of their income which they have not earned on a farm and invest it in a farm, that that is a contribution to the gross national product of the country? Would the Minister tell the House whether he has an overview and an assessment of the result of the sectoral and regional blitzkrieg which he has carried on against small farmers and small businessmen, with particular reference to the Cariboo region in British Columbia where small farmers and cattle ranchers must support their enterprises with outside income? Has the Minister an assessment of the impact of this so-called blitzkrieg? What is he doing to assess the practices and the policies of his Department to make sure we do not break this vital sector of our economy, which we are on the way to doing?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, it is very obvious that farmers are precisely one group who receive special consideration in the Income Tax Act. They are among the few groups of taxpayers for whom very specific provisions explain what expenses can be deducted from their income, and these provisions are relatively generous when compared to those which generally apply in such cases.
I would also like the Hon. Member to note that the expenses claimed by farmers are not being audited only in British Columbia. The same is happening throughout the country and reassessment notices have been issued everywhere. This was done according to the rules spelled out in the Act as well as the precedents based on the rulings of our Canadian courts for tax matters and all this is done in accordance with normal accounting rules and current procedures.


TAX TREATMENT OF ARTISTS
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns the damage being done by the Minister and his officials to artists and the arts community. It is a matter which has been raised many times in this House, but no action has been taken by the Minister. The other day the Minister received a telegram from the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the senior organizational umbrella for the arts and artists in Canada. It said as follows:
Canadian artists have faced no greater crisis than the harassment they are currently experiencing. In effect, Revenue Canada taxation is methodically destroying Canada's cultural fabric. This must cease now.
That is the most serious indictment, I believe, a Minister has received from the Canadian Conference of the Arts. We are not talking about a new law. We are talking about a new interpretation. Why do the Minister and his officials continue to persecute these people when so much harm is being done to them?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am very much surprised that the Hon. Member whom I consider an intelligent man should again ask this question. In one of my replies, I invited him to examine the provisions of the Income Tax Act and to look at specific cases of artists who have grounds to complain about the way they were assessed. If he had done so, he would not be asking this question today because he would see that it goes far beyond what he is saying. On the other hand, he says that artists are treated differently. There is no special treatment for artists. We generally audit the returns of those who deduct expenses from their income, and if these expenses are not deducted in accordance with the Income Tax Act, we issue a reassessment notice.

December 14, 1983
Oral Questions


REGISTRATION OF CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS-OFFICIALS' ACTIONS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. The so-called policemen in Revenue Canada have been given a free rein to make arbitrary decisions on the acceptability for registration of new charitable organizations with his Department. This can happen, of course, because there is no clear definition of charitable activity from the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State. The Minister will know that the umbrella agency for voluntary groups, the Coalition of National Voluntary Organizations, is now suggesting that this is a reimposition of guidelines from the infamous 1978 information circular which the Prime Minister himself had to disown in this House. Will the Minister tell the Canadian public why he cannot control his officials? Or is he refusing status to some groups for political purposes, because they do not agree with the policies of the Liberal Government?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: First of all, Madam Speaker, there have been no changes to the government's guidelines and interpretation bulletins concerning those groups which are seeking charitable organization status.
Moreover, we are dealing with the various applications on the basis of guidelines and interpretation bulletins which are quite clear and consistent with applicable Appeal Court decisions. There have been no changes for all practical purposes; what is more, we have accelerated the examination process in view of a backlog of applications from groups seeking charitable organization status. Generally speaking, I feel that the regulations are applied equitably.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, fishermen in British Columbia were pleased to see that the Minister of Fisheries and the Government recognized in the Throne Speech the urgency of changes needed in the Pacific fishery. The House of Commons dealt with the East Coast fishery in a matter of a week, contributing $238 million to save jobs in coastal communities there. In view of the fact there are ongoing rumours in British Columbia that there will be a reduction by 50 per cent in the fleet, with the resultant loss of thousands of jobs affecting hundreds of coastal communities, is the Minister prepared to alleviate some of the fears in the B.C. fishing industry and indicate whether he prefers a fleet reduction of 50 per cent, 20 per cent as recommended by his
committee, or zero per cent as we have had in Atlantic Canada?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy that the Hon. Member supports the point of view expressed in the Speech from the Throne that this matter will be given urgent attention and very high priority by the Government. As to Atlantic Canada, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that we are not giving any money to the present owners of those companies, so I think the parallel in his question will not hold.
I think the Hon. Member is knocking on the wrong door if he tries to build a wall between me and the fishermen. I think all fishermen on the Pacific Coast recognize that the highest priority is the conservation of the resource. If we allow the collapse of the resource, they will all suffer, whether they are Indians, commercial, or recreational fishermen. So we must start with that. I would be very grateful if the Hon. Member tells me that he concurs that this must be our first priority.


PEARSE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, for four years this Party has been advocating change in the areas the Minister mentioned. Why are we waiting so long to take action? We have had the Pearse committee report for one year, Mr. Minister. For one year you have done nothing on the major issues of fleet buy-back, commercialization of the fishing industry, and resource allocation to the fleet so that the Fishermen can get on with the job of conserving the resource for their benefit and that of Canadians. When will you present something to this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Allan Miller: -so that the committee and the fishermen can understand the direction of this Government for the next Fishing season?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has a selective memory. He knows perfectly well that it is the 17 different associations in B.C. themselves which asked me last year to postpone for one year the implementation of the proposals made by Dr. Pearse. The Hon. Member concurred with them, so to tell me today that I should not have listened to them is really double-talk and double-position.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who will recall that in 1982 his officials garnisheed or attached 50 per cent to 100 per cent of the earnings of Fishermen at fish
December 14, 1983

plants in Newfoundland. His predecessor appointed Mr. William Rowe to do a report and recommend changes. Would the Minister advise the House whether his officials have now stopped the garnisheeing of 100 per cent of the earnings of Newfoundland fishermen, whether he will make the final report of Mr. Rowe public, and whether or not the Government is taking steps to have employers and governments report the full taxable income of fishermen to the fishermen and give them the necessary slips? Is any of that being done, or has it been forgotten again?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: 1
have not looked into this file for quite a while, Madam Speaker, but I think I remember that the rate of earnings which has been garnisheed in some regions meets the requirements of applicable provincial legislations. On the other hand, concerning the possible release of the Rowe report, a report expressly requested by the Minister and addressed to him personally, I will consider whether it would be in the public interest.


NORTHERN BENEFITS-CLASSIFICATION OF TAXPAYERS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Revenue, Canada's chief publican and sinner. The Minister of Finance, God bless him, has recently been forced to announce an extension to the Northern Remission Order. While this is appreciated, it still leaves many unanswered questions dealing with its implementation. For instance, why does Revenue Canada arbitrarily penalize employees of small business, and why does it create three separate classes of taxpayers-those covered by plans implemented before November, 1981; those covered by plans after that date; and those poor souls who are not covered by any plans at all?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased that the Hon. Member acknowledges the decision of the Minister of Finance to extend the moratorium on the taxation of Northern benefits. I can assure him that all the administrative measures needed will be taken to make sure that the effects of that decision are felt as soon as possible and with the usual fairness which my Department strives to maintain.


GARNISHEEING OF COMPANIES' ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed as well to the Minister responsible for Revenue Canada. I have corresponded with the Minister concerning a small wholesale business in my riding which missed one or two months' remittance of employee withholdings, due to a severe cash flow problem earlier this
Oral Questions
year. As a consequence Revenue Canada immediately garnisheed accounts receivable from various customers, thereby destroying the goodwill between the business and its customers, bankrupting the business, and putting its 12 employees out of work. Is this the general policy of Revenue Canada, to wipe out and destroy small Canadian businesses by garnisheeing accounts receivable, and thereby telegraphing a signal to valued customers that a company is in some financial difficulty?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, it is difficult for me to comment on the specific case submitted by the Hon. Member. I have no names and no facts and even if I did I would probably not be allowed to comment under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, the Hon. Member referred in his question to the payroll deductions owed by the company to the Department of National Revenue. He should know that such deductions do not belong to the company but to each of the worker who paid his income tax. The company is merely the trustee for each worker and must return the money to the government. It cannot use those funds which belong to the workers. It is therefore the responsibility of the Department to see that employers are worthy of the confidence placed by each worker in his employer and return the money owing to the Government.


ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF TAXES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I would like to ask the Minister, the man in charge of financial harassment of Canadians, if it is not true that the left hand of the Tax Department does not know what the right hand is doing-the left hand being the assessment branch and the right hand being the collection branch? Is it not true that the assessment branch deems one guilty of a misdemeanor of withholding tax unless one proves oneself innocent, and, when that decision is appealed, the collection branch removes one's cash flow until such time as it makes up its mind if one is guilty or not? If you do prove your innocence-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member must ask the question.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: When will the taxation department stop this double dealing, finally get its act together, and stop forcing Canadians to the brink of financial disaster?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, as I said several times before during Question Period, we are trying to enforce the Income Tax Act in an equitable manner by maintaining what is considered to be

December 14, 1983
Oral Questions
normal practice and respecting the rights of taxpayers. However, I would like to draw the Hon. Member's attention to the fact that our Income Tax Act contains very specific and very strict provisions, since it is based on the principle of voluntary income tax returns, and if there were no substantial penalties for delinquent taxpayers, the voluntary system would not work.


REFUGEES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, over 60 families of Guatemalans in Canada who have been accepted by the Quebec Government have been refused refugee status and will likely soon be deported to Guatemala because the Director of Refugee Affairs says there is no civil war or danger in Guatemala. Yet the Minister knows that Canada supported the UN condemnation of Guatemala, that there have been 15,000 killings there in the last year and a half, and that refugees returned there from Mexico were tortured and killed. Can the Minister assure us that if these 60 families are forced to return to Guatemala they will be safe there?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I have asked for a review of this situation. I do not believe that the numbers involved are as great as the Hon. Member has suggested. As he knows, all of these cases have been examined through the normal procedures for refugee assessment as determined by the United Nations.
I would simply say to him that, while I do not want to discuss these cases in detail before the House at the present time, I am reviewing the situation and will endeavour to get back in touch with him as soon as I can give precise' information.


REQUEST THAT WORK PERMITS BE ISSUED TO GUATEMALAN REFUGEES
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, the Minister refers to his investigations. I know he discussed this with church representatives Friday evening who told him about the grave civil war there. He probably knows that last night they asked that Canada not send back anyone involuntarily to Guatemala at this time. Therefore, is the Minister willing to issue work permits to these people until he is assured that the situation is safe for them in Guatemala?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I cannot really go much beyond what I have already said to the Hon. Member. We are reviewing all of these cases. We are in touch with our diplomatic representatives in relation to Guatemala to get as precise an assessment
as we can of the situation there. We are also in touch with the United Nations in Geneva in order to receive their assessment of the situation.
Each of these cases is being reviewed. I do not want to give the Hon. Member a specific decision in relation to any of them until they have been reviewed.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue, supplementary to that which was put by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic, concerning the announcement from the Minister of Finance, which was made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with respect to continuing the exemption from taxation of the northern benefits received with respect to housing and travel. Will that exemption be made permanent, or is it simply in force until after the next election?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, in his question, the Hon. Member said that this tax policy had been announced by the Minister of Finance. The Hon. Member ought to know that consequently, the policy's duration is also up to the Minister of Finance.


REPAYMENT OF MONEY TO RESIDENT OF COCHRANE, ALTA.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Hon. Minister of National Revenue. He is well aware of this case through correspondence over two or three years. When will the Government return the $1,000 that the Department of Revenue misplaced, lost, or stole from the new Canadian living in Cochrane, Alberta?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not remember this particular case. I am going to check the facts, and I shall then be happy to give the Hon. Member his answer.


DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise with the same Minister the double jeopardy in which Canadians who are currently unemployed but who have also been assessed for previous years find themselves. The Minister states that treatment should be fair and equitable. Is it reasonable and fair for the Minister's Department to continue the following practices that it is now conducting in Toronto? If you are unemployed and owe back taxes by
December 14, 1983

assessment, you are told that you must pay immediately, that your savings are garnisheed and, if that is not good enough, they will tell you when you must pay and how much you must pay. The Minister's Department then says that, if that is not good enough, you can go upstairs and declare bankruptcy. How in God's name is that a kind treatment of unemployed Canadians?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the situation described by the Hon. Member does not correspond to established practice or the way the Department of Revenue operates. When a reassessment notice is sent out, if the taxpayer tells us that he is unable to fully and immediately repay the amount due, we look at his financial situation and we establish a mode of repayment of his tax debt which is convenient to him and acceptable to the Department.
[English)


DEPARTMENT'S SEARCH PROCEDURES-VIOLATION OF CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue who will know that Section 8 of the Charter of Rights states:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
He will also know that the Federal Court of Canada, in the case of Kruger Incorporated, ruled that the blanket searches of the Department of National Revenue violate the Canadian Charter of Rights. Is the Minister going to continue violating the Canadian Charter of Rights?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue has no intention of going against the Charter of Rights, quite the opposite. In discharging the difficult task for which it is responsible, the Department of Revenue, as I said earlier, wants to respect as much as possible the rights of all Canadian taxpayers, and most importantly, to guarantee the fairness of the income tax system in Canada.
The Hon. Member should know that the Department of Justice in cooperation with other departments is reviewing the various laws governing the country to make sure there is no violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I am convinced that if certain provisions of the Income Tax Act are found to go against either the spirit or the letter of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they will eventually be amended.


FEDERAL COURT RULING
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is not a case of review, this is a case of a decision by the Federal Court of Canada. The Federal Court of Canada has ruled that the Minister is violating the Charter of Rights.
House of Commons
The Minister has a choice. He can either ignore the court, or he can change his practice. Why does he think that he is above the law? Will he give us a commitment now that he will honour the Charter of Rights and obey the law of Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat to the Hon. Member that the Department of National Revenue fully intends to administer all the provisions of the Income Tax Act in such a way as to respect the rights of individuals and the liberal practices applied in our society. As I have just told him, if these provisions do not agree with or go beyond the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they will be amended in due time.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that she has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, December 13, 1983, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on a question of privilege to associate myself personally, as I am sure the Government Whip would want to do, with the congratulatory remarks of Madam Speaker with respect to Frank Yates, who was director of our security services here for so many years, on his last day in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want also to associate my colleagues both with the congratulatory remarks that have been offered to Mr. Yates and also to say to him that, knowing what he plans to do with his retirement, we will be shovelling and thinking of him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 14, 1983
Introduction of Bills POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is my understanding that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Her-vieux-Payette) wanted to say a few words today about the banning of steroids-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not making a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-201, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my Bill will amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The purpose of the Bill is to promote an early resolution of stoppages in the shipment of grains. It enables the Canadian Wheat Board to seek payments of storage fees to the operator of the terminal elevator once normal loading and unloading of grain ceases at that terminal elevator.


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


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-202, to amend the House of Commons Act (internal economy).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this Bill is to add two more backbenchers to the Internal Economy Commission, something which is becoming ever more urgent because of the prevailing climate among the staff, the financial position of the parliamentary associations and the latest decision to transfer the French Hansard to the Committee Reporting Service; those are developments which the Ministers are too busy to follow but in which they would be quite interested.


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

Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-203, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapon free zone.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this Bill is to declare Canada a nuclear weapons free zone and is to restrict the deployment, the use, the manufacturing of nuclear weapons or nuclear weaponry on or over Canadian territory. I introduced this Bill as Bill C-678 in the last session, the first session of this Parliament, and I wish to introduce it again.


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

Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapon free zone.


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table this Bill once again, a Bill that I presented to this House in the last days of the last session. The Bill is very similar to the one just introduced by my friend, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish), and it will have the effect of declaring Canada to be a nuclear weapon free nation.


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

Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a motion was passed to establish a Special Committee on Pension Reform. In that motion there was a mix-up of membership. I have given notice of the following motion and I think there is unanimous consent to it. I move:
That notwithstanding any Order of this House the name of Mr. Miller be substituted for the name of Mr. Young on the Special Committee appointed to act as a Task Force on Pension Reform.
December 14, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Parliamentary Secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, this is twice in a row today that you have allowed my microphone to be turned on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: We gladly give our consent.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday December 12, 1983, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jack Burghardt for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Mulroney (p. 45).
Hon. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, let me say at
the outset that I hope you will stay and listen and I hope the Hon. Member on the other side will stay and listen to my comments. May I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Speech from the Throne for their contribution as colleagues, as Members of Parliament and in bringing to our attention particularly their interest in their responsibilities with this House. May I as well, Mr. Speaker, ask you to pass on to Madam Speaker my personal delight that she is back in good health again and with us. As well, may I congratulate you on a superb job under what I think all sides of the House recognize is a very trying ordeal, to sit in that chair and try to keep this forum under control and within its rules.
I hope today, in the few minutes available to me, to dwell particularly on two areas which are of considerable interest and concern. The first is multiculturalism, a public policy, which if properly approached can do a great deal to bring together the destiny of this nation but, if improperly handled, can indeed help to divide up this very great and very diverse nation of ours. As well, I hope to have a few minutes to talk about a free press, because a truly free press is not free simply because government and Parliament have no control or interest in it. It is only free if indeed it is free from any kind of power which might abuse the intent of giving all Canadians a free flow of information and allowing access for the greatest number of people to the expression of their views.
The Address-Mr. Fleming
If I may, I thought it might be appropriate in this Throne Speech debate, which is allowed to be rather wide-ranging, to make reference to certain much-quoted public criticisms that I have made recently and certainly have become great fodder for our friends opposite in the early days of this Throne Speech debate and the early Question Periods following it. Certainly my comments have been of great interest to that famous Newfoundland tag team, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), whose cohesiveness and support of a common thread in debate is probably much greater in this public forum than I am left with the sense it is in private, and also by the comments made by their Leader himself quoting me as he led off in Question Period the day after the Throne Speech.
I must admit-and with no apology-that I did say the obvious, that the Party of which I am proud to be a part, the Party that is now in Government in our country, is not in very good shape with the Canadian public. We are in a bad position in public opinion polls. I offered, when asked by the press, several reasons why I thought that was so. I said, "Yes, there is in my view too much centralization of power on the bureaucratic side", and I said, "I believe there is a similar problem on the political side currently with the operations of the Government". I said as well-although I must say that in the selective readings of Hon. Members of the Opposition it did not gain any attention-that part of the tragedy of our being seen as having, and perhaps indeed having, too much of what I call cynicism, ballyhoo and manipulation in our operations was that we had some excellent policies which have helped the country and have set it on a positive course. Indeed, we were not getting the credit I thought we deserved for those policies because of some of that cynicism, ballyhoo and manipulation. Lest the selective readings of the Official Opposition leave a misimpression, let me say that we will never, and certainly do not at the current moment, take a back seat to them. They do not take a back seat to us on cynicism, ballyhoo and manipul-tion. I think it is important that things be put in that context. At least we have policies. At least we are prepared to take criticism, because in a country as diverse as our own it is very difficult ever to satisfy all the various parts of Canada, all the various constituencies, at the same time.
However, I think we have much to be proud of in the fact that inflation now, from I believe the most recent statistic, is under 5 per cent. Certainly I know as a Member of Parliament for more than a decade the immense fear in the minds of the public when interest rates went up to the 20 per cent range and inflation was well up into the teens. I am proud of that statistic. It did not happen by accident. Part of it was public policy. Part of it was the six and five program.
Constitutional reform, so much a matter of disruption in the House, is a very important piece of history. I am very pleased to have been a part of that. I am very proud that this Government accomplished that. I must say that the major debate from the other side was not on content but was on form. That is usually the kind of criticism we get from them because they are afraid to take a position on content itself.

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Fleming
Yes, indeed, surely everybody must admit that when the National Energy Program was put together, forecasts of what would happen because of the international oil cartel are not what indeed in time did happen. There is an overabundance of supply in some cases, a selling off of various kinds of oil at lower than the cartel price. That has led to the need for some adjustment to the NEP. However, the Canadianization aspect of that national energy policy is fundamental to the future of the country. I am proud the Government had the guts to put forward that policy and fight it through.
1 am not critical of content. I am not critical of policies. I offer some criticism of the way we are perceived by the public, and I believe that that tells us we will have to do something about it. I do not think it is an original thought on my part. I think my Party in convention about a year ago overwhelmingly endorsed a resolution using the same words I used in my public criticism. From leaked reports of the Party President's reform commission, similar things have been said. Let me say that at least I am proud we have put forward policies. Let me say there is a great danger to the country in too much, on this side of the House and on the Official Opposition side, cynicism, ballyhoo and manipulation rather than hard facts and open discussion. Also let me say that after many years in power there is a danger that one comes to know the tools too well and uses them too well. I find it very frightening that without having power and under this new Leader they have achieved levels of cynicism, ballyhoo and manipulation which frighten me. If we have a problem to clean up over here, they certainly do over there. They operate in that manner without at least something we have on this side-sound policies to put forward and the guts to put forward controversial issues which must be put forward if this country is to be kept on track.
When I talk about cynicism, ballyhoo and manipulation, let me just say of the Hon. Member for St. John's West, who has had such glee in quoting me, that I cannot think of an individual in the House, as much as I find myself enjoying his humour from time to time, who produces more fluff and less stuff per 10,000 decibels. Were Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey in business today, he would vie to be the all-time champ in the centre ring, the ring master-all fluff and no stuff and a master of ballyhoo, buffoonery and bluster. P.T. Barnum would jump up and click his heels. We well remember that when the Hon. Member for St. John's West jumped up and clicked his heels, his mukluks fell off and we had an election.
As far as manipulation is concerned, anyone who followed the saga of the Conservative leadership race knows that manipulation took on a space age meaning during that contest. We read now reports of people being brought out to elect delegates and being paid $10 each. We know of the manipulation of new Canadians, without any explaining to them through language barriers what it was all about, or what the process was, to gain delegate votes. While there were public professions of support for the former Leader by the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) behind the scenes, we know now there was a sharpening of many knives and a
great deal of manipulation going on. When I talk about this Party having some problems, thank goodness we do not exercise it quite to the degree they do over there.
Finally, if we have to talk about cynicism and public perceptions, what better source than the current best seller, Contenders: The Tory Quest for Power, wherein Patrick Martin, Allan Gregg and George Perlin quote from a very famous memo, now alleged to have been composed by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson), who noted in a memo to his leadership candidate, the now Leader of the Opposition, that that person was not trusted because delegates were not certain who he was or what he stood for. They also thought the Leader of the Opposition was an opportunist and believed that people around him were unacceptable. Finally, the memo warned:
Your campaign is a threat. They don't trust you because of the slickness, smoothness ... feeling there is no substance.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition gave me the Order of Canada, I thank you very much, for my honesty in talking about problems on this side.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the Hon. Member's reputation, I am sure he would not want to mislead the House, even inadvertently. The John Thompson referred to in that book is not the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) nor indeed a Member of Parliament at all.


Mr. Thacker:: That is right.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I would suggest it was the John Thompson in question, if it was not the Hon. Member for Calgary South. I certainly would cast no aspersions on him. I think the content is still very interesting, that a senior organizer for the current Leader of the Opposition said what he said. I simply want to point out, if it does not sound too pious because we all have our warts, that as one member of the House, as one Canadian who has been elected, I think it is in the interests of the Canadian public for political Parties on all sides to do better at bringing forward policies.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member clearly alleged that those comments were made by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson). They were not, and I insist that he retract those statements immediately.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I guess I must be rubbing a raw edge. I said I was sorry if I implied they were by him when they were not by him. I say that openly and honestly.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Retract.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I have been told they were not by him. If they are not by him, I retract. I said I will check. I understand from the other Hon. Member that they are not. If so, I withdraw the suggestion. Just the same, they have import, as I said a moment ago. At least I have their attention.
December 14, 1983

I will try to put into context what they did finally with my argument about "watch out" for manipulation and cynicism from the Official Opposition, selective readings of the public comments I made to serve their own purposes.
As I was saying before I was interrupted a moment ago, what is very important in this critical time in Canada when the press, politics, the major elements, the major public institutions of our democracy are held in so little credibility, is that we all do a better job of just working at what we honestly believe in and do a little less well at manipulating polls, crowds and headlines. That is really the point I wanted to make.
If I may speak now on multiculturalism, the major thrust of something I wanted to address in the few moments I have left, for too long multiculturalism in the minds of many Canadians, in public perception, has been a policy that applies to newcomers, to others, to non-Anglophones, non-Francophones, Anglo-Celts and French-Canadians. Now it has become the mainstream policy. Its inclusion in the Constitution, which is something for which I commend the Government, has helped make that happen.
I want to issue a warning, if I can as somebody who served longer as Minister of Multiculturalism than anyone else in this House. If it is a policy to bring people together, if it is a policy to fight for equity, if it is a policy to build self-esteem, if it is a policy in a country as diverse as our own, as Canadians we have to respect each other and we have to build those bridges and draw together and fight for those newly come or here for many years who are not well treated versus others, then it is a wonderful opportunity as a society in public policy to help bring about the national unity which we will always be striving for to bring this very large and very diverse country together.
Let me caution that should it be a policy to divide, to build blocs, to identify simply by ethnicity and country of origin, to encourage old country debates in the public sphere, some of them quite legitimate, it will be detrimental. It will help divide our nation and it will hurt rather than help us.
I am very proud that during the time that I served as Minister of Multiculturalism, we saw a great many developments which I believe, with the support of my caucus colleagues and Cabinet, set us on the road to making it a societal concept. It has also set us on the road, at last, to putting a social face on it. The new programs for immigrant women are too often ignored. We hear a lot of talk and there is a lot of pressure to give women their equal due in Canadian society, yet too often elements of that part of society which is made up of women have been left behind.
The fight against racism in a country that is evolving very rapidly in our immigrant numbers and sources, the ability I believe to give due credit to all sides of the House for this House to establish a special parliamentary committee to look at the problem of racism in Canada and to look, most important, not at the grievances of individuals but to look at the institutional barriers, look at the police forces, look at the teachers' groups in various of our communities, look at the major pieces of society, the business sector, the Chamber of Commerce, and say: "Do they in their establishment reflect a
The Address-Mr. Fleming
cross-section of the society we are, and if they don't why don't they?" I give credit to the Government for being supportive and allowing that to take place and to Members on all sides for being supportive in giving unanimous consent to have it take place.
Of course, as I mentioned earlier, Clause 27 is surely a very important development. I wanted to put on the record a few words about a cause that is close to my heart. If it is a tag-on, a pawn to organize ethnic leaders, an afterthought for a third force, multiculturalism would be disastrous. If it is a societal policy, recognizing all Canadians, bringing us together and teaching us to respect whatever our numbers, wherever we settle, whatever our roots, then it is a very positive policy and deserves strong support from all sides of this House.
In the few minutes remaining, I would simply like to touch on the issue of a free press. A handful, because that is all there is left, of daily newspaper publishers in this country raised a terrible uproar, with the support of the Official Opposition, over an effort by this Government to try to put into context the ownership of daily newspapers in this country. Almost every Canadian city that had daily newspapers only has one now. Only two or three Canadian cities now have competing daily newspapers.
There is no doubt in my mind or in the mind of anybody who has studied the media in Canada that the agenda of the media is set by the daily press. At this time there are two companies, Southam and Thomson, who together in English-language circulation control almost two-thirds of Canadian daily newspapers. It seems to me that that is an unhealthy level. At the very least, we should encourage others to build up in competition.
The simple fact that a young reporter does not go out working for one daily newspaper in a Canadian city, competing with a young reporter working for another daily newspaper, militates against the kind of accuracy, the kind of extra story, the added element that will give Canadians true content in news reporting across this country. When you, with all the benevolence in the world for those two companies, give them the benefit of any doubt, when you have only two operating with so much, the little bits that are left are in jeopardy in that they are unable to have the kind of excellence necessary to compete.
When you are the only newspaper in town, will you spend as much money on your editorial content? Will you dig as hard to dig out the story, the dirt, the scandal, the misbehaviour by someone? Indeed, a democracy operates on a competitive free press, and in the daily newspaper industry there is far too much concentration. I hope, as difficult as it is to take on that handful of publishers who control so much, that this Government will be prepared to state that it will not allow further concentration of ownership in that industry.
In the few minutes left, the only other point I want to make is that when there is only one daily newspaper in town, when the print has so much power, there should be a vehicle of complaint short of the courts or the benevolence of the editor

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. La Salle
of that newspaper when a group or an individual feel they have not been treated fairly by that powerful part of democracy.
I am delighted that now we have voluntary press councils across this country, with the exception of Saskatchewan, and I hear it is happening there soon. It was the threat of a National Advisory Council on Newspapers which made that happen over the last 15 or 18 months.
Let me put on the record that I still believe there is a reason for concern if those councils are paid for by the publishers and if the primary and initial appointments are made by the publishers. Then there is a vested interest, at least an appeared conflict of interest with all the benevolence in the world of the members of those councils. Canadians have the right to a free press. It is essential to a healthy democracy, especially when there are so many techniques, so many means, such advance technology today to try to play with the public's mind.
I think I will end on that point, and I welcome any questions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member for York West? There are none.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make a few comments on this distinguished document, referred to as the Speech from the Throne. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have heard quite a few Speeches from the Throne in the last fifteen years, and with the veteran Members of this House, I must say it is always an impressive series of good intentions, but this year, the Government, in the light of the utter fiasco it has perpetrated, has tried to please everyone with good intentions, before it calls an election. Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke referred to manipulation. Today is December 14, and four years ago on this very day, I think Canadians will remember they witnessed an extraordinary exercise in manipulation when the Government promised not to increase the price of gas by our proposed eighteen cents, and the result is history. If that is not manipulation, I don't think our friends on the opposite side should accuse the Progressive Conservative Party of manipulating, because Canadians have witnessed a lot of manipulation in various areas over the last fifteen years.
Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians, the people in my riding are worried. Farmers are worried and the unemployed are worried too. Young people are worried, and they are aware of the Government's poor management and administration, confirmed once again yesterday by the Auditor General's Report, where it is recognized that for I don't know how many consecutive years, the Government has been unable to control its expenditures and has failed to make adequate efforts to establish proper mechanisms. But all this matters very little to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau)
because he feels that after all, there have been a few improvements under his administration, and that we should ignore the strict recommendations and accusations being made by the Auditor General.
Mr. Speaker, we are aware of our responsibilities and that we must demand that this Government provide proper administration of the public purse and see to it that public monies are wisely spent, something it has failed or has yet to understand.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, reading the Speech from the Throne from beginning to end is not going to make us more inclined to trust this Government, considering the exercise we have seen during the last fifteen years which 1 witnessed first hand. It is a fact that in the Speech from the Throne, the vast majority of its proposals and the funds that are or will be appropriated, were already announced in the April Budget, and the Government has been making undertakings on that basis for a number of months already. There is the figure of $ 1 billion which may impress Canada's youth, and speaking of manipulation, perhaps it would be useful to look at this attempt by the Government to manipulate Canadian youth, when it refers to new funding of SI billion, which was quickly deflated by the Minister responsible, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts). Actually, only 25 per cent of the SI billion was new money and if we figure how many jobs paying S200 per week for a period of twenty weeks would be available, $250 million would provide jobs for not more than 10 per cent of the 545,000 people looking for employment in Canada. Their problems have not been solved, far from it.
Now, the Government had the clever idea of creating or inventing a Ministry of Youth. Of course we have nothing against anyone being specifically responsible for job creation for young people. We are all for it. But, Mr. Speaker, if a Ministry of Youth were enough to solve the problem of unemployment among our young people who are almost desperate, we should attack the Government for not having acted sooner. It is a fact that this new Ministry of Youth will be taking over programs from various Departments and will therefore have more or less the same programs plus $250 million for the coming year. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this is not responding to the expectations of our young people. If the Government really wants to step up its activity in job creation for young people, it can count on our support and on a very positive contribution on our part. However, it should not give our young people the impression, or try to give that impression in a forthcoming election, that this new mechanism that is to be called the Ministry of Youth will solve all their problems. That is not quite where the answer to the problem lies.
Mr. Speaker, I have also been a regular listener to speeches by party leaders, and I heard the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada talk about challenge. Last night on television, they
December 14, 1983

were talking about challenge and last night in Toronto, the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada was stressing the importance of facing challenges, and he asked Canadians to put their trust in him for the future. I imagine a few Liberals were disappointed, but as far as this side is concerned, Mr. Speaker, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada wants to talk about the future, he ought to mention both his accomplishments and the problems for which he has been responsible as Prime Minister of Canada during the last twenty years, since he mentioned accomplishments in the debate on the Throne Speech and again last night in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada spoke to the House about the patriation of the Constitution, and the fact that he succeeded in patriating the Constitution to Canada. He was, of course, very proud of the latest legislation on the Crow. The Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada can tell the House about his consultations with the Provinces. Still, the Prime Minister and our friends opposite ought to remember and realize that Canadians as well will remember that the first challenge proposed by the Prime Minister 15 years ago- I, for one, remember-had to do with a just society which was to meet the aspirations of all Canadians in every walk of life throughout the country.
Several years ago, as I recall, the Prime Minister of Canada was also promoting this dialogue and this cooperation as being essential to the viability of a renewed federalism, the fad words of 15 years already. History will record that the Prime Minister, through almost daily confrontation, succeeded in tearing his own country apart with respect to federal-provincial relations. And then, everybody knows that this Government has often engaged in direct competition with the private sector, vital as it is if we are to have a healthy economic recovery. The Government now acknowledges that it has failed miserably to appreciate the cooperation it could have had from the private sector and, in a complete about-turn, after being so arrogant, it dispatches the Minister of Finance to woo and beg the private sector to join in this economic recovery which, according to the Minister of Finance, is well under way. However, we are not so sure about that.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is mistaken if he really believes that the Canadian people will continue to follow him and have confidence in him, he who accuses the Progressive Conservative Party of seeking to drag the country back to the 14th century. The way things are going now, what with the national debt which has gone from $11 billion to $150 billion in 15 years, and the number of unemployed which has soared from 300,000 to 2 million, again in 15 years, I am not at all convinced that this Government will carry us into the 20th century. The Prime Minister may be worried about the possibility of a Conservative Government dragging the country back to the 14th century, but I am afraid that Canadians will never make it to the 20th century if they continue to be administered as they are today.
The Address-Mr. La Salle
When the Prime Minister of Canada points the finger at the Progressive Conservative Party for being against everything, he forgets something. He forgets to say that most Canadians are against his own Government. That is not wishful thinking on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party, the figures are there and, according to the latest polls, the trend is unmistakable. When the Prime Minister claims that we were against the Constitution, he is shamelessly lying to the people, and I will explain just what I mean. We have never been against the principle of patriating the Constitution, but we did speak strongly against the way the Government wanted to proceed, and today we are pleased that we were able to force the Government to hold public hearings, particularly since the Prime Minister was against that. It was imperative to patriate the Constitution, but in his own way. In principle, therefore, we were not against bringing back the Constitution. Among other things, we would have hoped that constructive discussions would have led the ten provinces to agree on patriation. We certainly cannot be held responsible for the fact that one province was left out, a province I know well because it was Quebec. It was not party to the patriation agreement and it did not support the Government because of the way it sought to reach a consensus.
The Prime Minister has taken the Progressive Conservative Party to task for being against the metric system, whereas in fact we wanted and fought for freedom for Canadians to use either the metric or the imperial system. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we were in favour of freedom of expression, but against compulsory implementation of the metric system. Scornful remarks will be heard as well about the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I am saying-and so will my colleagues-that we are all in favour of Canadians getting the best health care in this country, and we strongly support every improvement in that field. Any Member of the House who would claim that we are against improved health care and against health insurance for Canadians would be very dishonest. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, particularly when we keep in mind the current situation as well as the concern, insecurity and despair expressed by Canadians from coast to coast! In Quebec and throughout all of Canada, people are tremendously concerned with the way we have been governed. And rightly so. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will try to side-track the discussion, to bring in the issue of world peace. Let me tell you right now and then that I am profoundly in favour of peace. You are also. Everyone is. We are all for motherhood. What chances does the Prime Minister have of saving Canada from a nuclear war? They are not better than mine in my view. Not better than those of any Hon. Member in this House. Of course, we will welcome and support any peace initiative. There is no question about that. But let not the Prime Minister try and make Canadians believe he is the only one capable of preventing a nuclear war. He might be tempted to do so. I know the Prime Minister well. He will probably try to get Canadians to

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. La Salle
discuss that issue he feels is so immensely important. Of course it is important, but there are domestic problems in Canada. The fact is that the Prime Minister has responsibilities in Canada. He and his Ministers are accountable to the Canadian people. That is what we want to discuss over the next few months anyway, and without ignoring the importance of world peace. They should not expect us to forget their mismanagement. They can make Canadians forget the sufferings they have witnessed because of their failures and their lack of adequate policies that could have helped us weather the recession with less pain.
I have listened carefully to our Leader's speech. The Prime Minister and his group will go on repeating that the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was unable to announce proposals, programs. But, I read his speech carefully, and I read it again before speaking this afternoon, because I wanted to be sure whether the Prime Minister had told the truth to the Canadian people. But I am not as yet convinced that the Prime Minister has told Canadians the whole truth. When the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, our Party, in a responsible way, commits himself to provide adequate funding for research and development in order to create jobs, does that not indicate a well-defined orientation, when the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party requires that this Government finally acknowledge the importance of more research? Nothing can be more positive in my view than for the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party to recognize this lack of adequate productivity, the extent of such inadequate productivity in the face of foreign competition, with a commitment that his Party's and his Government's policies will be aimed at promoting greater productivity in Canadian industry. Is that not something clear and specific, even though the Prime Minister finds it hard to understand it?
We are privileged with having a Party Leader who knows about business, who is aware of the role of industry and of the industrial potential of Canada on the world scene, and is experienced in labour relations, and when the Prime Minister in the Throne Speech states the Government's intention to meet around the same table with labour and management. But I have heard of that intention, of that proposal ten times already, Mr. Speaker. However this Government once again has failed to meet with those various representatives to pursue the common goal of job creation, to put the unemployed back on the labour market and also to give a chance to our young people who have lost all hope of ever assuming their rightful place on the labour market.
It is rubbish, Mr. Speaker, all the good intentions we read about in the Throne Speech when after 15 and 20 years they could not, or did not deem fit to sit down with those groups that are so essential to the defining of medium- and long-term policies. Let us make good use of the private sector, Mr. Speaker, rather than have the Government compete with it, let
us make good use of the private sector, let us define long-term economic orientations that will restore the Canadian business climate and give people the incentives needed to invest rather than have the Government supplant the private sector, as has so often occurred over these last few years. Such is the kind of leadership the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has advocated in his speech and on every Canadian forum. He missed no opportunity to emphasize the role of the private sector in job creation. The economic recovery is also a matter of confidence, Mr. Speaker and the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) who so seriously hampered the oil industry could surely not lay claim to the cooperation and trust of the private and business sectors today. Mr. Speaker, how could those politicians still believe that they can regain public confidence when public polls tell us they have been overwhelmingly rejected?
Mr. Speaker, are we not entitled to demand a popular verdict after such a failure, when so many people want an opportunity to make a judgment based on this government's record and not on promises made by the Prime Minister of Canada? That is why, Mr. Speaker, in a democratic system, we should demand that an election be called.
Our leader as well as our party are aware of the stability and security now needed by farmers, new home buyers and homeowners generally. What are the policies now implemented to give that sense of security in the agricultural and housing sectors? Of course, a commitment has been made in the Speech from the Throne. We will learn more about it later on. But God knows what the housing sector has gone through during the past three, four or five years, due to the lack of proper policies, except for a last minute and costly makeshift policy. For example, no steps had been taken to forestall the worst. In the farming sector, the situation is similar. I know that in my own province of Quebec, some areas are experiencing unusual problems this winter as a result of weather conditions last summer. There is no assurance that those farmers will be helped. How many of my colleagues have asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to help them get through a period of crushing interest rates. It is a fact that funds made available to the Farm Credit Corporation have been increased, which does not mean that the farming community's burden has been lightened.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the need to ensure the survival of the farming community and to implement a housing policy, in winter, in Canada, people require good housing. As far as farm policies are concerned, we must ensure that our people eat three meals a day. And because of the difficult times we are experiencing now, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a policy to protect them from huge interest rates, farmers could not be persuaded to invest, or young Canadian men and women to become homeowners. There is no adequate policy to protect these people and their commitments. Long term policies of this type are absolutely essential to convince individual
December 14, 1983

Canadians, men and women, that the several thousand dollars they will invest will be secure.
I regret that my time has expired. There are still a great many things I should like to say. You certainly understand why, like most Canadians, 1 could no longer trust this Government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members who wish to direct questions to the Hon. Member for Joliette? If there is no-


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate, rising after my Hon. friend from Joliette who has clearly demonstrated the void in the Progressive Conservative Party platform. It is quite an achievement to speak for 20 minutes without saying anything. I might exaggerate somewhat, Mr. Speaker, as I was a little late-


Roch La Salle: Yes, somewhat!


Donald James Johnston: Just the same, it is an ability which alas! we on this side do not have. When the Hon. Member speaks the way he just did, he seems to be following the example of his leader. I was in the House when the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney) made his speech, a very impressing and amusing one at that, but which contained nothing. But it was a very amusing speech just the same. [English]
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I thought the Leader of the Conservative Party was most amusing in the House when he accused the Government of stealing Tory ideas for the Throne Speech. I must say that this did not receive a lot of laughter at that time, but upon reflection, Mr. Speaker, surely that was the most amusing part of the speech. We all know that we could not even be accused of petty theft in that regard. It does not take a lawyer to know that you cannot steal that which does not exist. The only accusation I suppose he could levy against us had we used any Tory ideas, which as I mentioned is impossible, would be surely that of bad judgment. I heard the other day, Mr. Speaker, a propos of that, that the press has a way of knowing when they receive a brown envelope from the Tory Research Bureau. Do you know how they know that? The envelope is empty.
It is quite remarkable that we have on the other side of the House a political Party which promotes itself as the Party of the 1980s, and yet has not produced one single policy resolution since the 1970s. It is a bit unfair to accuse the Leader of the Opposition, because at least during the leadership contest he produced a thin book entitled Where I Stand and, of course, we know that all Hon. Members on that side of the House have taken five or ten minutes to read the book to learn where they think they stand. As I mentioned the other day, I am told
The Address-Mr. Johnston
that that book, if it is reprinted, will likely bear the title "Where I Stood".
We also know that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) are very concerned that in fact the Leader might produce some policies because they, as wise men of the Party, have taken the position that one should not stand at all. "Elect us", they say, "then we will tell you where we stand".
Our Party, of course, Mr. Speaker, takes a completely different tack, and it seems to me that that is clear from the Throne Speech itself. This afternoon, in the brief time available to me, I would like to deal with a few of the economic aspects of the Throne Speech, in the context of today's economy, the economy which Canada faces as a member of the western industrialized world in 1983. Is the Party opposite prepared to stand some good news, because there is some good news. I know that those Hon. Members prefer to see a glass as half empty rather than half full, but in fact, it is more than half full.
I was interested in noting yesterday the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). He in fact produced some of the good news which I am about to unveil to Hon. Members in this House. I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, the very prestigious international magazine Euromoney, which is published in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House will know that it is perhaps the most prestigious magazine of its kind. There is an interesting article in the October edition entitled "The Resurgence of the Industrial Economies". One finds that of the 10 most improved economies in 1983-10 out of 93-Canada is number one. Canada is number one out of 93 countries in the world in terms of improved performance in 1983. Not many Canadians know that, and I know my friends on that side of the House- and I include my friends in the New Democratic Party- would prefer that Canadians not know that. However, that happens to be a fact. I would like simply to read one brief passage:
But since the beginning of this year the performance of the main industrialized countries has been remarkable. Canada's GDP has swung from a decline of nearly 5 per cent last year to a 7.2 per cent annualized growth rate for the second quarter of this year, though the fourth quarter figure will probably be lower. Canada's recovery has been greatly influenced by improving conditions in the United States, with increases in export demand outstripping domestic demand increases.
That statement makes us realize what all Canadians have, I believe, painfully learned, and as the Minister of Finance himself stated during question period today, that Canada, being a trading nation, is very much dependent upon what happens in the rest of the world and particularly in the United States.
I am heartened by some of the projections for the United States. It was brought to my attention earlier today that a very prominent economic forecaster, Charles B. Reeder of the DuPont Corporation in the United States, is really quite bullish in what he sees happening south of the border. He tells us that in 1984 total employment should rise by over three million to an all-time peak, and unemployment should decline

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Johnston
another million during 1984; that industrial production will continue rising, registering an annual gain of between 8 per cent and 10 per cent. Corporate profits should increase more than 30 per cent; the rate of inflation should remain low with the CPI rising 4 per cent to 5 per cent over 1983; interest rates should decline one to three percentage points, and the federal deficit should shrink by at least $30 billion from 1983's record of $195 billion. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is in the United States, but we have to keep a weather eye on the United States to know where the Canadian economy is going, and I suggest that we are going to do very well indeed, moving into 1984.
These forecasts are indeed exciting. I might also say that the economic initiatives of this Government-not only those outlined in the Throne Speech, but the initiatives and the Budget of last April, the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program, and so on, have been very supportive in contributing to and reinforcing the momentum of this economic performance of which we are all proud.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to mention some aspects of the Throne Speech which are intented to buttress this economic recovery. First, a few themes were mentioned in the Throne Speech, and I would like to read two of them:
To attain these goals, a comprehensive program will be presented:
-I especially want to refer to these two objectives:
-to encourage economic growth so that more Canadians can own a home, learn
a trade, expand a business, participate in the ownership of our resources and
gain a fair share of the abundant benefits this country can provide;
-to develop new partnerships among business, labour, government and other
groups so that together we will build a better future;
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to continue not only to describe certain goals, but also to point out some of the initiatives which will be taken to promote these objectives. Once again, 1 refer to the Throne Speech, especially with regard to the challenge of creating jobs, and I quote:
Using re-allocated and new resources, a $1 billion Youth Opportunity Fund will assist young Canadians in acquiring new skills and in finding jobs in the private, voluntary and public sectors. In particular, substantial resources from this Fund will be allotted to a career access program which encourages the private sector to provide work and training to those entering the workforce for the first time.
I would now like to go on to something else, but before I do so, I want to give a concrete example, and I quote once more:
To ensure a strong national economy capable of providing jobs and meeting the needs of all Canadians, wherever they may live, federal programs and funding have already been re-organized in a new Industrial and Regional Development Program. It will support recovery through concrete initiatives, taking maximum advantage of the strengths and attributes of every region.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, thanks to the efforts of our colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley), under the same program, namely IRDP, Bell Helicopter will build a plant in Quebec. This will mean a permanent industry in Quebec and 2,700 permanent jobs, all in the field of high technology, which is so important for Canada.
However, Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not stop there. He went even further, and I would like to mention the Pratt and
Whitney project, which will make it possible to create 6,000 jobs in the Montreal area, in addition to the trickle down effect it will have in other regions of Canada and its impact on our exports.
He has not stopped with that program referred to in the Throne Speech. Just yesterday, as Members of this House know, the Minister advised us that a memorandum of understanding had been entered into with a West German company, MBB, for the fabrication of more helicopters, another type, in Fort Erie.


Mr. Parent:: That is right, in my riding, an area of high unemployment.


Donald James Johnston: Again that will create 760 jobs, of which 160 will be at Pratt & Whitney. These are concrete examples of that statement in the Throne Speech. These are real, longterm, permanent jobs in a high technology area that will be of immense benefit to Canada, not only for domestic purposes but also for exports.
With that, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to pass very rapidly to another exciting initiative, the new era of federal-provincial planning and consultation which has been launched, and which comes directly under my responsibility as the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. The Government will be entering into Economic and Regional Development Agreements with all the provinces in due course, as has already been done with the Province of Manitoba. Negotiations are well under way in a number of other provinces.
What is significant about these agreements, Mr. Speaker, is that they herald a new era of federal-provincial planning on economic development. There is only one economy in this country, only one in each province, and it is this kind of agreement which will enable a maximum amount of synergism to take place between programs at the provincial level and those at the federal level. This is done of course within the framework, as 1 have often described in this House and before committee, of the role of the Federal Economic Development Co-ordinators and the role of the Economic Development perspectives in each province, and ultimately the Economic Regional Development Agreements and subsidiary agreements which will be entered into pursuant to those agreements. In fact, the whole economic development envelope of this Government is regionally sensitive and is becoming, I believe, a mainstay of the future economic development potential of this country to maximize the impact of dollars spent provincially and federally. As I mentioned, the first of the umbrella agreements was recently entered into with the Province of Manitoba.
There is of course much more in the Throne Speech with respect to economic development. The accent is placed on trade, which of course is fundamental to the health and well-being of this country and the creation of jobs. It states
December 14, 1983

there will be an aggressive trade drive, as there already has been. The current Minister and his predecessor have been particularly active, but there will be an extension of PEMD. There is a proposal for the duty-free export zones, and of course the pursuit of world product mandates. There is the very important commitment to continue to make Canadian industry competitive on a world class basis. What better and concrete evidence of that could we have than the R and D proposals discussed yesterday by the Minister of Finance and which are currently before the House with respect to amendments to the Income Tax Act? These proposals, put forth in the April Budget, were the subject of representations by the private sector. The Minister has responded with a new, imaginative system to direct equity funds into some of these young, aggressive and growing high technology companies. 1 say that this is the kind of initiative which is going to create jobs and wealth for Canada. It clearly keeps with the economic development thrust in the Throne Speech.
I cannot let pass the reference to NSERC, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council touched on in the Throne Speech debate where additional funding will be provided.
One thing I have come to realize very quickly, Mr. Speaker, in the discharge of my responsibilities in government, is that the greatest resource this country has is not oceans, forests, agriculture, or energy-it is the people. In this period when we move into what is called the information society, namely the application of knowhow, we need skilled and highly qualified manpower more than we have ever needed in the past. That will enable us to apply these new emerging technologies to tradtional sectors to ensure they remain competitive on world markets. That requires a quality of life environment to train and keep those people in Canada. For that purpose the Throne Speech is also significant as there is a stepping out in the speech to move more and more toward better consultation between business, labour and government. This, of course, is fundamental to the alliance I referred to a moment ago in my opening remarks as one of the themes of this Throne Speech. That alliance is essential to make this country more productive than it has even been in the past.
Time does not permit me to go over the inventory of economic development initiatives found in this speech, Mr. Speaker, but before I close 1 cannot help but comment on certain criticisms made by others. For example, I refer to some comments offered by John Bulloch of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I must say I have a great deal of time usually for the comments of Mr. Bulloch, and I attribute some of his comments to the fact that he may not have really had time to digest the speech as he otherwise might have wished to do. I see, for example, that he said they were looking for promises on long overdue competition and bankruptcy bills. Well, if one looks at the Throne Speech, one will find the following statement:
Following extensive and continuing consultations with the private sector and the provinces, the Government will introduce a new competition policy to bring market forces to bear in the continuing fight against inflation.
The Address-Mr. Johnston
It goes on to say what that legislation is going to do. Again I can say the same with respect to comments made by the President of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He said:
What we needed was a vigorous message giving us a sense of purpose and vision concentrating on the need to improve our competitiveness, stimulate investment and reduce the government deficit.
The Throne Speech does all of those, Mr. Speaker. When we speak of vision-[DOT]

-Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this speech shows real vision. It mentions world peace, economic growth, and the new partnership of which I have already spoken, which will protect and enrich our social programs of which we are so proud, and reinforce our Canadian identity. In my opinion, this represents the vision of Canada for the 80s.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is easily understood on this side that the Government would not wish to improve its election affections that Canadians presently have for it by speaking about its past record. It will have to rely on forecasts or perhaps on its usual luck for the Opposition to make some pronouncements, which could then be attacked and used by the Government in the next election.
I have a question for the Minister which relates to the Speech from the Throne and to his particular interest, to which he has not made reference today, for the need to improve our industry's productivity in order for it to compete once again more effectively in world markets. That serious matter is raised in the Throne Speech and a solution is offered. That solution is a system of awards for companies and workers who would show significant productivity gains.
The workers and companies with whom I have been associated in my business career would prefer to have the rewards instead of awards. They would like to have rewards and have those reflected in the balance sheet or in their pay cheques. What kind of awards does the Minister have in mind? Will people get a medal which will be reminiscent of coal mines and salt mines in the Soviet Union? What is the system of awards that the Minister has in mind that will bring about this improvement in the productivity of our industry?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the specifics of the programs outlined in the Speech from the Throne will, of course, be made public in due course by the responsible Ministers. When the Hon. Member says that he feels companies, individuals and shareholders would like to see the impact of improved productivity reflected on their balance sheets, indeed that will happen if they are productive. That is what we require right across the board.
With respect to the specific works program, I just must ask the Member to be patient.

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Ogle


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Minister used half of his time berating the Opposition for asking people to be patient with these specific policies. There is a broad framework of general policies that have been announced by our Leader over the last six months. This Minister criticizes us for saying that people should be patient about the specifics of our policies. Just how long will we have to wait for his specific views on this most critical area of our economic development prospects?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to offer my views on the issue of productivity, productivity improvement and the elements that contribute to productivity. In my judgment at least, this is not an area in which there is total agreement.
However, the question that was put to me related to a specific initiative which was referred to in the Throne Speech debate. It is only with respect to that particular program initiative that I have asked the Hon. Member to be patient. I am quite prepared to engage in a dialogue in the House or outside of the House on the issue of productivity, what must be done and what we see as the steps that we can take as a Government, and the ones that labour, provincial Governments and business can take to improve productivity.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to have an opportunity to speak for my Party on the Throne Speech. We are only a few days away from Christmas and the Throne Speech certainly presented two wishes to Canadians that I would also like to present to all Canadians, that is, the wish for peace and the wish for prosperity. I do not believe that there is anything that human beings would ask for more than to have peace and prosperity in their own lives. Today we live in a world in which peace and prosperity are not known by many people, not only those who live in actual war zones but people who live in very modern cities. There are many people there who live without peace and prosperity.
I would like to direct my remarks to certain areas where I have had some experience and knowledge. The procedure during this Throne Speech debate has been for each Member to speak in relation to his or her background and skill and make his critique of the plans the Government has put forward to bring about peace and prosperity. As we have seen, there are many critiques of what has taken place and what has been proposed.
At Christmas time those of us who still believe in Santa Claus look forward to the presents which he hands out from the big bag he carries. Interestingly enough, the only riding in Canada that was specifically mentioned in the Throne Speech was my own riding of Saskatoon East, although it was not called by that name. However, indication was made in the Throne Speech that a present is coming to Saskatoon East. It is the hydrology laboratory which is to be built at the university there. I sincerely hope that this present arrives since it has been offered to Saskatoon many times. It was one of the major gifts that my good friend and former opponent, Otto Lang, used to present once in a while although we never really received it. Of course, when poor Otto went down the road and
my Conservative friends came to power, they wiped out that present. During the last three or four years the Government has been indicating again that the present is ready to be sent. According to the Throne Speech, it is on the way. 1 hope that this time this necessary laboratory will arrive at the University of Saskatchewan. It will be very beneficial to have it there. I was speaking to the President of the University last week, Dr. Leo Kristjanson, and he indicates that its plans are ready and the tenders should be going out in January. While the Throne Speech did not really tell us something new, I hope it reaffirms that this laboratory is there to stay this time.
The introduction of the Throne Speech basically revolved around the theme of peace. In this respect I certainly want to commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for what he has been doing during recent weeks and days in attempting to find some space between President Reagan and Chairman Andropov. I believe the world has arrived at a point of international tension where we could easily be triggered into a nuclear confrontation which nobody wants. It does not matter whether it is the Prime Minister of Canada, a Member of the House or anyone else, if someone can find some space to reduce international tension I feel they should be told to continue.
At the same time, I would like to offer my best wishes to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) who has been given the responsibility of disarmament on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. Several weeks ago the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead attended a conference in New York in which I also participated. It was a conference at the United Nations of Parliamentarians for World Order. I was very pleased to see the Right Hon. Member present at this conference. He was taking part with this group of parliamentarians, some 900 from around the world, who have dedicated themselves to using their parliamentary responsibilities toward disarmament of the world and the development of people. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead has been asked by his Leader to represent his Party in the quest to solve this problem of disarmament, and I want to offer him my sincerest best wishes, as I have already offered to him privately, in helping to find success in this endeavour.
I believe it is important to recognize that the Conservative caucus, perhaps through the efforts of their Leader, has been able to show that with respect to external affairs there will perhaps be a blend. To many people, my good friend, the hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) who has been given the position of external affairs critic, seems to be pretty far down the road to the right. I was talking to him the other day in the airport, as we and many others were waiting for our planes in the rain, and he told me that many of his right wing friends are now beginning to call him "Sine, the Pink". I doubt that that name is true, but this is what he told me. His friends are calling him "Sine, the Pink" because he is not really showing that right wing tenacity which he had shown during the time he had been on the External Affairs Committee.
December 14, 1983

At this time I would like to point out both to the Prime Minister and to the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead that I believe that, unless they decide that testing the Cruise missile in Canada takes away their credibility as peace finders, they will not find an easy road to fulfilling their responsibilities. There is still time for the Government to stop the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada. The Prime Minister and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead could do that, and both of them can ask for that, but we must remember that when there was a vote in this House several months ago on the testing of the Cruise missile it was only the New Democrats, four Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and one Liberal who voted against that. That is something we have to keep in mind when we push ahead on this question of disarmament and getting away from an atomic confrontation.
It is obvious, and many people are aware of the fact, that one of the major problems facing the world is the whole question of armaments sales. I could go into this subject at great length. It is going to be something like $700 billion this year. We also must remember that since the end of the Second World War something like 140 wars have been fought and 30 million people killed. What is happening here and what the Throne Speech is telling us is that the Government is seriously making attempts to find a way to bring about mutual disarmament, and it certainly has my total support.
However, when we get to the question of total disarmament and how it affects Canadians, it is important to remember four little words, which are used very freely and easily and which have a great deal to do with the major problem. These four little words are nothing more than north-south and east-west. That section of the world commonly called the south is where most of the people live and is the area where there is massive poverty and misery. The developing countries in that part of the world have gone through a terrible past two years. Major economies like Brazil have collapsed. Mexico and other countries, and even the biggest countries in the south, have gone through just terrible economic situations and their futures look very difficult.
Interestingly enough to my mind, this tension which is happening now between those who have and those who do not have is creating a tension that could bring about, as Cardinal Carter, as reported in The Globe and Mail this week, said, a violent global revolution. When we talk about east-west being the problem, I think many times it is just covering over that the real problem is. Again on the question of north-south I would say that in the discussions which the Prime Minister has had over the past years in which he has demonstrated great skills, I feel that in the last two or three years he seems to have abandoned the project. After the meetings in Cancun, which he chaired, the question of north-south has just about disappeared, certainly from this House. Yet I believe there is a great unity between the north-south and the east-west, and a way must be found to answer those questions.
When I was studying social philosophy and economics at the University of Notre Dame several years ago, there was a
The Address-Mr. Ogle
monseigneur who had a saying that when you came to a difficult social problem, the most important thing was to be able to live the long haul. It simply meant that no matter how difficult the problem was, the person or persons who were involved in it were ready to go the distance. In the difficult questions of east-west and north-south that we are facing today I would say we have to go the distance.
The Throne Speech speaks about technological changes that are coming. I agree we must all face the changes that nobody in this House has quite imagined are going to take place. That kind of thing seems to be a long way away from the city where I live, the City of Saskatoon. Saskatoon, basically, is a small prairie city with a rural economy that gets its income from agriculture primarily but also from potash mines that are close to the city, close enough for people to live in the city and work in the mines.
During this past month there has been a situation in which technological change has brought about the laying off of 40 workers at the Imperial Optical Company Ltd. This company produces lenses for eye glasses. About 40 people were working there. They will not be there any more because they are being laid off. I think basically the reason is that technological change has made it possible to make eye glasses somewhere else faster than they can in Saskatoon.
I was very thankful that the President of the Company, Mr. Peter Herman in Toronto, replied to a letter I sent to him asking about this particular change. I was kind of shocked at the coldness with which he talks about the workers and the fact that-well, it is just too bad. In part, his letter reads:
We are confident that those employees who unfortunately had to be terminated will be well advised and hopefully compensated by their union-the United Automobile Workers-and we feel that we have behaved in the only way left open to us.
This was to get rid of their jobs, and get the automobile union to look after the workers, to look after them for the rest of their lives. That seems to be the intent.
It is interesting, and I thanked him for his openness. The President also sent me a copy of a letter that he had distributed among people who buy materials from Imperial Optical in Saskatoon. It is the first time that I find in a letter the reason for busting up a union is the six and five policy. I think that is what he is saying is the reason for terminating their service. The letter reads in part:
As you will have been aware, I am sure, the Company has been undergoing a series of negotiations with its unionized employees regarding the way in which we have been operating in the Saskatoon area. We have offered a fair and reasonable contract based on federal guidelines-
The guidelines to which he is referring, I believe, would probably be the six and five. The paragraph continues:
-and which has been accepted in all other similar operations throughout the country.
As we have said during the debate last year on the Government's policy of six and five, it seems that the six and five only affects those who are workers. I suspect the optical company- I do not have a detailed report of its holdings or what its profits were this year-has had a very good year.

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Ogle
I would like to say a few words on the question of the Canadian economy, which is one of multi-faceted values. I would bring to the attention of the House again the fact that this year again the Canadian Catholic Bishops felt it was important that this subject be addressed from a moral point of view. Just a year ago in the first week of January, 1983, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops presented to the people of Canada an ethical reflection on the economic crisis. In their document they clearly pointed out some of the moral values that have to be taken into account when and during the time of an economic crisis such as ours, namely the priority of human beings over profit, in other words, the priority of the value of the human being over the making of money. In Canada there are people who are not living in prosperity and not living in peace and we have to remember that the Government has not basically addressed the problem of the unemployed. What happens to those young people? What happens to those middle-aged people who have lost their jobs and cannot get them back? What happens to those who feel that their lives have finally become useless lives because they do not have valuable employment.
Following the moral intervention which the Catholic Bishops of Canada directed to the Government last January, Cardinal Carter of Toronto indicated that he was not quite sure whether or not that was the proper approach, but wisely, I believe, set up his own commission in Toronto to study the question of the economic situation of the people of Toronto and how that is affecting the moral and family life of people in that great city.
Just this week a report has been given to the Cardinal. The quote I gave just earlier from The Globe and Mail was basically an interview he gave after the report had been given to him. It is called "Canada's Unemployed-the Crisis of Our Time". It had the input of groups of people from the Toronto area, basically, but certainly it is representative of people all over Canada.
It contained one point which I felt was very well taken because of my interest in international life and how it ties into national life. In the Bishops' statement last January, they did not bring into focus clearly enough the fact that Canada belongs to the international community and that to try to solve Canadian economic problems without looking at the international community, Third World countries or other places where cheap labour and mineral resources at lower prices are being offered, would not solve our problems. This is why it is intensely necessary that planners, whoever they may be, look a the world scene at the same time as they confront the local scene. Many times they will find that their local problem started some place else, such as in the Pacific Rimor South America. Unfortunately, in the Speech from the Throne the role of multinationals was not clearly spelled out. It was not taken into account. Many of the decisions affecting Canadian life are made by multinationals, not by local people.
The best example of that is that we in the House of Commons frequently hear people shouting "Schefferville." I know that should is directed to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) because of the role he played in the closing down of the iron company's mines there. However, I know he did not have much to say about it. The company which closed down in Schefferville had its head office in Cleveland. It was because it knew it could obtain iron ore cheaper in Latin America. Also it knew that it could set up refineries and steel plants in South America where the governments could not defend themselves on questions of pollution, toxic waste, labour and such things. We shout the albatross word "Schefferville" at him, but basically he is a victim as well. He is the victim of a multinational which decided to use someone like that to handle its local business, and when it goes bad, that person looks like the one who is responsible.
In conclusion, in the report given to Cardinal Carter in Toronto this week, there were certain positive indications that reflect well upon the people of Canada. Although they are under stress at times because of lack of employment, they nevertheless have a practicality which we in the House of Commons should take seriously.
There are six points which can be drawn from that particular report. The first was that workable policies and practices need the insight and guidance of ordinary people as well as the best efforts of experts. Something which is very important is the wisdom of ordinary people. In discussing problems, many times experts say to do it one way and the ones who suffer are the ordinary people.
Second, most Canadians believe that there is a need for a social conscience in public and private dealings, but as yet there is no broad agreement on what exactly constitutes a social conscience. Put simply, how do we make a moral decision about a complicated social thing? Of course, I do not have any simple answer, but at the time of peace, the time of Christmas, I would at least point out a principle which should be taken into consideration for all times: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". We have to feel along with those who are in the suffering stage at the bottom, wherever it happens to be.
Third, the report pointed out that most people want and expect changes in thinking, attitudes, institutions, relations and changes of heart which the majority continue to believe come from within our present system. However, there is no great revolution yet, although the Cardinal conceded that if situations continue around the world there definitely could be.
Fourth, even those hurt by unemployment have a generosity of spirit, which I think is important. However, this patience can shift dramatically if there are not reciprocal efforts from institutions and individuals in positions to attempt change. That speaks very clearly to the House and to the Government.
Fifth, bigger handouts are not the best answer. The only acceptable and workable answer in the long run is to provide more opportunities for decent worth-while jobs, the kind which engender self-respect.
December 14, 1983

Finally, despite many obstacles, the panel was left with the impression of possibilities rather than one of despair. It is very important for us to know that at this time.
I thank the House for the opportunity of participating today. I congratulate the writer of the Throne Speech for the statement that institutes will be set up to study disarmament, something we on this side have recommended many times. I hope it is put into place quickly, put into place with effective funds and by people who have the understanding and knowledge to bring about true world disarmament.


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


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, on this 14th day of December, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the Throne Speech, in order to elaborate on all the benefits and important measures this document contains. I would have liked the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) to be here in the House. Yesterday, I took the trouble to invite him to attend, because I was planning to talk about matters that are very familiar to both of us, namely, the whole issue of the North Shore, Sept-Iles, Schefferville, the Iron Ore company and job creation.
I would like to say, first of all, that I was rather disappointed to see that since the Leader of the Opposition took his seat in the House, he has yet to raise the issue of job creation in connection with the North Shore. When I was listening from the North Shore, when the Speech from the Throne was read and after the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, I was surprised that he did not mention at least one sensible measure that directly concerns the people for whom he himself had worked. I am referring to the measure requested by all the mining companies, all the unions and all the North Shore mayors, and also by the same groups of people in the far North. I am referring to the exemption from taxation of northern benefits. Now, the first practical measure mentioned in the Throne Speech was one that directly concerned the Leader of the Opposition, and he did not even mention it.
About ten minutes ago I was talking to Mr. Lawrence McBearty, president of the metal workers union in my riding, and he told me that he really appreciated the work that had been done in that area. He was grateful to the Government for being aware of this issue, which is not only important to those working in Canada's North but also to the entire development of the North. While other Members are going to describe the Speech from the Throne as a set of useless measures, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that some of these useless measures are of direct concern to the people of the North Shore, who have been fighting for those measures for two years. That needs to be said. Mr. Speaker, it is true that the
The Address-Mr. Maltais
Hon. Member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) and the Leader of the Opposition have been and are still close friends, but I hasten to add that friendship is not synonymous with complacency and complicity. The Hon. Member for Manicouagan has never had to decide to lay off workers or to close a mine. In a few moments, if the Leader of the Opposition so wishes and if he gets to the House in time, he might want to comment on that during the ten minutes allowed for questions. But when the issue is job creation and he hopes to become Prime Minister of the country, I wish our Leader of the Opposition would change into a leader of propositions and tell us clearly what he will do to get people back to work.
I listened to his remarks concerning the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. He said that Canada had about half a million people out of work in 1968, but that we now have a million and a half unemployed. It is very easy to say just about anything in the House and elsewhere, because talk is cheap, but the facts are more important, and if I wanted to take a similar approach, I would say simply that, when Mr. Mulroney arrived in Sept-Iles in 1975 as company president, he had 7,500 employees. When he resigned to help his party, so it seems, or his former leader-I think the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) would remember those events- only 3,000 were left and that work force has since dwindled to 2,000.


An Hon. Member:: What a shame!


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, the issue is job creation and unemployment. I never accused the Iron Ore Company president of being responsible for the iron crisis, regardless of all the Government assistance he was given. So much so that he came twice to see me here in the House of Commons to set up plans or Government programs to help the unemployed workers. As we say back home, he had an open and generous mind. Anyone who has heard the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that such words are often the trademark of our Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Speaker, this same Leader of the Opposition has been referring in his speeches to one chef and 74 meatheads. To keep to culinary terms I should like to mention that people in my riding call round shaped balls of iron pellets, and I will add that their meatballs have been changed into poison pellets because our voters preferred the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, who gave them direct assistance in their search for jobs and better conditions, over a company chairman who abandoned them to take care of his own career and perhaps that of the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). That, however, is the affair of the Members opposite. In my region, Mr. Speaker, what we felt the most was a deep feeling of loss at being abandoned by the first chairman of a multinational located in our region who was born in Baie Comeau. We had had expected more consideration, more persistence and more efforts on his part to help the workers, but instead, he quickly
190

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Maltais
went to take over the job of his former leader, to whom he had promised loyalty. We felt a deep loss when this happened. Mr. Speaker, this had to be said.
Moreover, when the Iron Ore Company announced generous initiatives to help its workers, as it indeed did, Mr. Speaker, half of them were paid by the Federal Government, the Government of Canada. In the case of other programs, the province of Quebec paid 25 per cent and the Iron Ore Company paid the rest. I must say that the Hon. Member for Manicouagan negotiated these programs with the chairman of the company.
I have here all kinds of papers from which I could quote and give dates to show that the chairman himself stated during his press conference in February before he left for the Progressive Conservative Convention in Winnipeg that if he had waited until then to give his conference, it was because he was waiting for the telegram of the Hon. Member for Manicouagan confirming the final details of the programs which would be offered to the workers.
Mr. Speaker, the Government and the Hon. Member for Manicouagan did so much in this regard that I was treated somewhat off-handedly by Department of Employment and Immigration officials because they thought that I was in too great a hurry. It seldom happens that a Government is accused of being in too great a hurry. However, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that it was on November 2 that the company chairman announced that the Schefferville plant would close on June 30 and that it was only in February that all the programs for the workers were put together. Throughout November, December, January and February, the workers were kept in complete darkness about their future. You have to come from these places to know what it means, Mr. Speaker.
This Government has been accused of not doing its job, and as I pointed out earlier, you can say just about anything in this House, but I would like to challenge the Leader of the Opposition, and I would have liked him to be here as I wanted to tell him that if the people of Sept-Iles and Schefferville in the Manicouagan riding were able to get a new start honourably and freely, it is thanks to the initiatives taken both by the Government and the company. This is important to note. I give the Leader of the Official Opposition credit for the strategy and the half truths. I find it unacceptable for the Leader of the Official Opposition to accuse this Government of inconsistency. Indeed, on March 16, 1982, the Leader of the Opposition, who was then chairman of the Iron Ore Company, attended a press conference given by the Hon. Charles Lapointe and myself concerning the assistance which would be given to the company and the workers. At that time, the chairman of Iron Ore said, and I can quote him from memory as I know by heart what he said in my region: "This is one of the best Government programs ever and it will help our company and the workers to come out of the current crisis." I would like him
to repeat it because it is easy to go from Vancouver to Halifax and say just about anything or at least only half truths, Mr. Speaker.
When I listen to my friend, the Leader of the Opposition tell the Canadian people: You know, I lived in Baie-Comeau where I used to be a truck driver. My father had two jobs in order to make ends meet. Let me tell you that in Sept-Iles and in Schefferville, there are a lot of people who would like to still be able to say "My father is a truck driver". Because there are no more trucks to drive in Sept-Iles and in Schefferville. And when I hear the Leader of the Opposition say that his father had two jobs to make ends meet, let me tell you that in my area, 30 per cent of the workers do not even have one job.
So one can raise a lot of emotionalism in this way. One can say a number of things to try and rouse the people. However, since it is said that the past is the guarantee of the future, let me quote the Leader of the Opposition, who said in Quebec City: "Watch out, Canadians". Yes, you had better watch out because the only people that were saved by the president of that company are its shareholders. Meanwhile, the Member of Parliament and his Government were trying to save the workers and the citizens. That is the difference between being president of a corporation and being a public office holder and dealing with the business of the nation. It is important not to lose sight of this distinction. I don't know what would have happened to the North Shore if the Government had not taken action. Even the Iron Ore Corporation was against the Pointe-Noire project which required investments of $46 million. Yet, this project will be the key to our economic development. We have always been happy with the various private companies that have come into our area in the past, so long as they reinvest in the area and respect the social fabric and the language of the people in Quebec. Those are the three conditions we require from the private sector for the economic development on the North Shore. But when I hear the Leader of the Opposition say that FIRA is not important, let me remind you that when the company decided to close down its operations, they did not ask the opinion of the workers. Last Saturday, I was with the steelworkers who told me: "Mr. Maltais, we now realize the importance of Government control over corporations". Because private sector people never need the Government when things are going good, they just take in the profits and the dividends. However, when the going gets bad, they are running to ministers and to Members of Parliament to get some public money, to deal with problems arising out of decisions taken in other areas, such as the decision to close down the only mine operated in Quebec by the Iron Ore Corporation. They did not close down their mines in Labrador City and in Wabush. They closed down their mine in Quebec. Who decided that, Mr. Speaker? Was it the corporate board in Cleveland or the president himself? I dont know. My friend from the other side will have the opportunity to answer that question in this House if he wants to. However, there is one
December 14, 1983

thing which is surprising, and that is this all important position of president of the corporation has never been filled since the resignation of the then president, the present Leader of the Opposition. Never!
If the Leader of the Opposition wants an election quickly, Mr. Speaker, I will challenge him to run in Manicouagan. That is where he should run. I agree there are snowstorms in winter and flies in the summer, but that is no reason why he should not run in his own area. And the only reason why I dare him to be a candidate in my riding is that the people, not the companies, are supporting me. When I say something, it is not prompted by outsiders. I share the everyday life of employed and unemployed workers, but if he can claim throughout Canada that he has helped the people on the Quebec North Shore, in Sept-Iles and in the Northern towns, he should be a candidate in the Manicouagan riding! I know that I am taking a big chance, but he would be taking a bigger one. Let him try his luck there! There are always two sides to a challenge, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to take up this challenge. I am willing to do so, because I am free to say what I want to say and because my only advisers are the workers who are supporting me.
If we were to draw a list of everything this government has done on the Quebec North Shore over the past four or five years, it would be quite long, and people are aware of it. They can see the difference between an individual who is eager to help them and one who was involved in the exploitation of the iron ore and possibly also the workers. It takes more than a well organized career plan to be able to succeed on the Quebec North Shore. It takes hard work. I issue my challenge again. And it would be quite interesting, because via satellites, the Supreme Court may now hear a case in Vancouver without having to leave Ottawa. The debate would take place on the Quebec North Shore. I would like that, because it is a region which needs to be developed. It has a bright future, but it will get nowhere if people leave it. People must stay there. I, for one, reply: Here! I have issued my challenge. In spite of the polls, I am not afraid to be a candidate opposite the Leader of the Opposition, because I have done my homework and have met my constituents one by one from the ordinary people to the unions and the presidents of companies on the same level. They are all equally important to me. But I would not go to Vancouver or Montreal to make statements which no one can verify, but on any issue which is factual and verifiable I say to the Leader of the Opposition, "Welcome!" He may be rightly proud of having been born in Baie-Comeau, but there are people who were proud of having been born in Schefferville but who may never have a chance to die there because the town is dead. Baie-Comeau on the other hand is not dead, and there is the difference. When knowing the meaning of the sense of solidarity among the people along the North Snore and in Northern communities, a solidarity which I share with the Leader of the Opposition, I would like us to have the same
The Address-Mr. Maltais
debate in our own area over the very same facts. That is important.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that my time is running out, and I hope Members opposite will allow me a few more minutes to conclude. In the Throne Speech, things are mentioned that are essential to this country's future. There is the problem of our young people. The North Shore, among other areas, is concerned with the whole issue of our young people, Mr. Speaker. For too long those people may have had to deal with too many departments. It is high time a Government truly addressed a policy for the young people. Reference is often made to resources, meaning mines, forests, rivers. But our first and foremost resource is our young people. And too often reference to them is not followed by any action. This is one of the major issues in the Throne Speech, and it should be emphasized to a greater extent by a "Leader of Proposals" opposite rather than by a Leader of the Opposition. It is ever so easy to oppose, but how more difficult to make proposals.
Another subject that deserves to be stressed in the Throne Speech is research. It is unacceptable that in a country such as Canada research is not carried out more extensively by the educational community, private industry and the various Government agencies, whether they be federal or provincial. It is most urgent that all resources be used to bring still more funds for research, because it is the minds of people that will give Canada its full dimension. I think Hon. Members on all sides of the House are in agreement to make research one of the main stays not only of our Canadian economy but of the technology that will allow us to further develop all the facets of Canada.
I know my time is running out. I would simply suggest, to conclude, that in the Throne Speech we have, for the next ten years, the keys that will turn our country onto the road to the technological, economic and social changes needed for the year 2000. We must never rely on a party that is forever reactionary, we must always have a Government bent on action and concrete proposals, Mr. Speaker.
I would like, if the Opposition will allow, to take two or three more minutes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I must inform him that his time has expired. He could go on with the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there such unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Schellenberger


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise and speak in reply to the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the riding of Wetaskiwin. During the past 11 years, 1 have always been very pleased to be the representative of the good people of the riding of Wetaskiwin who have a great spirit of enterprise and are willing to work hard in an attempt to provide security for their families and a good future for themselves within the Province of Alberta.
Most of the riding of Wetaskiwin is dependent upon an agricultural base as well as oil and gas. There is a large conventional oil and gas industry in the riding and many of the people who live there are working hard in the small business sector within the towns of the constituency or in the nearby cities of Red Deer and Edmonton.
After hearing the Speech from the Throne, we would like to believe that a new chapter will be written in history and that there will be new ideas to show the country how we will proceed in the next year. Four years have passed since the last Throne Speech, so that one really must have been a dilly because there is generally only a year to a year and a half between Throne Speeches.
There should be a plan of action within that speech so that Members of Parliament will know how their constituencies and the country will be affected. The speech should set the table for the House of Commons and the Senate by indicating what the legislative plan will be for the next year. I know that my colleagues and I will want to speak about the details which are contained within the Speech from the Throne that was read a few days ago.
During my time in the House, I have watched this Government perform for 11 years excepting for a few months. One must recognize that the way the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has operated has caused great difficulties in the nation. The Prime Minister has always believed that the manner in which he should impose his will and ideas on the country is through confrontation. Compromise has been thrown out of the window. Discussions with labour, industry, the provinces and other governments of the country only go on if those organizations are in agreement with the Prime Minister and, of course, his Cabinet has followed along in that regard. What has this done to the country?
Perhaps you could look at the situation from my perspective, Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Parliament from a western riding. You will really be able to see what has been achieved and the action that has resulted from the various Speeches from the Throne. There have been some excellent examples of that style of government in this session of Parliament. We debated the original Constitution proposal which the Prime Minister intended to force through the House over the objections of the regions. The National Energy Program wreaked devastation on the workers in my constituency. There was no consultation about the imposition of that program which had disastrous effects on the nation. Young people wanted to work in the industry in which their fathers had prospered but that work was gone. The capital escaped from the nation and the drilling rigs were closed down or moved to the United States.
OO)
Not only was there the imposition of the back-in provision but there was also the FIRA program which allowed the capital so desperately needed in that sector to leave the country. Investors were not prepared to take the risk in view of the Government's policies. There is still potential in the oil and gas industry in this country, particularly in the west, but it needs to be built up again. Nothing in the Speech from the Throne offered any assurance that this would come about. With the money it takes to drill one well in the offshore or in the north, 20 could be drilled and 20 times more people employed in the conventional oil and gas sector. The program all but destroyed the industry but it is beginning to crawl back again toward a semblance of what it once was.
In the agricultural sector, Canagrex was opposed diligently and strongly by the regions but it was forced upon them by the Government. The Crow rate had been with us for a century. Now western farmers face huge increases in the cost of production and transportation but will only receive 1970 prices for their crops. This style of government has not given anything to Canada. It offers little compromise, only confrontation. If the House of Commons stood in its way it would diminish the powers of the House. Over the years there has been more and more government by bureaucracy, not by Members of Parliament making decisions on issues that are put before them.
Opportunities to scrutinize expenditures of government are fewer than before. The Auditor General's Report has highlighted waste and the huge deficits run up year after year in the last session of this Parliament. Ministers no longer make statements in the House; they are made outside the House to the press and Members have no opportunity to question or scrutinize programs. There has been a continual downplaying of this institution because it stands in the way of the manner in which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet want to lead the country.
The Auditor General has also pointed to the growth of another subgovernment over which Members of Parliament have no control, and that is the growth of Crown corporations. Many of these inject themselves into areas where the private sector should operate. In my view, Crown corporations should only be put in place if the nation wishes to have a service and no one in the private sector is prepared to provide it. That has not been the case in recent years. Petro-Canada is an example of it.
The only success story in the House of Commons is the use of the special committees and the task forces comprised of members from all sides of the House. The reports issued by brilliant men and women, working together in compromise instead of in confrontation, have helped solve some problems in the nation. I hope the Government will use the reports that have been tabled in the past few months. Tomorrow a report on pensions will be tabled and the report on Indian self-government has just been presented. There will be others and all of them ought to be used. In the final days of this Parliament I should like to see more of this compromise rather than the
December 14, 1983

confrontation that the Prime Minister has imposed on the nation since he took over in 1968.
This attitude does not make for unity, Mr. Speaker. In my constituency, for the first time in decades I have had to face a western separatist party. Such a party is now in power in the Province of Quebec. Because certain programs have been almost shoved at the people, they have been rejected. The metric system and bilingualism are perfect examples of programs that have been imposed in the wrong manner. People will just reject them outright instead of considering how they could be adopted voluntarily.
The Government has alienated almost every sector, every region and every interest group in the country and now, in the Speech from the Throne, claims that it wants to write a new chapter which will have the answers for the country in the next few months. This must be the last chapter, Mr. Speaker. New chapters in this country with a new government should not speak of unity but should nurture it, through compromise and consultation. It should not promise economic recovery but should actively set up the foundations for it through a strong private sector and the operation of small businesses. The Government should not play with statistics but should see that the people are well represented. It should not sermonize about high ideals but should show leadership by working together to solve our problems. It has to show that anything of lasting value can be achieved only by hard work and sacrifice.
The greatest occupation as most of us know is to serve others and make sure that those people less fortunate than we can be confident that their government will work along with them instead of imposing policies without consultation. We have a highly educated population of young people who want to make the best of the abundance of resources the country offers. We are not afraid to meet the challenges of this century. We have very ably put in place the kinds of positions which we feel should be taken for this century and the kind of basic foundation which has to be built so we can move toward the 21st century.
What must that foundation be built on? One thing, as mentioned in the Throne Speech, is the youth of this nation. We have 4.5 million young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 in the work force. Their unemployment rate has risen from 13 per cent to over 18 per cent since 1980. These young people have gone from high school into further training because they want to build careers and have security, but they are now finding as they leave these institutions that there is nothing for them. There are no jobs. This is because of the policies I mentioned, like the National Energy Program. It is because of the lack of trust businessmen have in the taxation policies of this Government. It is because of the constant change of policy in those areas. It is because of the huge deficits and wastage of money and the imposition of central control on this nation. There is nothing there to build on. The private sector is having real difficulty in trusting this Government and as a result money is kept in the sock, in savings,
The Address-Mr. Schellenberger
instead of being put into building industry. It has affected not only small business but the larger sector.
We are not enticing people into research and development, as we were decades ago. That is lost, although we are trying to build it up again. We need research and development desperately because that is where we can provide the jobs for the future. We cannot continue to bicker among ourselves because if we continue to do so the young people of this nation are going to lose trust in their governments, not only federal but the provincial and other governments of this nation, which do not seem to be providing the will for action. They are not writing the chapters which have to be written in this country so there will be some feeling among our young people that there is a positive future for them, that they can be secure and will get jobs and be able to build a home and have a family. They must have hope that they will enjoy this country because we have everything we need here. All we need is the ability of our institutions to work together to solve the problems. We must get rid of the constant spirit of confrontation which has been in place since this Prime Minister has taken over control of government.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, with all my heart that this must be the final chapter. This Speech from the Throne must be the final chapter of this Government because that is, to my mind, the only way the people of this nation will again have trust in their leadership, the ability to believe that what is said in the Speech from the Throne will in fact be the case. We must carry out the kind of scrutiny of government expenditures which are put in place. We must have the kinds of far-reaching and visionary policy needed to move us toward the 21st century.
One thing a nation must never forget is that all the strong nations of this world must have a sound and strong agricultural base. If one has not the ability to feed oneself, there is not the ability to feed oneself, there is not the ability to grow in any fashion. We are very fortunate in Canada because we have a strong agricultural base. I look at the Speech from the Throne because I am worried about it. We have huge statistics of bankruptcies. The amount of capital which farmers have had to borrow in the last five or six years just to stay alive is horrendous. We are now $18 billion in debt in the agricultural area of this country, at huge interest rates. People involved in agriculture in this country are decreasing in numbers. The small rural communities of this country are in the desperate throes of dying because people are moving away from those areas. There is nothing to keep these people there any more. I look at the Speech from the Throne to see if there are the kinds of far-reaching policies in agriculture to give some confidence to the people and I see mention of a few lofty ideals and some mention of things which ought to have been done years ago, as far as stabilization and advanced payments are concerned. I look forward to seeing if there will be any action on these lofty statements. If there is, we will pass those Bills very quickly, Mr. Speaker.


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

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Collenette


Hon. D. M. Collenette (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in this Throne Speech debate because I, as a Minister of the Crown, am very excited about the offering given by the Governor General last week in the Senate. The Throne Speech is exciting. It is dynamic and offers Canadians a program which will help lead us into the next century.
I would like to dwell upon one of the five themes which were raised in the Throne Speech, namely, to reinforce Canada's identity through enhanced recognition of our cultural heritage and increase support for our creative artists by new broadcasting, telecommunications and copyright policies. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with the former part of that paragraph. As the Throne Speech states:
Wc Canadians know that our diversity-our lack of pressure to conform to a single mold-is an integral part of our identity. Canadian variety, tolerance and civility are to be treasured and nurtured.
As Minister of State for Multiculuralism I feel compelled to underline to Hon. Members of the House of Commons and to the public in general that for the first time a Throne Speech has had a whole paragraph of six substantive items directed to the multicultural nature of this country.


John Carnell Crosbie: You have been there for 20 years. It took you a long time.


David Michael Collenette: The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) tells us it took a long time. Well, let us talk about that, Mr. Speaker. It was in 1971 that this Government, under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), introduced the policy of multiculturalism. It has been one of the great Canadian success stories. It has been emulated by provincial governments across this country. It has been emulated by foreign governments. Australia is one. I met with a group of Swedish parliamentarians about two months ago who were looking at the unique social experience which we are undergoing in this country with multiculturalism. The eyes of the world are on Canada for the unique nature of its cultural policies.
In the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, we pledged to introduce for the first time a legislative base for multiculturalism. I must admit it is to my regret that this was not done before, but with the exigencies of parliamentary debate and the issues of the day, unfortunately this matter has not been dealt with in terms of establishing a legislative base for multiculturalism. However, as I mentioned, the policy was introduced in 1971. The first Minister was appointed by the Prime Minister in 1974. The new policy expanded beyond the initial one of cultural and linguistic heritage retention to that of social justice and equity under my colleague, the former Minister, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Fleming), who took the lead in developing the new areas dealing with discrimination and racism.
As a result, the House of Commons agreed to the establishment of a Parliamentary Committee on Visible Minorities. We have seen this new direction established in the last two or three
years. We have seen the entrenchment of the principle of multiculturalism in the Constitution, in Article XXVII of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The next step will be taken by this House, hopefully with unanimity, in the legislation I propose to introduce in the House early in the new year. It will incorporate those programs which have had the legislative authority of the Secretary of State's Act since 1971.
I will mention some of them so that people realize the breadth and diversity of the programs. Race relations, of course, is extremely important. Cultural integration, cultural enrichment, group development, writing and publications, Canadian ethnic studies, intercultural communications and performing and visual arts. All of those programs will incorporated in the legislative base we plan to bring forward early in the new year.
In the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, we have built on that to re-emphasize and rededicate ourselves to our ethnic heritage and language programs. I should point out that those federal Government programs, and there are about 1,000 of them, involve 125,000 students across this country. The federal Government has led the way. It has not been easy because it must be remembered that we do not have jurisdiction over education. We must co-operate with the provinces and, to give credit where it is due, many of the provinces have given assistance of their own. Some, such as Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec, have done this in the public school system during school hours; others, such as Ontario, have provided funds for after school hours. But it was the federal Government that led the way and I want to emphasize the Throne Speech commitment to rededicate ourselves to that particular approach. We would like to enhance it and I look forward to new developments in the next year or two. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is quite possible to encourage the development of other languages in our country in the context of both official languages. It must be emphasized that it was a multicultural group called "Manitoba 23" that strove for the protection of Franco-Manitobans' rights. And their success appears as one of the great triumphs of multicultural policies in Canada.

There were people who said ten or fifteen years ago that we could not move toward a multicultural society, even though the country was in reality becoming a multicultural society, because this would impinge upon the integrity of the official languages of English and French. This was a legitimate intellectual argument, and it is to the credit of the Prime Minister and the Government in 1971 that they took note of this argument but disregarded it. They felt that multiculturalism, as we moved to a multicultural society, in itself would afford perhaps one of the ultimate protections for minority language rights in this country.
What has happened in Manitoba in the last few months is a testament to the wisdom to this kind of reasoning. It was Manitoba 23, an umbrella group of multicultural organiza-
December 14, 1983

tions, which was the most vigorous in defending French-speaking rights for Franco-Manitobans and for articulating that point of view. We see across the country a commonality between all language groups, even the two official languages.
As the Hon. Member for York West said earlier this afternoon, multiculturalism is becoming truly mainstream. Ten years from now we will not be thinking of multiculturalism as "over there"; it will be all of Canada. It will not impinge upon the integrity of the Official Languages Act because the unique nature of this country has been entrenched in the Constitution, and there will be no threat to the growing development of multiculturalism in this country.
Another significant initiative taken in the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, comes from the urgings of many of my colleagues on this side of the House. My colleague, the Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal), agreed that the representations should be heeded, and that most of the formal requirements for citizenship of a person over 65 will be relaxed. I cannot give a starting date but I am hopeful that we can put this into effect early in the new year.
It is a tragedy when many older people come to this country to join their sons and daughters and they do not have a command of English or French. They go to the Citizenship court and just find it impossible to meet most of the formal requirements for becoming a citizen in answering the questions posed by the judges. This is no reflection on those judges who do an outstanding job, but it is recognition of the fact that there are many people who just cannot meet those basic requirements. They are told by the judge to come back in three months and try again and perhaps they will succeed. This is being said to a 70 or 75 year old person who does not speak English or French and never will. They give up. They say they really want to become a Canadian, their children are here, they belong here, but they just cannot meet these requirements. Well, this Government has taken a very compassionate and humane approach in proposing that most of the formal requirements for those people over 65 will be relaxed in the next short while.
Another significant development in the commitment to multiculturalism also comes, not specifically under my auspices but really under those of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres). It is a commitment by the Government to establish a joint House of Commons and Senate task force on the question of the tax status of charitable foundations and charities. This has a particular impact on the multicultural community since the laws as they are now preclude many of the legitimate activities of multicultural organizations because a charitable tax status number cannot be granted. It is a credit to the Government that we will be asking Members of this House and the Senate to come forward quickly with recommendations on how to improve that situation. This will have an impact on many organizations, but of course I am particularly concerned with those in the multicultural community.
I mentioned earlier this Government's commitment to social justice and equity, and to fight with increasing vigilance to end discrimination and racism in this country. That is the reason
The Address-Mr. Collenette
we came to the House of Commons and sought consent of Members to establish the parliamentary committee. We gained unanimous support, the committee is now working and will be reporting early in the new year. The Government has given its commitment in the Throne Speech that it will be responding as quickly as possible to the recommendations of that very eminent committee.
My colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan), has on a number of occasions reiterated the fact that the Criminal Code as applies to hate literature is woefully inadequate. We have had many discussions on this and they are not yet complete. They will not be complete because we believe new information and recommendations may emanate from the parliamentary committee in this particular area. We do not want to move without having the full weight of the parliamentary committee report. But there is a commitment that the issue of hate literature and its dissemination will be dealt with in this session of Parliament. I think all Canadians welcome that particular measure.
There it is, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have covered everything. We have six points in the Throne Speech which deal with multiculturalism. That reaffirms the commitment of this Government to enhance the development of a truly multicultural society within the context of the two official languages. All Canadians, irrespective of their origin or their background, will feel that their cultural heritage has a true place in this nation.
There was mention in the Speech from the Throne of the great contribution made by immigrants to Canadian society. I feel particularly close to that contribution, being an immigrant myself many years ago along with my family.
When we talk about multiculturalism, we are not just talking about immigrants. We are also talking about their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters. This country was built upon immigration and it is not unusual to find, whether in Metro Toronto, Ontario or western Canada in particular, the sons and daughters and grandsons and granddaughters of the pioneers who came to this country in the nineteenth century maintaining their linguistic heritage and cultural traditions. The continuation of those cultural traditions adds to all of Canadian society.
The maintenance of linguistic traditions is not only beneficial in an intellectual or philosophical sense, it is also beneficial in a purely businesslike, economic sense. As the world becomes more interdependent and as our ties with other countries become even closer through trade, the ability for Canadians to speak other languages, whether it is German where there is a heavy component in the petrochemical and plastics industry, or Chinese and Japanese with respect to trade with the orient, is of great assistance in doing business with countries of the world. All of these languages will add to and have significant benefit for the economic and social wellbeing of the country.

December 14, 1983
The Address-Mr. Collenette
As a new Minister in the Government, I am particularly happy to have been able to make representations to my colleagues and have them accept and bring forward this package. While some may consider it modest, I consider it significant. Indeed, the reaction I have received from the multicultural communities has been that it is significant.
This is the first major commitment to multiculturalism in the Throne Speech since the policy was formulated in 1971. For the first time Parliament will be asked in the New Year to have a full-scale debate on the philosophy of multiculturalism. I will be listening to Hon. Members in this debate and hopefully at committee stage there will be many representations made by ethnocultural organizations in the country. We want to hear from all groups in society. This is one area where there is a consensus and I am sure there will be no parliamentary bickering or division. As a country, we stand to benefit from the advance toward becoming a truly multicultural society.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have heard the Minister's speech. I might take this opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment and to indicate that he follows in a rich tradition of multiculturalism Ministers. I thought the Member for York West (Mr. Fleming) was an excellent Minister of Multiculturalism and I am sure the current Minister will be equally excellent in pursuing the goals of multiculturalism that Parliament has espoused and which this Government certainly espouses.
Could the Minister possibly be a bit more specific with regard to the question of new citizenship or citizenship for people over 65 years of age? Perhaps he could indicate when we might begin to deal with this issue. I am quite anxious for this to happen because there are several ethnic communities in my riding which have expressed to me the strong need to have some effective way to allow the elderly in their communities to become full partners in the Canadian multicultural society and to participate fully as Canadian citizens so they may feel at home in their adopted country.
As the Hon. Minister said, it is very difficult for these people to become citizens and, indeed, it is not just the recent arrivals in Canada. There are people in my riding, especially women, who have been in Canada for up to 25 years. However, because of their cultural heritage they have tended to stay at home and not learn the language, although for all intents and purposes they have been Canadians for 20 or 25 years. These people are now in their early 60s. I hope that we could move quickly with this legislation.
In addition, is there any possibility for the relaxation of the constraints on women in the category I just mentioned who are not yet 65 years of age? They have been here a long time, their husbands are citizens and their children are citizens and they will be staying in Canada. But they face this difficulty.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans). There are very few Members who are quite as active as he in the multicultural community in the nation's capital.
Perhaps I could approach the issue from this angle: I would be interested in hearing the views of Members on both sides of the House on making the commitment to relax the formal requirements for citizenship for those over 65, which is a basic departure from Government policy. The first step is to deal with those over 65. I recognize the legitimate problem that the Hon. Member mentions of those who are younger and have been here for some time and have never learned the language. I think we should approach that from another perspective by trying to reach those people and encourage them to learn one of the two official languages so that they can meet the normal requirements. I suggest there is, in a sense, a cultural integration obligation on the part of all of us in society. That is how we should approach the problem for people in that category.
People over the age of 65 are beyond that. I realize that 65 is an arbitrary age but one must start somewhere. I suggest that it is a realistic age from where we must start. We are not talking about legislation here but a regulatory change under the Citizenship Act. I stand to be corrected by my colleague, the Secretary of State, but it is my understanding that that regulation change can be implemented very quickly. For that reason I hope we can move on this early in the new year. Of course, we must give the required time for Citizenship court judges and related administrative matters to be accommodated for that regulatory change.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the Hon. Minister on his new portfolio. As we can see, he is off to an excellent start. Could he comment on the university chairs that several ethnocultural groups have established in Canada where an ethnocultural group would put up $300,000 and the Ministry of Multiculturalism would match that with another $300,000? I understand that for a university such as the University of Toronto, such a chair now costs $1 million to set up. Is the Minister prepared to provide additional funding for the establishment of these chairs? I would like an update on that.
As well, could he comment on the change that came about in the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, cutting it down from 100 to a group of 30? If that group of 100 did not represent all of the various ethnocultural groups across Canada, how does he expect 30 to represent the many groups across Canada?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Canadian Multicultural Council, as it is now known, there is a legitimacy to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). With the vast number of ethnocultural groups in the country, how can they all receive representation with the 100 members as it was, let alone the 30 as it is now? However, when Cabinet made the decision in July, it did so on the unanimous recommendation of that 100-person body. In a sense, Cabinet was trying to accommodate their argument that a more efficiently-minded group should be organized.
I must be quite honest and candid and say that I have received some complaints about this from across the country. When the new Act is brought before the House, we will be
December 14, 1983

incorporating the Canadian Multiculturalism Council within that Act. Perhaps some Members feel strongly about the composition of the Council. The matter was raised by the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the official critic for multiculturalism on the Conservative side, two months ago. If there is some legitimate criticism it is something about which I would be reasonable. I think we must develop a consensus on it.
Second, on the whole question of ethnic chairs, as they are now known, I believe there are six in the country and we have Treasury Board authorization for one per year. There is some argument that perhaps we should increase that commitment. However, it is very expensive, as the Hon. Member said, because we are talking about $300,000 in government money being placed on deposit so the funds generated with the matching $300,000 from the various ethnic communities concerned accrues enough interest to pay for the ongoing nature of the chair.
I understand now that the chair is really costing $500,000, which means an increased commitment, notwithstanding any increase to maybe two chairs a year. This is an area I am looking at very seriously. Again, I would welcome comments of Members during debate on the multicultural Act as it comes forward, perhaps at committee stage.


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


Mr. Gimaiel:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is aware that- [English]


Mr. Forrestall:: What is going on?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I am hearing remarks about the time allowed for questions and comments. The time will lapse at 5.43 precisely. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Gimaiel).


Pierre J.J. Georges Adelard Gimaïel: Mr. Speaker, the Assistant Whip of the Opposition should buy new glasses. They would help him in his work.
The Minister probably knows that my father was of Lebanese extraction and that Canadians of Lebanese origin are deeply involved in many areas while they greatly value their own culture. With respect to the recent Speech from the Throne, could the Minister state the philosophy of his Department in connection with the cultural development of various groups such as French-speaking or other Canadians of Lebanese extraction? Did he himself or his Department bring in the Speech from the Throne basic principles on the comprehensive policy dealing with the cultural traditions those groups want to preserve?
The Address-Mr. Jelinek


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, we mentioned in the Speech from the Throne some general and philosophical ideas and other things such as substantial amendments to the Citizenship Act. However, I think it was suggested to the Hon. Member that he should raise the issue during the debate on the multicultural legislation and perhaps share the views of all Hon. Members on the matter.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that 1 once again rise in this House to participate in a debate on the Throne Speech. I have mixed feelings because on the one hand the Speech from the Throne is meant to give Canadians an opportunity to know what the intentions of the Government are in the next sitting of Parliament. It is sometimes an indication of good and perhaps bad things to come. On the other hand, if one looks at the Liberal record of promises outlined in past Throne Speeches, one has to take this Throne Speech with a grain of salt.
I have been in this House now for over ten years. The first time I participated in a debate on a Speech from the Throne I was indeed very excited about all the things outlined in a Liberal Throne Speech. I stood up in this House and accepted some of the tremendous promises outlined in that Liberal Throne Speech in 1972, only to be dismayed, disappointed and disheartened because 99 per cent of the promises made in that and in subsequent Throne Speeches were not kept.
Very quickly one has to look at the record in the last Throne Speech of three and a half years ago, a record time, certainly giving the Government enough time to implement the programs promised. In the 1980 Speech from the Throne the Liberals promised to:
-develop economic policies that will provide jobs, spur growth, improve regional balance and promote Canadian ownership and control of the economy.
Canada has experienced the worst depression since the Great Depression. The November, 1981 Budget drove a faltering economy into a tailspin and Canada's general economic performance dropped to twelfth out of 12 OECD countries.
The 1980 Throne Speech also said:
-continue the policies of expenditure restraint... reduce the deficit in a planned and orderly manner.
We all know that the deficit has risen from $12.6 billion to over $31 billion. Just this week the Auditor General tells us that the Government is hiding billions more dollars. I could list dozens and dozens more specific promises made three and a half years ago, none of which was kept. How can we even debate this Throne Speech with any sense of seriousness when the record speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker? If the Government would bring in programs in the form of legislation that are positive and realistic, we on this side of the House would support them.
There are some suggestions in that speech that would be supported by this Party. For instance, the commitment to world peace. Who is not in favour of world peace? We have been talking about it for years. I have been talking about it ever since I escaped from communist Czechoslovakia in 1948.

business decision on help from government, because those guys will jerk you around for six months and you have to make a decision in two weeks.
Never use government money as a basis for making a business decision; stay away from them if you are thinking that way; do not go near them. It is better to get out of business than to get stuck with those guys.
Those were the comments of Mr. Bulloch who has over
65,000	small businessmen in his organization. I agree with those words. The thrust of government in small business must be to lay back and open a free environment for the worker to work in. It should have incentives available, if necessary, and when my Party takes office it will follow that thrust.
We are working on specific policies which will reduce government bureaucracy and interference in the small business sector. We in the Progressive Conservative Party have long recognized the importance of small business to the Canadian economy, as well as the importance of the entrepreneur, the risk taker or the guy who sweats and mortgages his house to produce materials for sale. He pays taxes, but what happens to him? He is penalized if he is successful rather than being rewarded.
The entire tax system must be overhauled in order to allow small and medium-sized businessmen to get out from under the smothering system the Liberal Government has placed upon their shoulders in the last 10 years to 15 years. It must be replaced with incentive programs, whether they be employment incentives or incentives for research and development. The Liberal administration has been promising increases in research and development for 15 years, yet we are one of the lowest nations in the world in terms of providing research and development for the private sector, the public sector or any other sector, with respect to the Gross National Product. Reduction of government regulations and government spending restraints are other areas. I wish I had more time to elaborate on them.
This week the Auditor General came down with his report. It resulted in the following headlines: "Watchdog says Ottawa's books misleading by billions of dollars"; "Government 'lacks will' to cut waste"; "Govt, spent $4 million on empty office building"; "Waste costs taxpayers a bundle"; and the list continues.
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
The Government is bankrupt of ideas. Yesterday at his fund raising farewell dinner, "The Last Supper", the Prime Minister announced that he would be changing the name of Toronto International Airport to the Lester B. Pearson Airport. Former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was a distinguished Canadian, but surely this is not the time or the only item to announce in a major fund raising dinner. Think of the cost of changing the signs alone. I am not suggesting that the change should not take place, but surely there are more important matters which should be dealt with than changing the name of the Toronto International Airport.


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Come on.


Mrs. Cote:: Oh.


Otto John Jelinek: I hear Liberal Members yapping again. They do not like to hear the truth. They are hurt every time they hear the truth. There are millions of things which the Government should be doing rather than changing the name of an airport.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat something that I have said quite often in the House and elsewhere. We on this side of the House-and I specifically because I have been lucky enough to be welcomed in Canada from a communist country-believe that we are lucky to live in this country of wealth and prosperity. We should build upon that wealth and prosperity. We are the wealthiest country per capita in natural resources, technological know-how and human resources, but we are blowing it all because of the miserable policies and philosophies of the Liberal administration. We look forward to taking office, not just for the sake of being in office, but to build in the future on the strengths of our great Canada. We look forward to making Canada the number one country it can be and will be once again.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 15, 1983