1983-04-18

Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North) moved:: That this House condemns the Government for its failure to live up to the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980, and for its conscious disregard for the practices of Parliament and the Constitution of Canada, and urges the Government to prorogue the current, unconstitutional Session of Parliament, convene a new Session, and outline its policies before Parliament in a Speech from the Throne.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion was moved by myself on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party for the following reasons: first, to point out the Government's abject failure to carry out the program of policies enunciated in the Speech from the Throne; second, to bring before this House a serious question relating to the actions of the Government and its constitutional obligations; third, to point out the importance of the Speech from the Throne in the legislative process; and fourth, to sound a warning as to the dangerous precedents which are being set by this Government.
My colleagues following in the debate will examine the sorry record of the Liberal Government. I wish to begin the debate by examining the circumstances which have brought about our argument that this is an unconstitutional session of Parliament. I would also point out that this is the longest session of Parliament since Parliament began is 1867.


Mr. Smith:: The most productive, too.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 1 then wish to deal with the reasons we feel there should be a new session of Parliament and a new Speech from the Throne.
We have brought this matter to Parliament by way of debate rather than a point of order on the basis that the Speaker would refuse to deal with it because it is a point of law rather than procedure. My procedural argument relates specifically to Section 20 of the British North America Act, which states:
There shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting of Parliament in one session and its First sitting in the next session.
If my interpretation of that Section is correct, it would appear that this sitting of the House was improperly convened and, indeed, all of the sittings which have been held since the end of 1981 have been unconstitutional. If the sittings of the House have been contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, it follows that the business dealt with by the House during this period is invalid. Section 20 is quite clear. It states that there shall be a session of Parliament at least once in every year.
The term "session" is defined at page 259 of the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice as follows:
A session is a period of time between the meeting of a Parliament, whether after a prorogation or a dissolution, and its prorogation.
It is further stated at page 278 that the usual practice in the United Kingdom is for a session to run from October to October.
In Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 162, a session is defined as follows:
A session is a period of time between the meeting of a Parliament and its prorogation. There are a number of sessions within a Parliament, each lasting approximately one year.
In stipulating that there must be a session of the Parliament of Canada at least once in each year, Section 20 of the BNA Act requires that a new session be entered into each year. There is no stated upper limit on the number of sessions that can take place in a given year, but there is a provision that there must be at least one session of Parliament each year.
If there could be any doubt about the intent of Section 20, it is removed when one considers the second part of the Section which reads:
So that 12 months shall not intervene between the last sitting of Parliament in one session and its first sitting in the next session.
The effect of this portion is to ensure that Parliament will meet at least once every 12 months in a new session. Some may argue that that could be taken to mean that there must be a sitting of the House in each year and that there is no requirement for a new session. If one follows this line of reasoning, it would be argued that the requirements of Section 20 would be met, and that appears to be the line of reasoning that the Government is following in extending the first session of Parliament from April 14, 1980 to the present. We must ask ourselves if this is what was intended when the British North America Act was written.
We researched some of the precedents and writings about that period. We specifically looked at a book written by Joseph Pope entitled "A Series of Hitherto Unpublished Documents Bearing on the British North America Act (1885)". There is a

April 18, 1983
Supply
reference in that book to a motion moved on Thursday, October 20, 1864, by the Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald to establish an annual session, and that motion was passed unanimously. There were certain changes made when it was translated into Section 20 of the British North America Act but there was no doubt, if one reviews the precedents, that the wording of Section 20 was intended to mean that there will be a new session of Parliament each year.
There is no confusion because Section 20 distinguishes between the words "session" and "sitting". By referring to the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next session, it is clear that Section 20 did not refer to continual sittings of the same session but that there should be a new session in each year.
If we proceed from there to Section 5 of the Canada Act of 1982, that Section reads as follows:
There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once in every 12 months.
I would point out to the House that the Provinces have and are following as closely as possible the practice of having a Speech from the Throne and new sessions on almost an annual basis. In fact, the Province of Ontario will begin a new session today under the Government that was elected in 1982.


Mr. McGrath:: Some of them occur twice a year.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As my colleague says, some Provinces have new sessions at least twice a year. Therefore the Provinces are following the intention of the Fathers of Confederation that there shall be annual sessions.
If Section 5 of the Canada Act had applied throughout the first session of this Parliament, there would be no question as to the constitutionality of the present sitting. But we argue that the Canada Act was proclaimed in 1982 and its effect began as at that time. Until the Canada Act was proclaimed Section 20 of the BNA Act was the precedent that should be looked to. Because the first session of the Thirty-Second Parliament lapsed at the end of 1981, this current session is unconstitutional.

Therefore Paliament should be properly summoned to begin a second session because the first session lapsed on December 31, 1981. We are not suggesting that all of that legislation be thrown out. We are suggesting the matter could be referred to a special or a standing joint committee for urgent study, that omnibus legislation giving retroactive effect to the proceedings of Parliament that have occurred since December 31, 1981, could be passed quickly in a new session.
I want now to shift to the reasons we believe it is important for the Government to lay out its policies in a Speech from the Throne. In part, the answer to that question is that it is the most fundamental right of Parliament to insist upon knowing how the public resources ought to be used before granting authority to the Government to tax, to borrow or to spend. It has been the practice of Parliament in the past to require the Government to come before Parliament on an annual basis to
lay out its broad program in a Speech from the Throne and, following this, to lay a budget before Parliament as an outline of the Government's specific plans. It should then place legislation before Parliament requesting Parliament to grant its authority to carry out the plans which Parliament has approved.
This Government has continually attempted to erode the rights of Parliament, our rights as Members on behalf of our constituents. Its refusal to begin another session is one more example of that attitude. For the moment, the Government wishes to dispense with Speeches from the Throne and debates in reply to those Speeches.
The next logical step in this assault on Parliament's rights would be to abandon the traditional budget presentation and the debate on the budget. Just as with the Speech from the Throne, the Government could argue that there is no constitutional or legal necessity to have a budget presentation and debate. Indeed, the 1968 rules changes together with the increasing tendency of the Government to rely on what are called economic or financial statements, as it did on October 20, 1977, April 21, 1980 and October 27, 1982, rather than on full-fledged budgets, is an indication that the Government has considered this possibility. We suggest this is a dangerous precedent that should now be laid to rest.
It is important for the Government to lay its programs before Parliament because there is an effort required to compose and debate those policies as part of an overall program which bring consistency and direction to Government policy making. The lack of regular sessions and Speeches from the Throne coincide with an ad hoc system of decision making under which this Government has operated over the past few years. What about its mounting deficits? The Government has failed to come to terms with the broad social and economic problems facing us as a nation. We have to insist on our traditional rights so that those rights of the Canadian people are not lost as this Government totters along.
Last week the Premier of Ontario, Premier William Davis, stated there would be a Speech from the Throne to outline his Government's plans and directions for the next fiscal year. He said, as reported in the Toronto Star for April 17, 1983 in an article written by Robert Duffy:
Preparing this document is something that we look forward to because it gives us an opportunity to step back from the hurly-burly of daily Government and take a longer view of how we can help make Ontario a better place to live.
Mr. Duffy makes the point that the simple truth is that all of the issues facing Queen's Park are immediate, that there is not much room left for long-term planning. We suggest that although that may be the case in Ontario, in Canada there are immediate problems which were not faced in the original three-year-old Speech from the Throne that quite frankly is out of date. The author goes on to say:
-the ancient parliamentary tradition that lies behind the Speech from the Throne is something that ought to be preserved-if possible. In Britain, which is
April 18, 1983

where our tradition comes from, it carries some weight as a Government statement by the sovereign.
If the Government were to take that concept and bring in a new Speech from the Throne addressing the problems of today, it would be welcomed by all Canadians.
On Tuesday, April 12, The Citizen of Ottawa made the point that Parliament has been sitting since April 14, 1980 without the benefit of a Throne Speech, a sense of Government direction or even a hint that the Government knows what it is doing. It went on to suggest that the nation was ill-served by the Government's unwillingness to clean things up and start with a more or less clean slate.
On Wednesday, April 13, The Toronto Sun made the following point again:
Traditionally, each session of Parliament begins with a Throne Speech outlining policies. Throne Speeches are usually made once a year because circumstances change and policies have to adapt them.
On April 14, 1980 the Liberal Government brought down a Speech from the Throne. On that day or in or about that time, unemployment was 7.5 per cent. Today it is running at 12.5 per cent and over two million Canadians are out of work or have simply given up looking for work because the Government has not addressed the problem. Back in 1980 the deficit was SI2.7 billion. It is now at $27.2 billion with estimates changing daily. Personal bankruptcies have risen substantially, over 50 per cent in the first two months of 1983 as opposed to the first two months of 1980. Interest rates were at 13.5 per cent in 1980. They rose to an horrendous, crippling mortgage interest rate of 22 per cent. They are now down to 12 per cent and 13 per cent, but the Government has done nothing to ensure on a long-range basis that there will be mortgage interest deductibility or mortgage interest rate protection.
There is no protection at all for business people who suffered the same horrendous climbs in prime interest rates from 10 per cent in 1980 to as high as 21 per cent in 1981. It is down now but there should be a Speech from the Throne to address the current problems facing Canadians. We suggest that we should not be operating on a three-year-old Speech from the Throne.
In conclusion, I reiterate our position with respect to the legality of this session of Parliament. I reiterate our solutions, which are not designed to tie up time but to make everything legal. I urge the Government to reconsider its refusal to prorogue, and to bring in a new Speech from the Throne so that we can take time as representatives of the people to assess Canada's opportunities and problems and come up with new approaches. Also I urge the Government to give the country a new sense of direction and to indicate to the people that it is addressing the problems of the day, not running from hole to hole in the dike plugging a finger in here and a finger in there without any overall plan.


Mr. Nielsen:: The Prime Minister has got the finger.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: The Government should be like a business reporting to its shareholders, or like an organization reporting to its Members. There should be annual reports and financial statements. The Government should review what happened in
Supply
the past year. Then, as in every shareholders' meeting or every meeting of members of any organization, it should look forward and state new policies. I urge the Government to stop drifting on old policies and old theories which may have been applicable in 1980 but are certainly not applicable today, and to do that by proroguing and bringing in a new Speech from the Throne to give the country some sense of direction.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis)? If not, the Chair will recognize the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to comment on the implicit misrepresentation of the constitutional requirement that a session of Parliament be called less than 12 months after the previous session is prorogued. That is included in the motion of my colleague, the spokesman for the Official Opposition on House business. He has quoted from the Constitution Act of 1867, I hope, and not from the British North America Act as he said. The quote is:
There shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada once at least in every year, so that twelve months shall not intervene between the last sitting day of the Parliament in one session and its first sitting day in the next session.
That is what is included in the Constitution Act of 1867 and not in the Canada Act, which was a British Bill. The Section states that there shall be a session in every year without 12 months lapsing in between. That is all it says. It does not say that there shall be a new session ever year without 12 months in between. That is the essence of the argument.
This is the point that has to be made. Nothing in our Constitution says that there must be a new session in every year. That is exactly the point. I submit very respectfully that my hon. friend failed in making the point that we have breached the Constitution of Canada. The fact is that there was a session in 1980, there was a session in 1981, there was a session in 1982 and there is a session in 1983. Even if it is the same session, the law has been fulfilled.
On the occasions when sessions have gone more than one year, there have been good reasons for the Government to prolong the session. Legislative catch-up was a factor in 19661967. It was also a factor in 1974, 1975, 1976 and in the present session. Massive legislative reform was a factor in 1970, 1971, 1972 and in the present session. Blind obstruction was a factor in 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and in the present session.
It is most interesting that in those previous sessions the Official Opposition had in its ranks such legal and parliamentary giants as John Diefenbaker and Ged Baldwin, and they did not object on constitutional grounds. The fact is that only once in recent years has a Government unnecessarily, albeit constitutionally, delayed meeting Parliament. The head of that

April 18, 1983
Supply
Government was Joe Clark. The delay in 1979 was longer than any since Diefenbaker in 1962.
Mr. Speaker, when I heard about the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party's official spokesman for the Business of the House, I must admit I was very surprised to find it contained allegations that we not only disregarded the Constitution-which is not the case, as I indicated earlier- but also that we disregarded the practices of Parliament. Coming from a Party that literally laid siege to Parliament for sixteen days by preventing it from operating, this is surprising, to say the least, and I think it does not say much for that Party's credibility.
I would like to use the few moments I am allowed to mention and briefly explain the reasons why this particular session, as many others in the past, as I indicated earlier, has been going on for such a long time for three years, in fact. I think there are three main reasons for this situation. First of all, we must remember that this session followed a period during which we were faced with two elections in less than one year, and during that time, a backlog of legislation had accumulated. To deal with this backlog, it was necessary to use the first several months of this 32nd Parliament to pass the legislation. You will remember that as a result of the two elections in less than a year, a host of procedural problems had to be resolved by the present Government. The House will also remember that the estimates for two fiscal years, almost three, had not been adopted, that the rules regarding the business of supply were no longer being applied, that time allocation provided by the Standing Orders was no longer effective, and that as a result, as Leader of the Government, I had to negotiate with representatives of the Opposition in order to reach a substantial and major agreement by which we could approve the estimates for two fiscal years, straighten out the business of supply and dispose of our legislative backlog. All this has taken a great deal of time, and that is one of the reasons why this session has been unusually long.
A second reason is the nature of the Throne Speech of April 1980. This Throne Speech was so substantial, in that it contained such major reforms in various areas, that it is now quite understandable why it took so long to deal with certain parts of the Throne Speech, and why this has been such a long session. My colleagues will recall the debate on constitutional reform, patriation of the Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the new amending formula that will enable us to amend our own Constitution without asking another country's permission, and the fourth element of our constitutional reform, which enshrines the principle of sharing and equalization, of sharing wealth among the richest and the most deprived regions of our country. Constitutional reform has therefore made demands on the time of the House. It was an
unusual proposal that no other Party had ever had the courage to make.
Following the constitutional reform, another major reform, also announced in the same Throne Speech and which concerned the energy problem, was on the agenda. We introduced a National Energy Policy, which also made demands on the time of the House, as Hon. Members will recall, although the Progressive Conservative Party showed a blatant lack of concern on this occasion, when instead of having a sensible debate on this Bill, they prevented Parliament from sitting by letting the bells ring for sixteen days, a childish and irresponsible act. Nevertheless, it was a major reform in the energy field and was also part of the list announced in April 1980.
Another major reform and other measures that were necessary in the circumstances were adopted with respect to the economy. Up to now, we have had three budgets, and all the measures arising from those budgets have of course put demands on the time of the House of Commons, and in view of the urgency of the situation and the specific characteristics of the recession we have been experiencing during the last few months, we are preparing to bring down a fourth budget tomorrow evening. My learned colleague is therefore unrealistic in moving that Parliament be prorogued in order to have a Throne Speech in which the Government would state its major priorities and to have eight days of debate on the Throne Speech, before allowing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to bring down his budget and propose measures to deal with the economic situation, which, in my opinion, requires urgent action.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, during the last three years we have seen major reforms which were announced, with considerable courage, in the same Throne Speech, I am proud to say, which for once in the history of Canada, proposed a host of unprecedented measures which quite naturally met with opposition and placed considerable demands on the time of the House of Commons.
Throughout these major achievements which made history and of which we should all be extremely proud, we managed to have 162 Bills passed by this Parliament. This is above average, considering that in sessions lasting one year, Parliament normally produces about 48 or 50 legislative measures. So in three years, as I just pointed out, 162 Bills were passed, which is above average. When we complain that Parliament is not producing enough, the Opposition retorts: but having said that Parliament has produced more than usual how can you say that Parliament is not producing enough? My answer to that is that Parliament must evolve, and that in a modern society, the demands being made on Parliament are increasing, and that if Parliament is to respond to those demands, it must be flexible enough to adopt the measures that are necessary to cope with the demands on our times. What was an acceptable average ten years ago is no longer acceptable today, so that although compared to previous sessions, we are above average, much
April 18, 1983

progress remains to be made, if this institution is to reflect the reality of our times, to respond to the demands of modern society, to take on its responsibilities and to govern a State as important and as vast as Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the third reason, after the first and the second-these were the backlog of legislation as a result of two elections in less than a year and the major reforms contained in the speech from the Throne in April 1980 and started and completed by this Government-the third reason, as I said, is the systematic obstruction by a Party that is in the Opposition and that constitutes the official Opposition, a Party that unfortunately has never been able to accept its defeat in the February 1980 election, a fact that, as I said before, has affected its conduct in the House, a Party that, unfortunately, has a shortage of ideas and has no specific, concrete policies to offer the Canadian public, contrary to those proposed by the Government.
I do not think I have to dwell on this aspect of my speech, since Hon. Members may wish to refer to a statement made by the former Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party when before Christmas, in Quebec, and this was quoted in a number of newspapers, he gave a very straightforward answer to a very straightforward question. He was asked: Considering the present recession, what would you do, as Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and if you were in power, to remedy the situation? What would you do that would be different from what the Liberal Government is doing now? The then leader of the Progressive Conservative Party answered as follows: We would not do anything different. We have no miracle solution. We would not do anything different from what the present Government is doing.
That is one of the reasons why the Official Opposition has no alternative solutions, is not proposing policies and has no ideas. This is not new. It was the same during the debate on the Constitution and on energy legislation. I also recall that during the debate on the Constitution in the House, the Official Opposition was very active, and by active I mean it engaged in dilatory tactics and actions aimed at insulting the Chair and at quite simply delaying the passage of Government proposals. The changes that were made to the Constitution were not proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party. Those amendments were the result of negotiations with the Provincial Premiers and of a ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada. The only thing Members opposite can say in reply to that argument is: yes, but it was thanks to us if you had discussions with the Premiers, and we kept the House at a standstill for a while to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to render its decision. Well, that is precisely the point I am making: the arguments of the Opposition were strictly technical and it was only by accident that the Progressive Conservatives did contribute quite involuntarily to improve the resolution we had introduced for debate. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, a fact which proves that the Progressive Conservative Party is
Supply
a party without new ideas, a party without any policy. The people of Canada know that, and it explains why they chose to filibuster our constructive proposals-they have no alternatives to bring forward.
In the energy policy debate, Mr. Speaker, we introduced a hefty Bill, I agree, but instead of coming up with solutions of their own-


An Hon. Member:: It was the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)-


Yvon Pinard: -no, that proposal did not come from the Hon. Member for Peterborough, it came from the Government. They asked that the Bill be split. We agreed to that, saying that we would sit down, debate the Bill and negotiate, but instead of proposing measures likely to improve our national energy policy, the Opposition was content with hijacking Parliament, assaulting the House and preventing its elected representatives from expressing their views. What a stupid way of voicing objections! In my opinion, an intelligent opposition means speaking, arguing, debating, advocating new ideas. But no, short of ideas the Opposition chose to keep the bells ringing for 16 days. It may be a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, but 16 days is the time it takes to have two throne speech debates. Unfortunately, Members opposite decided to ring the bells, bring Parliament to a standstill, prevent Members from speaking, and particularly free the Official Opposition from its responsibility to make constructive suggestions to improve the energy policy.
That is the second example of the kind of filibuster which the Official Opposition has resorted to so far in this session. This is why I said earlier that I had to smile at the motion by my colleague opposite alleging that we have no regard for the parliamentary institution. How ridiculous! I have just given two major examples of the Official Opposition's action to sabotage systematically the work of the Canadian Parliament and in spite of it, of the government's ability and responsibility in implementing the major reforms it had promised in its throne speech of April 1980, with due regards for Parliament and after intelligent debates.
In addition to what I have already mentioned and all we have accomplished during this historical and important session following the very substantial throne speech of 1980, with the cooperation of all Members of Parliament, admittedly including those on the other side, we have been able to try something new to improve our parliamentary procedure. This experiment is going well and I believe that it is a positive step and something which had to be mentioned during this debate because, in spite of the tense atmosphere in this House, of the controversial nature of the issues being debated, and of the conflicting attitudes and outlooks of the various parties, we have achieved a consensus and agreed to put to the test a long awaited reform which would be very beneficial to this institution. I believe that there is not a single Member who does not want Parliament to

April 18, 1983
Supply
become more modern, more realistic and better adjusted to the Canadian reality, as well as more human and more productive. As we have seen in its most recent report, the committee itself is looking for more ways to enable Parliament to be more productive so that, as I mentioned earlier, we may pass the legislation required at a time when our society has been changing and expects more from us, and on the other hand, to allow a healthy opposition and comprehensive but not obstructive debates on the various measures submitted to Parliament. In addition, I hope that the present experiment will lead towards the improvement of our institution, and at the same time, I repeat that it is not contradictory-
-it is absolutely not contradictory to say that as Parliament becomes more efficient it would mean that we do not want any opposition to be able to debate fully but not in a dilatory fashion.
In conclusion, I want to say that I have great hopes for this experiment. I hope that in the future Parliament will be able to cope with reality through new measures and new attitudes that will make it possible for this institution to become more human, more modern and productive and at the same time preserve the right of the Opposition to debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do any Hon. Members rise to ask questions of the President of the Privy Council?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the Government House Leader. The first refers to the quotation from the Constitution Act, 1867. He made reference to the term "next session". Would he not agree that the term "next session" infers a new session of Parliament?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, that is what I have argued. If we are talking law, I submit the burden would be on the one alleging that the next session should be a new session. The essence of the debate is whether there is a requirement for a new session or not. My hon. colleague referred to the Constitution Act, 1867 and seems to conclude that because there is an expression "next session" in the old Constitution, it would necessarily require a new session.
I do not want to repeat myself but I have given examples of occasions in the past when a session of Parliament lasted more than one year. Very good parliamentary minds like those of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, Ged Baldwin and others never argued that those sessions were unconstitutional.
In the context of the old Constitution it is not said that there must be a new session. In taking into consideration those precedents and the letter of the Constitution, it does not speak of a new session; and the burden of demonstrating that there must be a new session every year is on those alleging that there must be ?. new session every year. That burden has not been met. It is my submission that it is absolutely unacceptable to conclude that this session is unconstitutional at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Simcoe North on a supplementary question.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, moving from the legal or technical interpretation of why we need a new session, I have another question for the Government House Leader. I suggest to him that, in words of Lester Pearson as he spoke to the Empire Club in 1959, there is no obligation on the Opposition to bring forward legislative programs while they are in Opposition; that could be done during an election campaign. I throw those words back at the Government House Leader because they come from the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, a leader of his Party.
Since we are dealing with a three-year-old Throne Speech, let us get away from the legal and technical interpretation. What is there in that Throne Speech that he has not brought forward, and which he wants to, which would do something about jobs? We on this side of the House are concerned that unemployment over the course of that three-year-old Throne Speech has gone from 7.5 per cent to 12.5 per cent, and I can tell the Hon. Member that for my purposes, not as Party policy, I would be very pleased if he would prorogue and bring in a Throne Speech which dealt only with that one issue, jobs. I say that not as policy, but for my purposes he could bring in a Throne Speech and just talk about jobs and how the Government is going to get this country back to work, and what it is going to do for the over two million Canadians out of work.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, first the Hon. Member referred to the obligation or non-obligation of an Opposition Party to propose legislative changes or policies. I do not think anyone on our side ever said that debate, to be efficient or responsible, should always be negative. I believe there is room in an institution like ours for constructive debate, and sometimes constructive debate means alternatives and different proposals which are weighed against those proposals of the Government. That is exactly what I was deploring, that during the last three years I have not witnessed very often new proposals, ideas and policies proposed by the Official Opposition. On the contrary, because of the lack of ideas, the Official Opposition had to obstruct, and this is the kind of position I have denounced very often in the past and which I keep denouncing. I think it is childish, irresponsible and absolutely unacceptable from the Loyal Opposition of Her Majesty the Queen.
I see my good colleague for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) seems to be very happy I said that. I have a lot of respect for him. The sovereign of other countries and our country-


Miss MacDonald:: She happens to be the sovereign of our country.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, I agree, and I would like to complete my sentence. I am sorry that the Hon. Member for-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but there are other Members seeking to ask questions and the

%

April 18, 1983

ten-minute period is brief. I wonder if he would perhaps allow other Members to ask a question at this point.


Yvon Pinard: I do not intend to speak until Canada Day, Mr. Speaker; I will be more brief than that. I just mention to my hon. colleague that if he is concerned about jobs, he should not seek that the Government move into a Speech from the Throne and a lengthy debate before we have a budget. Everyone knows that the budget speech which will be made tomorrow night will deal with the economy and with jobs. Under the circumstances, for the Hon. Member to ask that at this time we prorogue, that we have a Speech from the Throne in order to say we want to create jobs, that we have a lengthy debate on the Speech from the Throne, and then must report a budget anyway in order to be able to take care of jobs, I believe would create undue delay. I do not understand why my hon. colleague is asking for that delay if he is sincere in wanting the Government to cope with the realities of the economy of this country and have this Parliament adopt measures which will make it possible for the recovery to take place in a very orderly fashion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on a short question, bearing in mind that there are a number of Members seeking to ask questions.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) about the words "session" and "sitting". Can the Hon. Minister explain why the notion of session has been completely eliminated from the Canada Act and replaced simply by the word "sitting" in English and "seance" in French? Can he explain this?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the Hon. Member's question. He suggested, and I did not understand this very well, that the words had been changed in the Constitution. What I said earlier, and I would like to repeat it very briefly, is that the provision in the Constitutional Act of 1867, that is in our Canadian Constitution, provides that there must be a session each month and that a period of twelve months must not elapse between two sessions. The Constitution does not stipulate that this must be a new session. In my argument, I pointed out that sessions have lasted longer than one year in the past. Some former Progressive Conservative Members were procedural and constitutional experts. I have already mentioned the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and Jed Baldwin. They never referred to the constitutional aspect of this question and it was not that long ago that they sat in this House. This is why I consider that there are precedents that show that sessions of over one year are not unconstitutional-


Donald W. Munro: There is a difference between the words "session" and "sitting"!
Supply


Yvon Pinard: -and second, I say that the text of the Constitution itself does not require that there be a new session each year, and if anyone disagrees, it is up to him to show that the provisions in the Constitution have a different meaning. On the contrary, it seems to me that the wording of the Constitution clearly shows that a new session is not required each year and that the only obligation is to guarantee that twelve months do not elapse between two sessions or two periods when the House is sitting. Moreover, it seems to me that the argument of the Hon. Member is not very serious in view of the precedents, the text of the Constitution and the attitude of the Members opposite themselves. Come on! We have been going on for three years and this is the first time this argument has been raised. I cannot believe that the Members opposite are being serious.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), of course, forgets two prime points. There have been a good number of protests about extensive sessions in so far as the opportunity of putting forward business on behalf of Private Members was seriously hampered prior to the introduction of the amendments. Even now they may be subject to pre-emption because the Minister proposes to have a budget debate start on a Private Members' day.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member for Edmonton West but he will have the opportunity to speak. The ten-minute period of questions and answers has expired.


Yvon Pinard: May I answer that?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question, sir, if 1 might put it to him-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May we have the unanimous consent of the house for an extension of the question period?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I normally would not object, but if you will recall, a week ago during Private Members' day I begged of the Hon. Member who asked for unanimous consent that he consider unanimous consent for one of my colleagues and he steadfastly refused. I want him to understand the problem. In any event, that is in the past.
I would like to spend a few moments dealing with the issue which is before us. I listened with interest to the position put forward by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). I found it interesting. I thought his references deserve further consideration, although I wonder, if the matter were to be taken to a court of law on the basis of the evidence presented thus far, whether it would go any great distance. I suspect it would not.

April 18, 1983
Supply
I believe that his arguments from a political point of view were good arguments. I feel there is every reason to believe that it would be in the best interest of the country, in fact, in the best interest of Parliament, if there was a clear starting point for debate and a clear finishing point in which we have dealt with a series of proposals, cleared the decks and can go on to a second series of proposals. I believe that in the interest of Parliament that would be useful. However, I am not going to join the argument that there is in fact a legal requirement to do that. I would have to be persuaded with far more evidence than I have heard to this point that that is so.
I was interested in the reference to the later Lester B. Pearson and his comment that there is no obligation on the part of the Opposition to present alternatives by way of policy to what the Government is doing during sessions of Parliament. I do not happen to agree with it, but if it is true, then there is no doubt in my mind that the Official Opposition has certainly lived up to that. On balance, I think that Parliament would be better if we were to debate both proposals and alternate proposals rather than debating the sorrowful record of the Government on a regular basis.
Let us suppose that there had been Throne Speeches every year since 1980, that in 1981 the Government had come forward with its proposals for 1981, that in 1982 it had come forward with its proposals for 1982 and that this year it had brought forward its proposals for 1983. Is there anyone in the House who believes that it would have told us that it intended to bring forward measures which would have created two million people unemployed? Is there anyone who thinks that it would have told us that it was prepared to bring forward proposals, the result of which would be the highest record of bankruptcy in modern history?
Is there anyone who believes that the Government would have told us, in any of those Throne Speeches, that it was its intention to allow energy prices, oil prices in particular, to rise to a level above the world level? Is there anyone who thinks for a moment that the Government would have proposed in a Throne Speech that its policy objectives in 1980, 1981 or 1982 would have been to allow the process to develop which drove interest rates to usurious levels? Does anyone think for a moment that either this Government or any other Government would have brought forward in a Throne Speech its intention to allow the economy to deteriorate to such a level that we would have plant closings the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s, probably the likes of which we have not seen in the history of the country?
Would it have told us that the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board would propose cutbacks in the growing of grain, of wheat in particular, at a time when it was about to impose upon the farmers of western Canada the additional burden of the Crow rate changes? Would it have come forward and said to us in a Throne Speech that in its plans for the future it would give Donald Macdonald a royal commission, Peter
Stollery a seat in the Senate and Pitfield a seat beside Stol-lery?
What I am asking Your Honour is whether, considering all of the very relevant things which have happened to Canadians over the course of the last three years, you think that if the Government had had a Throne Speech every year it would have told us those things? Does Your Honour think it would have said: "This is what we have in mind for the country; we therefore want you to debate the merits of it".
Does anyone think the Government would have asked us to debate the merits of the Sydney coal liquefaction plant and the payments to Mr. Gillespie? Does anyone think it would have asked us for concurrence in the House of Commons to allow Canadair to act in the way in which it has in fact acted over the course of the last year? Let us face it, what would the Throne Speech have told us? There is no point in our crying for a Throne Speech on the basis that the Government's obligation to inform the public of its programs is one which we in the House of Commons believe it should live up to if, with the benefit of both hindsight and knowledge, we are convinced that the Government would never have told us what it would do anyway. We must consider all of the major events which have occurred in the course of the last three years which have been so devastating to large numbers of Canadians in every part of the country.
I ask the Government Whip, who is watching me with interest, does he think that if there had been Throne Speeches the Government would have told us that those were things it intended to do? I suspect not. I wonder if the Government would have been prepared to come into my community and say to the people who live there that one of its plans was to create a situation within the economy which would cause the Steel Company of Canada to lay workers off by the thousands, with Dofasco similarly laying workers off by the thousands, the International Harvester Company on the verge of closing, with any number of other plants faced with the same kind of nonfuture, with all of the people affected facing the same kinds of problems. I do not think so. Therefore, while I would argue that it would be nice to know what the Government intends for the country, it would also be nice to feel that what it would tell us would bear some semblance of truth and accuracy.
I suspect, looking back over many Throne Speeches, that we in the House of Commons and the Canadian public do not have much chance of being told, by way of a Throne Speech every year, of the disastrous policy which the Government proposes to thrust upon us. I think anyone who believes that that would happen is obviously not in tune with the political realities of Canada and certainly not in tune with the political realities of the House of Commons. I admit that there is merit in requesting that the Government tell us in advance what it will be doing, but I think that more important than that is to consider whether, when it does bring forward its proposals, they are of value, whether they work, and whether they address the real problems of Canada.
April 18, 1983

I suggest to the House, through Your Honour, that one need only consider the documents brought forward by the Government since I have been here. There have been three or perhaps four budgets, some of them couched in the term "financial statement", but nevertheless economic statements. These statements were supposed to indicate to Canadians, through the House of Commons, how the Government would meet the economic problems of the land, and in so doing meet the social problems which are naturally related to the downturn of the economy.
We had an opportunity to debate those matters but no one paid any attention. We had an opportunity to put forward our alternatives. No one paid any attention. In 1981 we were saying that the high interest policy of the Bank of Canada, together with the concurrence in that policy by the Government of Canada, was driving people off the land, was requiring those with small businesses to close up and move, was driving people out of their homes because they could not afford to pay the mortgage and that the Government should therefore adopt a new posture, a new direction. The Government ignored us. To have had yet another debate during a Throne Speech would not have made any difference, would not have made it any better. There is no point debating if one is talking to oneself or if the Government is not prepared to listen. I say, sadly, that it is my view that the Government failed to listen anyway. To say it one more time would not alter that fact.
I recall when unemployment was at 940,000. We were saying that with the direction the Government was taking, unemployment would no doubt be at 1.5 million within a year, and then over two million. It would continue to grow with a snowballing effect. We said that there had to be Government intervention and a change in direction but no one believed it, least of all the Government of Canada. Therefore it did not introduce the types of policies necessary to meet those crises.
A Throne Speech debate would not have altered that situation. The Government did not care and was not going to listen to us. I did not even listen to those who were supposedly their supporters throughout the country. The direction in which the country was headed would hardly have been altered if the Government had another chance to tell us. Did the Government ever attempt to ameliorate or respond to the problems which we spoke about that directly related to the upward spiral in the price of energy or to the fact that we had to come to grips with the difficulties facing not only families in meeting energy and transportation costs but the many businesses that were being adversely affected by ever-increasing energy prices in almost every community in the country? Not at all. The Government continued in its direction of ever-increasing energy cost notwithstanding the fact that this is Canadian energy that could and should be used for the development of this country.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the discussions that took place in the House week after week about bankruptcy levels. It is no longer news to raise the issue that bankruptcy levels this year are considerably higher than last year and that those levels last year are higher than the year before. The news is that the
Supply
Government has failed to bring forward policies, in spite of that fact, which would enable the recovery of businesses which were unable to manage in the marketplace as a result of the rise in the cost of money.
We said that this is the serious problem in the country which should be addressed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), rose time after time in the House to point out the difficulties that high interest rates, given their effect on small businesses, were creating for the Brantford and Brant countries. Every other Member of the House on the opposition side raised similar concerns for their respective constituency.
Did the Government change its direction? Not at all. Day after day, the untold misery being heaped upon misery in every community was raised in the House. The academic argument about whether we should have a Throne Speech, interesting though it is, pales into insignificance when measured against the fact that the Government's policies, without the benefit of a Throne Speech, have been ruinous, unresponsive and have flown in the face of most, if not all, advice given to it not only from this side of the House but I suspect by its own backbenchers. There has even been evidence that during the course of the last three years a number of Government backbenchers were dissatisfied with how the Government was reacting to the problems.
As I study this question I suggest that if Hon. Members wish to argue for Throne Speeches, it is fair enough. If they believe that it is valuable to have the Government announce proposals that it does not intend to act upon, while it does not tell us what it intends to do, I suppose we can go through the exercise. If it is of any value to have the Governor General sit in the Senate and read a statement prepared by the Government about all the beneficial things it proposes to do but does not intend to proceed with, then let us do it.
However, the real measure of the worth of Parliament will be whether we are able to solicit some concrete action from the Government that will be of benefit to Canadians in every walk of life and primarily to those who are suffering the most. Will this institution meet the expectations of those who are unemployed and cannot find employment, those coming out of the schools system in the country unable to anticipate any degree of assurance of an opportunity to provide an economic wellbeing for themselves and their families, those who are disillusioned and disappointed and those who believed that Parliament was truly representative and that Government did, in fact, care about what happened to them? As a result of the Government's three years of total mismanagement and neglect, those Canadians have now reached the point of throwing up their hands in increasingly large numbers and asking "What is the use?".
I think that is what is most disturbing. I was in Prairie Canada recently speaking in Brandon, Manitoba about Canada's problems. More than half of those who spoke to me-they were not all New Democrats by any means-were

April 18, 1983
Supply
very disappointed in the Conservatives' record. They thought that the Conservatives could have done more on behalf of their interests. I was fair, as I always am, in saying that they were doing their best.
In conclusion, while I agree Throne Speeches are good, I find the legal arguments somewhat lacking and would suggest that those arguments be enhanced for future discussion. More importantly, it is time that we demand that the Government begin addressing the real problems, because that is what the people of Canada care about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions, comments and answers.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Before I pose my question I must say that I find the attitude taken by the Acting House Leader for the New Democratic Party quite incredible. He apparently talks on one hand about the necessity of having constructive proposals brought before Parliament so that Members of Parliament can truly represent their constituents and reflect their sensitivities, hopes and aspirations, while on the other hand not understanding the value, purpose and the necessity of requiring the Government to bring forward from time to time, preferably annually, a rethinking of its priorities with respect to the economy, social issues and the unemployed in our country.
Does the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain not understand that the major importance of having a Speech from the Throne on an annual basis is to force the Government to reflect upon its priorities and come forward with a new set of legislative proposals? Instead, we are faced with carrying on for an unlimited time, in excess of three years, endless debates about policies from a Speech from the Throne which has caused nothing but a sense of despair, as the Hon. Member referred to it, and has brought acrimony to this Chamber since there are no new items of debate or direction from the Government.
As the Acting House Leader of his Party, how can he condone and in fact endorse the concept of not having an annual Speech from the Throne?


Ian Deans: I am glad the Hon. Member prefaced his question by saying that he listened to my comments at least in part. Quite obviously, the part he did not listen to was the part that would have answered his question.
I did not say that I did not see the necessity of a Throne Speech. I said that in effect it was an academic question which would not result in the kind of changes that are necessary to meet the economic problems of the day. I pointed out, for example, all of the things that have happened to this country. Does the Hon. Member think for one moment that the Government would have told us that it intended to do those things, to drive up interest rates, to drive people out of their homes or off their farms? Does the Hon. Member think that the Government would have come forward and told us that the Government was going to push up oil prices?
What I am saying is that you have to have a Government that will come forward in both an objective and an honest way with what it proposes to do. I am just not convinced that it be the case. We could have taken the time to debate whatever the Government brought forward, but I do not think it would have altered what happened one single bit. That is my worry.
Mark you, Mr. Speaker, and I must say this quickly to the Hon. Member, one of the things that could have helped would have been some degree of consistency on the part of the Hon. Member's colleagues. It was awfully difficult when we in this Party were arguing against high interest rates to have the then finance critic for the Government arguing that they were necessary and for the then labour critic arguing that they were not. It was awfully difficult when we were arguing about the impact of oil prices on the country as a whole to have their colleagues divided, some in favour and some against high oil prices.


Mr. Kaplan:: You were divided too.


Ian Deans: It was awfully difficult, I might say-


An Hon. Member:: Tell us about the Constitution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he seems to be straying a little far from the resolution before the House.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear those allegations of differences of opinion within one Party from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. In the Hon. Member's opening remarks he quickly dismissed the argument that there should be a new session. Is the Hon. Member in disagreement with the following comments from Hansard:
The idea of the Speech from the Throne is that once in a while the Government has to set down its program for the year.
In the same speech we find the following:
If the British tradition is worth anything, it is a fact that we should get a new session of Parliament at least once every year. In our own case it is dealt with in an oblique way in the Constitution. Section 20 of the British North America Act provides:
"There shall be a session of the Parliament of Canada once at least in every
Year"-
I draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain that that quotation was from a speech made by his predecessor, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain in disagreement with his predecessor or does he agree with those remarks from Hansard for February 27, 1976?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, that is a relevant question. I do not disagree with that, neither have I suggested that I did. I said I thought that was desirable, that it would be useful. I also said, however, that I thought we would not be told the truth anyway. Therefore, to go through the exercise, I do not believe it is legally imperative, at least not on the basis of the argument I have heard so far. I said I believe it would be desirable if I thought the Government would tell the truth. I find from
April 18, 1983

my view of politics it is not what you say you are going to do that matters, it is what you do.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to compliment my colleague the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) for bringing forth a very timely motion. I endorse the content of the motion and the Hon. Member's comments condemning the Government for prolonging the session beyond all reason and challenging it to bring on a new session of Parliament, a new Speech from the Throne, to provide, hopefully, for some new direction and responsible leadership.
I must say that the rather hollow defence of the Government House Leader leads one to conclude that the Government has not only lost control of the economic affairs of this country, but it has clearly lost control of the orderly conduct of parliamentary business as well.
I intend to comment briefly on the remarks of my friend the Acting House Leader for the New Democratic Party because I was rather surprised at his rather frivolous and superficial approach to the thrust of the motion.


Ian Deans: Tell the unemployed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Clearly I think it is a responsibility of the Government from time to time to come forth with its policies, its new directions and its thrust in dealing with the day to day issues of the country. The Government should be held accountable for its action or inaction. We are now dealing with a set of thrusts and programs that go back to 1980, many of which are now out of date. I think it is incumbent upon the Government from time to time to set out its priorities and programs and to indicate to Parliament and the Canadian people how it intends to deal with the issues at hand. Parliament can then be the judge. Parliament can judge the record of the Government's performance, both its action and its inaction. Today we are really floundering because the Speech from the Throne introduced back in 1980 is largely outdated.
I want to deal with the section of the motion which states as follows:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to live up to the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980-
One would need more than 20 minutes to enunciate all the failures of this Government to live up to its promises. When one examines this Government's record of performance, one can only conclude that Canada and Canadians have been cheated. They have been cleated by a Liberal Party that has misled and tricked the Canadian electorate. This is reflected not only in its dismal record of managing the economy but also in unfulfilled promises. There are many and I can certainly highlight one, the promise of cheap gasoline. Today we find our gasoline is worth about 30 cents or 40 cents a gallon more than gasoline sold in the United States. We have a 69-cent series of federal taxes. It is a far cry from the 18-cent tax we proposed and the expectation of cheap gasoline on which the Liberals compaigned.
Supply
There is a feeling of mistrust among the people created by the Government. The Government was deviously silent on a number of issues, such as the dismantling of the Crow and the 20 per cent dismantling of the rail passenger service in this country. Most people would call that sleazy politics or refer to it as intellectual dishonesty.
Let us look at the Speech from the Throne last April 14, 1980, Mr. Speaker, and at the Government's undertaking to achieve energy self-security at a fair price for all Canadians. Instead of that what we got was the infamous ad which cost $1 million suggesting that energy security was that far away. No progress has been made in the direction of energy security. Clearly as far as prices are concerned, we have not taken the opportunity our energy advantage gives us in this country to turn it to our economic advantage, neither to that of the industry nor that of the consumer.
The Speech from the Throne set out to promote a national development policy that would provide jobs, stimulate growth, build upon regional strengths and increase Canadian ownership and control of the economy. Those promises in the Speech from the Throne have been total failures. We have 1.8 million people unemployed and numerous business going under. The Government's policy has not provided a business climate in any one region of Canada let alone where regional disparities still exist.
The Government set out to strengthen national institutions. The political imbalance that existed before 1980 still exists today. The Government also undertook to ensure that Canada plays a vigorous part in the world beyond its borders. We are almost the laughing stock of the industrialized world, given our record and the fact that our relationships with the United States have never been at a lower ebb.
Let us look at the rhetoric with respect to national unity. The Speech from the Throne went on at great length about the difficulties in each region and the fact that there was bitterness and concern about the economic welfare of various regions. In part the Speech from the Throne stated:
To all these forces of discontent my Government has one clear response. Canada will endure, grow and prosper.
It went on:
The renewed federalism, to which my Government makes a fundamental and all-embracing commitment, will not only strengthen individual and collective rights and freedoms, it will also ensure that Canada remains:
-a strong country ...
-a country that regards diversity as an asset ...
-a country whose people share their wealth first with those who need it most;
-a country that encourages initiative, welcomes daring, and promotes
enterprise; -
When we look at what the Government has done in terms of its approach to the constitutional changes and to the National Energy Program, we all know the dismal record of disharmony, discord and bitterness which has penetrated the country from coast to coast. In many cases it has resulted in outright anger. What bothers Canadians most is that during the course

April 18, 1983
Supply
of this bitter debate they were throwing away a golden opportunity. In so far as the enterprise spirit is concerned, we all know that that spirit has been crushed and buried as a result of the burden of the state. The result has been fear, despair and lack of confidence.
My hon. friend who spoke previously talked about bankruptcy. It is interesting to put those statistics on the record because since 1980 there has been an assortment of foreclosures, bankruptcies, liquidation sales, sheriff and judicial sales. As a result we have seen homes and businesses lost, dreams shattered and a lifetime of work go down the drain. Undoubtedly the statistical evidence is the worst we have ever experienced in Canadian history.
For example, personal bankruptcies in 1980 amounted to 21,025. In 1981 there were 23,036 and in 1982 there were 30,643, for a total of 75,000 personal bankruptcies since the Government returned to office. Farm bankruptcies in 1980 totalled 222. In 1981 there were 261 and in 1982 there were 410, for a total of 900 farm bankruptcies since 1980. That tells only part of the story because it does not refer to those people who liquidated voluntarily. If we look at total business bankruptcies in Canada, we see that in 1980 there were 6,595. In 1981 there were 8,055 and in 1982 10,765, for a total of 25,000-plus business bankruptcies occurring since the Government returned to office in 1980. These statistics merely represent the hollowness of the words in the April 14, 1980 Speech from the Throne. In part it continued:
In particular, my Government recognizes the need to protect those Canadians most affected by unacceptably high interest rates. My Government will act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
It continued:
Farmers and small-businessmen are also hit especially hard by rising costs, and my Government is sensitive to their plight.
Sensitive my foot. The record clearly speaks for itself. It has been a dismal failure and clearly an example of where the Government has again tricked the Canadian people into believing that it would look after their welfare; but they were left to shoulder the burden alone.
Now I would like to turn to the national energy policy which perhaps could be more appropriately named the national extinguisher plan. When we look at the grim record, we find that in the period following the introduction of the National Energy Program, geophysical activity was reduced by 45 per cent, exploration and development budgets were cut by 40 per cent and 20,000 jobs were lost, primarily in the drilling and service sector. Many of the businesses which failed and are part of the statistics I just outlined were businesses involved in the energy sector. For every job created in the oil industry in western Canada, two jobs are generated elsewhere in the country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mainly in Ontario and central Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is true. As for the drilling sector, we saw an exodus of drilling rigs south to the United States of something in the order of 250 and valued at SI billion. Today our oil drilling fleet has been reduced from 650 to something
just over 400. As of today, in February, March and April there are less than 200 rigs working in western Canada.
This is what the National Energy Program has done for Canada. It has driven away investment and an opportunity to cash in on an industry which could create jobs and be a very important and integral part of the Canadian economy. The Government failed to turn Canada's energy advantage into an economic advantage.
Petro-Canada is the only one that escaped the scalpel. With its 3,000 plus string of service stations, it is the only component of the oil industry that has experienced any growth, largely due to the generosity of taxpayers. It accumulated its assets at inflated prices. The money which has been plowed into Petro-Canada now exceeds $5 billion.
Let us look at the grandiose scheme of economic development which was a spin-off from the Speech from the Throne, the document entitled, "Economic Development for Canada in the 1980s". It has pretty well been scrapped and replaced with a $10 million Macdonald Royal Commission. What has happened in the course of all this? The megaprojects have been killed, such as Alsands, Cold Lake, the Alaska Highway pipeline, Judy Creek and the Syncrude expansion. During the period of time immediately following the introduction of the National Energy Program, we have witnessed something in the order of $10.5 billion of investment capital fleeing the country-$5.9 billion in Canadian investment capital and $4.6 billion in foreign capital.
The big issue today is jobs. If Alsands had gone ahead, it would have created some 4,800 permanent jobs, 7,000 in the construction end of it and indirectly-here again we get into the very important component of the energy industry-it would have created some 14,000 jobs in central Canada. Of every dollar spent in the oil industry in western Canada, 42 cents is spent in Ontario, roughly 15 cents in the Province of Quebec, some 25 cents or 27 cents in the Province of Alberta, and the other Provinces pick up the balance. Surely these projects are still needed or some scaled-down version is needed if we are to achieve the kind of oil self-sufficiency we all hope to achieve.
Now the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Lumley) on his trips to Alberta suggests that the scaled-down oil plans could become a reality in 1983. I encourage the Government to get on with the job. We cannot live any longer on the basis of a policy based upon imagery and rhetoric. We could have a heavy oil plant in Lloydminster. It should be in place today and it would have been had it not been for the actions of the Government. In 1975 Husky Oil was ready to move on an upgrader. In a speech the Executive Vice-President of Husky Oil outlined the kind of climate that would be necessary to allow an upgrader in the Lloydminster area to become a reality. He pointed out that many of the undesirable characteristics of heavy oil in the current economic climate are now desirable characteristics. When we look at the short and medium-term outlook, we all know that we need jobs in both the primary and manufacturing sectors, and this venture would
April 18, 1983

provide a tremendous boom to the manufacturing sector and alleviate some of the problems of unemployment.
The $3.5 billion plan would generate $36 billion worth of economic activity, an estimated 93,000 man-years of work, and the ongoing production and operation manpower requirements from 1988 to 2011 would be an additional 330,000 man-years of work. Of these, 205,000 would be regionally based, direct on-site employment, and economists' estimates of the indirect and induced employment required to manufacture the goods consumed by the project are included in these figures.
Another spin-off benefit would be that 1,700 new wells would be required. These wells would require servicing and infrastructure to maintain their operation.
I do not know why this Government refuses to act and create the positive climate necessary to allow these projects to go ahead. It has certainly failed to exercise economic leadership and to turn a natural advantage in this country into an economic advantage.
I turn now to the petrochemical industry. Two years ago it was recognized that by 1990 Canada would be a world leader in the petrochemical industry. What do we have today? In western Canada we have between $6 billion and $8 billion worth of petrochemical projects on hold. In central Canada the petrochemical industry is floundering. It has had to have a Government bail-out. The reason is primarily because of the heavy upfront taxes. This is a product of the National Energy Program. This has forced up the feedstock prices, which in the case of western Canada is natural gas and in central Canada is oil. The heavy upfront taxes as a result of the National Energy Program has put Canada's petrochemical industry into an uncompetitive position. We have the potential of 50,000 jobs and $3 billion in trade, and it is all out the window. In the meantime, this Government flounders around, trying to create make-work projects to meet the needs of the unemployed. These are two examples where meaningful, long-term jobs could be created which would bring new wealth and new opportunity to this country.
In my opening comments I said that there were promises unfulfilled and things that were done that were not mentioned. I am sorry my time has run out.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Government's action in dismantling the Crow rate and the reduction by 20 per cent of the VIA passenger service are clear examples of the contempt which this Government has for Parliament and the Canadian people. It has generated further a mood of mistrust, disharmony and discord.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions? If not, the Chair will recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this Tory motion implies
Supply
Government inactivity, Government inaction and Government delay. In this motion, methinks the Opposition doth protest too much. Let us take a look at the actions. Let us take a look at Opposition intransigence. Let us take a look at the Government's sensitivity to needs.
First let us look at this session of Parliament. This session has been one of the longest in Canadian history. In fact, it has been the longest. It has also been the most productive. Over 160 Bills have been introduced into Parliament and, of those, 129 have been passed. These Bills range from patriation of the Constitution and freedom of information to a new National Training Act and National Energy Program legislation. The Opposition may disagree with some or even most of this legislation. The Opposition may have opposed many of these 129 Bills that have passed. But surely it cannot accuse this Government during this session of being inactive, not when we have put through 129 Bills.
It is a little hard to take when this accusation comes from the Party that gave us 15 days of bell ringing, countless lost days because of questions of privilege, all of which were spurious, during the Constitution debate and over 70 speakers on each of the Income Tax Act and borrowing authority Bill at second reading alone.
Let us get back to reality and talk about Government action on some of the commitments in the Throne Speech. In the Throne Speech it was stated that this Government would assist "those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation". That was the commitment. Let us look at the action.
In the November, 1981 budget, this Government announced a relief program whereby the Government would pay up to $3,000 per year to home owners paying more than 30 per cent of their income on a mortgage. I admit this was not the same as the much touted mortgage deductibility scheme of the Tories. It benefited those in need, not those with big incomes and big houses. It moderately increased Government spending instead of increasing the deficit by billions of dollars, as the Tory promise would have done.
We went even further on our commitment. We realized that the current recession and high interest rates led to less construction and fewer units to live in. Therefore the November budget announced an incentive program, the Canadian rental supply plan, which provides interest-free loans for up to 30,000 units. We also allocated $60 million to the Canadian home renovation plan to encourage Canadians to renovate and use existing housing. This $60 million will likely result in almost $200 million additional renovation work when the private sector contribution is added in.
Lastly, in the June, 1982 budget we introduced a $3,000 cash grant for new purchasers or new home owners. The idea was to get home construction moving to provide for Canadians' shelter needs. The other idea was to provide jobs, between
75,000	and 100,000 of them in the construction industry from

April 18, 1983
Supply
our various programs. Let us ask if we have met our commitments. I think we did. The record is clear and the record is favourable. Let us look at another commitment in the Throne Speech. The Government stated:
Farmers and small businessmen are also hit especially hard by rising costs and my Government is sensitive to their plight. To assist the individual entrepreneur, the ceiling for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Farm Improvement Loans Act will be raised to $100,000. Other measures of assistance will also be introduced.
Is this an area where we have done nothing? Obviously not. On June 27, 1980 we obtained Royal Assent for amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act to increase the loan maximum to $100,000. I saw some figures today which indicate that loans totalling $208,605,679, over $208 million, were made in 1980 under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This action took us a little over two months from the reading of the Throne Speech. Is that inaction? Obviously not.
Some Members opposite may try to say that we have not done anything and may try to convince the public that we took no other action in support of the small businessman, even when the severe recession struck, but let us look at the facts. In the November, 1981 budget we redirected funds to the Small Business Development Bond to enable small businesses in severe financial difficulty to reduce their interest expenses by up to 50 per cent. I have frequently heard Members opposite say: "Yes, but nobody ever uses that program, it's not available to them". Well, as of January, 1983 nearly 16,000 "nobodies"-if nobody ever uses this program-with nearly $2.4 billion in loans were using this program. Anyone who is suggesting that that program is not effective does not know the facts and is not telling it like it is.
In the June, 1982 budget we went a step further and introduced the small business investment grant. This program provides an interest grant equal to 4 per cent for small business borrowing for new machinery. This program has not been used either. To the end of March, 1983 about 2,800 business persons have applied for grants of nearly $150 million. Well, I think that explodes that myth. Again, people who claim that that program is not effective simply do not have the facts.
Is that all? Liang on, folks, there is even more. Let us look at a tax initiative designed to assist the small business person, lower corporate tax rates. The recently passed Income Tax Amendment Act increased the small business deduction limits from $150,000 to $200,000 and the cumulative limit from $750,000 to $1 million. At present the tax rate on the first $200,000 of income of a Canadian controlled private corporation is some 20 to 21 percentage points less than that of larger businesses.
This type of measure is in addition to ones already brought forward, measures which include: preferential tax treatment of certain stock options issued to employees of private corporations; full offset of capital losses on private company shares and debt obligations; special investment tax credit on research and development expenditures; sales tax exemption on up to
$50,000; guaranteed capital gains for venture capital companies; spousal deduction for owners of unincorporated businesses; deferral of up to $200,000 on capital gains on intergenerational transfers. In the last year these kinds of measures, measures put forward or maintained by a Liberal Government, add up to close to $2 billion in tax breaks for small business people.
Well, it seems pretty clear to me that this Government has kept its commitment to the small-businessman as stated in that Throne Speech.
Let us look at another area dealt with by the Throne Speech, and I am again quoting:
Young people, women and the handicapped face special problems in finding jobs. To meet the needs of these groups, my Government will expand its employment program while using its resources more efficiently.
There will be an increased effort to develop critical trade skills so as to better prepare today's labour force for tomorrow's jobs.
Were we slow in our actions towards this commitment? Well, two months after the Throne Speech a special parliamentary task force on employment opportunities was commissioned. In addition, two ministerial task forces were organized, one to review the operation of the Unemployment Insurance program and one to examine the infuence of federal policies on the labour market.
What about action? Well, in addition to that, of course, there was the Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped which I had the pleasure of chairing. I think the work of that Committee is well known. That was not a partisan Committee; all Parties co-operated. I think that to suggest that this House, under this Government, is not sensitive to those needs as spelled out in the Throne Speech is not being fair and not telling it like it is.
Starting in the summer of 1980, the Government first launched the Canada Community Services Project and later the Canada Community Development Programs. These programs were to minimize the impact of lay-offs and to help workers find alternate private sector employment.
In the same year the Government began its work sharing program. Under this program the Government, the private sector and labour are able to work together to maintain thousands of jobs during temporary economic downturns.
In January, 1981 the Government introduced the Industry and Labour Assistance Program. This program provides coordinated assistance to communities affected by declines in key industries. To date, $450 million has been committed under this program. This program is designed to help communities with serious industrial dislocations and is a very important component in increasing national productivity.
In March, 1982 this House passed the Labour Adjustment Benefits Act to provide special assistance to older workers laid off in designated industries. This program was in addition to the Portable Wage Subsidy Program organized under ILAP which provided wage subsidies for older workers.
Last, this House passed the National Training Program Act. This program was designed to provide Canada with the skilled work force required for the 1990s by strengthening, expanding and modernizing existing training programs, facilitating
April 18, 1983

worker adjustment to technical change and expanding apprenticeship training.
In addition to the National Training Program, there have been efforts to handle disadvantaged groups. Time prohibits me from discussing each and every one of these initiatives but I would like to mention the name of a few: the Affirmative Action Program; special training incentives for Natives; women in non-traditional occupations; women's employment program; and a program for the employment disadvantaged.
As the motion reads, it is absolutely clear that we did not keep our commitment in the Throne Speech in regard to employment. I think it is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Let us take the bull by the tail and examine one commitment that we have certainly been unable to keep. I would like to talk about the deficit. The Throne Speech stated:
It is the intention of my Ministers to continue the policies of expenditure restraint and improved Government administration ...
My Government will reduce the federal deficit in a planned and orderly manner, but not to the exclusion of other objectives-
Now, Mr. Speaker, you may wonder why I raise the question of the deficit. I raise it because I want to deal with this motion and this issue in a fair and objective way.
What has the Government done to restrain spending and improve administration? Restraint and administrative reform are not new buzz words to this Government. To begin with, the Government has implemented and expanded the policy and expenditure management system. Under this system, expenditures are broken down by envelopes. The envelope system helps to ensure that Ministers will trade off one priority over another and will be continually re-evaluating existing programs to find funds for new initiatives.
Second, it was a Liberal Government that established a Comptroller General's Office to act as the Government's internal watchdog on spending. In 1975 the Government announced that it would hold Government expenditures to the growth in the GNP. Over the period between 1975 and 1980, the Government was successful in meeting this goal and federal expenditures as a percentage of GNP actually fell.
Let us examine more recent history. In 1982 the Government was faced with the most serious recession since the great Depression. At this time we are forced to look into our hearts and ask what are fundamental Liberal goals and beliefs. Were we to use the approach used in so many other nations- withstand the recession on the backs of the poor? Would we allow our newspapers to have headlines of increasing infant mortality due to maternal malnutrition? There were stories to that effect in the United States. No, we would not do that. This may be a philosophically Conservative option, this may be supply side politics, but this is not a Liberal approach. So in 1982 we broke our commitment to lower the deficit.
Does this mean we forgot about the deficit? No. The Government recognized that there was a lack of funds. In a
recession, people lack funds to pay taxes; people need help to survive. Therefore we developed a policy of helping those most in need and maintaining the social net of medicare, social assistance and Unemployment Insurance. More money was needed for social assistance and more money was needed for job creation. A greater effort was needed to get industry back on track in the international marketplace. How was Government to respond? We believe that Government should respond by leading, so we introduced the six and five program.
Mr. Speaker, if you now call it one o'clock, I will talk about the six and five program at two o'clock.
[Translation\


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, we ought to rejoice and take great pride in the considerable progress we have made recently in the fields of science and technology. Having invested time and money, Air Canada has just made a discovery which will cause a great stir or which, at least, should ensure the unrivalled comfort of its non-smoking passengers.
As a result of that discovery, Madam Speaker, non-smokers are assigned seats in two groups in the front and rear of the aircraft, the middle section being reserved for smokers, namely those who have maintained their inalienable right to asphyxiate their neighbours with impunity. This is done by placing a small sign at each end of the section assigned to that unscrupulous group. As if by magic, the smoke stops right there and people in the next row can breathe fresh air. It is an inspired idea, as if smoke should be more intelligent than human beings.
In primitive times, cannibalism was a way of life and many people, quite unwillingly, turned out to be the main course during festivities and social dos. Contemporary cannibalism has nothing to do with the fear of being eaten, but rather-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.

April 18, 1983



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the duty roster system imposed on the staff in the Drumheller Institution breaks the agreement with the staff, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) stated on Friday last that the new system would decrease the overtime and that it would save money for the taxpayers. The Solicitor General did not mention why he had unilaterally broken the agreement, nor did he indicate why, at meetings between the staff and regional officers, the Drumheller Institution was not once named for too much overtime-other institutions were, but not Drumheller. Why is the Minister now bringing up overtime as a red herring when it was not a factor at all until now? Under the new system it may well be that overtime will become an issue.
The Minister's statement about wanting to save money for the taxpayer is a laugh; that is, unless this extravagant Government has adopted a new policy. If it now has a policy to save the taxpayers' money, why not eliminate or at least drastically reduce the regional office? Last year this duplicating unnecessary office cost the taxpayers $5,902,485. A warden worth his salt should be capable, and able to manage his institution, and one headquarter, the one in Ottawa, should be enough.
The truth of the matter is that the squad system and the old rotation were working to the satisfaction of the Drumheller Institution. The Minister can make all the excuses he likes, but each excuse he gives is reducing his credibility among his own staff, not only in Drumheller but throughout Canada.



FISHERIES


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Madam Speaker, eel fishermen in Quebec are now faced with bankruptcy. Hon. Members are certainly aware that in early 1982, our eel exports to Germany were banned because they contained Mirex, an insecticide dumped in Lake Ontario and which is now spreading into the St. Lawrence River. The Hooker Chemicals Company, from Niagara Falls, has been reportedly identified as the source of contamination. The Federal Republic of Germany, which until then had been our best customer, will no longer accept our eel. The best officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could do under these circumstances was to suggest suing the American firm. Any settlement, however, which would come only after years and years of legal proceedings would be meaningless to fishermen long gone bankrupt.
We believe that the Government of Canada has some responsibility with regard to catches prior February 4, 1982. We believe also there is a joint responsibility of the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec with regard to catches after that date. As a matter of fact, in spite of the current ban imposed on these exports, the Quebec Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foodstuffs still continues to issue licences to eel fishermen. An adequate joint compensation program, therefore, should be set up immediately to compensate all fishermen and all exporters, especially Les Pecheries Gingras, in Saint-Nicolas.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, the wreckage caused by Canada's National Energy Program has been well documented and is well known to Canadians from coast to coast. This ill conceived program caused damage not just to oil and gas companies or those areas most dependent upon the activity of these companies for employment, but to virtually every other sector and area of Canada.
At present the oil and gas industry is operating at a small fraction of its previous level and of its potential. Thousands of people have been laid off. Billions of dollars of spending has been postponed and cancelled. Companies from coast to coast which traditionally supplied this industry are suffering similar problems.
Perhaps one could partially forgive the injury inflicted on the oil and gas industry by the federal Government if there were some people or some sectors of Canadian society that benefited. But nobody has, not the consumer, whose potential benefits were taxed away, not employees in the energy sector or sectors which supply the energy industry whose jobs have disappeared, and not even governments, since the revenues they sought to gain have diminished significantly because money losing enterprises do not pay taxes, nor do the unemployed.
There are many problems caused by the National Energy Program that need to be rectified, but perhaps the one which is most aggravating and frustrating is the problem of Canada's shut-in oil capacity. In April there are over 200,000 barrels a day of production shut in and, while that will go down in May, for the first six months of 1984 it is expected that the average will be well over 100,000 barrels a day. That means that well over $3 million a day of revenue which would be available for the federal Government, provincial Governments and the industry, will not be there.


Madam Speaker:: Order.
April IB, 1983



CHARTER OF RIGHTS


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, with only two years remaining before the equality sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms come into force, we are concerned with lack of action on the part of the Government in introducing amendments to bring statutes into line with equality provisions. There should be no further delay in repealing the infamous Section 12(I)(b) of the Indian Act, and reinstating the women who lost their status with their children.
The increased importance of the judiciary in our national life makes reform of the judicial appointment process ever more necessary. Qualifications apart from political connections should be the criteria, so that the bench would include members of all political Parties, and none.
The flagrant inability of Canadian courts to understand discrimination cases when the victims are women is unlikely to change while women are still passed over for judicial appointments. In the year since the Charter was signed, only 3.7 per cent of federal judicial appointments were of women, despite the very adequate numbers of qualified women available. With the increased power of the judiciary, greater public criticism and scrutiny are called for. Contempt of court legislation is needed that will ensure full public criticism.
This is the time also for Parliament to consider the reform or repeal of such reactionary, anachronistic statutes as the Official Secrets Act and the War Measures Act, in light of the principles of the Charter.
* *
*



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of this House the situation of Canadair. There is a tendency to speak out against Crown Corporations when they have financial or other problems. However, since the situation of Canadair has implications in both fundamental and applied research, I would like the government and the House to support any action that will be taken in order to give some aid to Canadair, because this corporation operates in a field which involves very advanced technology and because there is still a good future in this high technology sector.
I would greatly appreciate, Madam Speaker, if this House could show full responsibility in this matter, given that it involves numerous jobs in the Montreal area and that the aircraft industry must stay in the area and must continue to be a leading industry in Canada. Even the Department of Employment and Immigration has put enormous emphasis on training in the high technology sector. I ask that this House,
when a request for additional funding or other measures are put forward, give its fullest support to these initiatives.



FINANCE


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, in preparation for the budget I would urge the Government to consider a 150 per cent tax credit for firms establishing new production facilities and employing people in areas suffering from regional disparities. This would not be a grant. It would, rather, allow deferral of taxes until the investment in facilities and labour for the first three years of operation, plus 50 per cent, is recovered.
I urge the Government to establish a series of duty-free ports in Saint John, Halifax, and Vancouver, where Canadian export firms can import components and, with Canadian workers using Canadian technology and materials, can assemble products for export to world markets. This has been done successfully in Singapore, Amsterdam, and 18 ports in the United States, among other areas.
I urge the Government to abolish the capital gains tax and encourage investment in the development of Canadian resources in order to create more jobs and taxpayers. I urge the Government to beef up the internship program, examine the 300 applications in New Brunswick now awaiting action, and extend to all Canadian universities the student employment assistance program which is operating successfully, but only at the universities of Winnipeg and Manitoba, in the Minister's riding.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, on Saturday last, a four-page tabloid appeared in most of the daily newspapers advertising the Government's position to abolish the Crow rate. This four-page tabloid was a waste of the taxpayers' money and took a position against the Prairie farmers' interests. Not only was it a waste of the taxpayers' money and not only was it against the interests of the Prairie farmers, but I believe the advertisement itself showed how out of touch is this federal Government across the way.
For example, the locomotive shown on the front page of this tabloid is a locomotive from the White Pass and Yukon Railway, and it is one which has never hauled grain. It is a locomotive from a narrow gauge railway which could not even fit on a Prairie railway if they wanted to haul grain. Also, Madam Speaker, this railway was closed down last fall. It was

April 18, 1983
the first time this railway has been closed down since the great gold rush of the 1890s.
The Government has for this advertisement chosen a locomotive which cannot haul grain, and has chosen a railway which has already been closed down. I believe that shows the Government across the way is out of touch and should resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PETRO-CANADA RESULTS OF POLL ON GASOLINE PURCHASES

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, media coverage of a Gallup poll on the weekend stressed that "only 8 per cent" of Canadians go out of their way to buy gasoline from a Petro-Canada station. This type of reporting may be technically accurate but is nonetheless misleading. The "only 8 per cent" who make a special effort are persons who make the positive and more difficult decision not to buy from the most convenient foreign owned outlet.
The figure of only 8 per cent is also negatively distorted because 23 per cent of those polled do not buy gasoline, and amongst those who do buy gasoline are many persons who buy from Petro-Canada without making some special effort. The "only 8 per cent" is, therefore, a significant percentage in light of our general lethargy to inconvenience ourselves.
This should remind us that the interpretation of figures is of considerably greater importance than the numbers themselves.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement today concerning the advertising the Government has just done concerning the Crow rate. I believe this advertising is an abuse of the power and position of the Government. I believe it has a number of implications which pose a serious threat in a free and democratic state.
The first threat is that the federal Government has by far the greatest source of funds to draw on for this type of advocacy advertising. Advocacy advertising by Government is nothing less than propaganda. The result is the tyranny of the misinformed opinion, which isolates those affected directly by the programs promoted by Government. The second threat is that Parliament ceases to have a free opportunity to debate the issue as we are not yet in possession of the draft legislation, thus reducing the effectiveness and opportunity of legitimately elected representatives of the people. Because the Government has not finalized its proposals, it can claim to be all things to all those concerned which, in effect, robs Canadians of objective debate about the issue.
Finally, Madam Speaker, people who do not support the Government's ideas on this particular issue are forced to pay for this ad out of their own pockets, and are forced into a position of having to do their own advertising to inform the general public properly. It is unfair, it is arrogant, and it is an embarrassment to all concerned Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday marked the first anniversary of the proclamation of the new Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That proclamation took place after some very considerable expenditure of funds on the part of the Government by way of advocacy advertising. Expectations were heightened that, following the proclamation, the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens would be substantially enhanced and looked after by the federal Government. Since the time of the proclamation, however, the record has shown quite the contrary. Time has stood still as far as the people of Canada are concerned, as well as this Government, with respect to the promotion of the individual rights and freedoms which are apparently protected under the Charter.
Specifically with respect to legislation and federal laws, would the Prime Minister tell the House when we might expect legislation to be introduced in this House which will in effect change the laws which are clearly in contravention of the provisions of the Charter of Rights-by way of example, writs of assistance which give arbitrary powers of search and seizure contrary to the provisions of the Charter of Rights, and many other pieces of legislation? When is the federal Government going to accept its responsibility and give effect to the Charter of Rights as it affects its own legislation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I would take the judgment of the Hon. Member in the examples such as he gives, that the Charter is contravened. It is a recognized fact, however, that the Charter of Rights as we proposed it and what was imbedded in the new Constitution, does render certain provisions of our existing law unconstitutional. That is why a section of the Constitution, particularly as regards equality rights, was introduced with a delay as to their taking effect. That delay is being used by the federal Government, as the Minister of Justice has reported at least twice in this House, so that we can find ways to amend all these bits of legislation through an omnibus piece of legisla-
April 18, 1983

tion. It is our intention-well within the delays provided for in the Constitution-to bring in an omnibus law which will erase those aspects of the current laws which are contravening the Bill of Rights.


APPLICATION OF CHARTER TO STATUS OF WOMEN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, it is quite one thing to talk about equality rights, and I want to ask the Prime Minister about that because I believe the record of the Government is abysmal in that respect as well. But I am talking about acts on the statute books right now which are in clear contravention of the Charter of Rights. I want to know when the Prime Minister and the Government are going to bring forward legislation to rectify that situation.
With respect to equality rights, is the Prime Minister saying to the People of Canada that the Government is going to stand by the letter of the law and wait until 1985 before bringing in amendments to the Indian Act, to the unemployment insurance provisions, and to other pieces of federal legislation under the control of the Government and this Parliament? Is he saying to the women of Canada that the Charter of Rights has no application in terms of equality rights until 1985?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course I am not saying that, Madam Speaker. I do not understand the meaning of the Hon. Member's preamble. I am talking about legislation which is on the statute books now and which has to be changed, either in the equality sections or in other sections. I said that the Minister of Justice is bringing in an omnibus piece of legislation in order to set as many things as possible right in that legislation. I can only hope that we do not have, from the Opposition, as we did with the Bill of Rights itself, the kind of systematic and mindless opposition which we had when this legislation was before the House, and when that Party over there prevented us from making it into law for a period of many months.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, if it was not for the Opposition, the Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights would have been a far more inferior product than that which was finally passed by the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF LITIGANTS SEEKING PROTECTION OF CHARTER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is saying to the people of Canada that the Government is playing no role, it is going to sit back and, some day in the future, it is going to bring in some omnibus Bill which might change the offending provisions of the current law so they will not offend the Charter of Rights. What he is saying to the people of Canada is that they must go to the courts at their own expense. The little man has to fight in the courts in order to protect his own rights. In only one instance is
Oral Questions
there any assistance by the federal Government to litigants and that is in the case of language rights.
Will the Prime Minister not consider making provision within the bureaucracy to assist legitimate Charter cases? In the alternative, possibly by way of supplemental assistance, will the Government create an independent institution which would fund legitimate Charter cases and support individual litigants who might not otherwise be able to afford their defence in court?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member seems determined to set up straw-men and then knock them down. He says that we are leaving it to the litigants to set their record, to fight for their rights under the Charter. I have just finished telling him in two answers that, no, we will change the laws so that the litigants do not have to go through that process of fighting.


An Hon. Member:: When?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I find it difficult that the Opposition asks, "When?", when we have constant reports from our House Leader trying to get legislation which is obsolete now, almost, and the Opposition does not want to pass it. Perhaps Hon. Members opposite can give us some kind of a meaningful timetable to pass the urgent legislation, the legislation that was put before them at the beginning of the Fall, and they were unable to give us a timetable. I find it a bit hilarious that they are suggesting new legislation, new expenditures, and new advertising campaigns, if I understood the Hon. Member's first suggestion.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Truth in advertising is all we want.
[ Translation]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the statement that the product is flawed, I am prepared to agree. For instance, the product is flawed with respect to the constitutional amending formula. Had it not been for the filibuster of that Party, we would have had a constitutional amending formula which would have given a right of veto to the four Canadian regions, the Province of Quebec included. It is rather paradoxical to hear the former Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party advocate more power for that Province, when it was his own Party which prevented us from implementing a constitutional reform which indeed would have had such a result.


REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister as to how he can perfect the Charter in a very fundamental way. The Prime Minister will know that Section 7 of the Charter contains only three of the four fundamental democratic rights, notwithstanding the fact that on January 22, 1981, before the

April 18, 1983
Oral Questions
Special Committee on the Constitution, the Solicitor General made a commitment on behalf of the Government that he would include property rights in Section 7 of the Charter, a commitment which was subsequently reneged upon because of opposition from the then NDP Government of Saskatchewan, a Government which has changed since that time.
Is the Government now prepared to recognize the heritage of those Canadians who carved homes and farms out of the wilderness, and put property rights in the Charter of Rights?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The historic recollection of the Hon. Member is partially correct, Madam Speaker. It is true that we did not include property rights in Section 3-


Mr. Epp:: You reneged.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -although they are included in the Canadian Bill of Rights, which applies to all federal areas of jurisdiction. We did not impose it on the Provinces, partly because of the opposition of the Government of Saskatchewan, but only partly, because there were at least five other Conservative Provinces which did not want that provision to be in the Bill of Rights.
However, to show that I am not always in disagreement with the Hon. Member, I will make an offer now which I hope that the Acting Leader of the Opposition will accept on behalf of his Party. If we can have all-Party agreement-I would not even say "all Party agreement"-I would say that if we can have agreement of the Conservative Party to introduce an amendment on property rights and to pass it in 24 hours, I will undertake to do that, to convince the Minister of Justice that it would be done. We have not been doing it, not so much for fear of the ex-Government of Saskatchewan but, rather, because we were afraid it might so discord with the Tory leaders of Tory Governments in the Provinces.
I make my offer on behalf of this Party. If the Conservative Party wants to undertake to pass it in all stages in one day, we will pass it before the end of June.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF PROVINCES
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister should follow his own advice and not attempt to negotiate on the floor of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: However, I will say this to him, that he will find that there will be a very reasonable disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to do anything which would protect the right of Canadians to hold property under the Charter of Rights.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will know that the legislature of British Columbia, by unanimous resolution on September 21, passed just such a resolution. There are also such indications from the Province of Ontario. Indeed, if such a resolution is passed by the Parliament of Canada, I think the Prime Minister will find the necessary seven Provinces in agreement so that the heritage and the right of Canadians to hold property can be protected, because, as the Prime Minister knows, this protection in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights does not apply to the provincial jurisdiction.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member has reinforced my point. It applies to the federal jurisdiction. Therefore, insofar as this Government and this Parliament are concerned, Canadians are completely protected as to their property rights. The reason they are not protected in the Provinces is because there has been provincial opposition. The Hon. Member predicts that we will have seven Provinces joining. Let us put them to the test. Let us get agreement from that Party to support this Party, to do it all in one day and to pass a House order, and then it will be done. Madam Speaker, we are waiting for confirmation of that from the House Leader on the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Riis:: So much for provincial rights, Mr. Prime Minister.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You're just a year late, as usual.


FINANCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: On this budget eve, I suspect that many Canadians are feeling very edgy, wondering what the Minister of Finance has in store for them or what he plans to do to them. The last budget blamed the people of Canada for a large part of our problem by saying they were too hopeful, too optimistic, that they were spending too much, that their expectations were too high. More recently, we have seen a complete flip-flop, saying that it is time to get confidence going up once again, that our expectations are not too high, that the Government wants people to be spending more of their money on goods and services.
Will the Minister of Finance agree to stop this flip-flopping, this dancing around, and assure the House that the budget shoes he purchased are not dancing slippers-


Walter David Baker: They're Gucci boots.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -but in fact are good, sound, strong, Canadian made work boots, so that he can stand in his place and start providing some direction for the people of Canada, as opposed to this contradictory advice?


Walter David Baker: They're Hush Puppies.
April 18, 1983


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member needs to go back to November of 1981 to find flip-flops. There was a much more recent one, as a matter of fact, and that was the one by Hon. Members of the NDP who, last Fall, were advocating reducing the deficit and, in the last few weeks, have been advocating a larger deficit. Therefore one does not have to go that far and must only look at one's own conscience. I would invite Hon. Members of the NDP, as a matter of fact, not even to look at their consciences, but simply to look at press clippings of what they were saying as recently as six months ago.
As far as the question of the Hon. Member is concerned, I want to assure him that the budget which I will be introducing tomorrow will be good for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTED REALLOCATION OF DEPARTMENTS' FUNDS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, we learned in the last number of hours that Treasury Board has been asking each Department to cut spending to provide money for a slickly designed budget package and for funding the promotion of a publicity blitz by the Minister of Finance and his cabinet colleagues.
Could the Minister tell us whether it would not be more appropriate to use some of these reallocated funds for much needed job creation rather than another promotional campaign like the six and five program or, more recently, like the Crow campaign?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will only tell my hon. friend that, if the Treasury Board has been issuing such instructions recently, it is probably too late for my budget, because my budget is now decided, and I do not think that such reallocation would be of any help at this particular time. Therefore, I suspect that my hon. friend is referring to another speculative story, which probably does not have foundation.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance and arises out of the Government's four-page supplement with regard to the Pepin proposal which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press and the Brandon Sun on the weekend and, today, in the Winnipeg Sun.
Does the Minister consider it appropriate for Ministers such as the Minister of Transport to waste money on advertisements which, like Dracula, suck money from the western farmers? Will he be issuing some sort of guidelines to prevent the
Oral Questions
Government's waste of taxpayers' dollars when there is not even legislation before the House? If the Pepin proposals are so beneficial to western farmers, surely they can stand on their own merits?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport answered this question quite appropriately and adequately last Friday. I totally support what the Minister of Transport has said. I think it is an excellent initiative and should be applauded.


THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister follows the exchange between himself and the Hon. Member for St. John's East with respect to property rights in the Charter of Rights. He will know that, historically, this Party moved a property rights amendment in the committee, which was defeated by the combined forces of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party at that time. He will know that that same amendment was moved by this Party in the House of Commons during the debate on the measure, and again defeated by the Government. We still have that draft ready.
Will the Prime Minister consider providing us with a copy of his proposed draft by tomorrow, so that we might consider it in our usual regular caucus on Wednesday?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member goes a little back into history. This is recent history. If he has forgotten, I will report to him that in the summer of the constitutional meetings with the Provinces we had a Section in the Charter of Rights entrenching the rights of property.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: You never moved it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was removed at the request of the Provinces. I am prepared to reintroduce that. I am certainly prepared to make sure that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has a copy of our draft. It is ready and it can be moved at any time.
I would have wished that the Leader of the Opposition had been a little less conditional when he says if we do that he will examine it and discuss it through the usual channels. Why does he not say now that, if we can get a draft on which we both agree, he will answer my challenge to get it done and to ask for a House order of one day?


Erik Nielsen: That is a new version of the twist. I think if the Prime Minister examines the report of my question, he will see that I never used the word "if'. All I did was draw his attention to the fact that we twice introduced a property rights
24578

April 18, 1983
Oral Questions
amendment, once in the committee and once again in the House. On both these occasions the Prime Minister's Party and the NDP rejected that amendment.


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY AMENDMENT
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to provide us with a draft tomorrow-that is an "if'-for discussion at our regular caucus, will he accept the amendment that we introduced both in committee and in the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will provide the Hon. Member with a draft by tomorrow. I will try to make sure that he gets it by tonight. I wish I would also hear the Leader of the Opposition say that if that draft is in the spirit of the 1960 Charter of Rights he will undertake, on behalf of his Party, to join us to seek a House order to have that resolution passed in one day.
That is what is always lacking in the question of the Hon. Member-any undertaking by his party to do anything except try to push the Government, but it never sticks its own commitment out. I would like to see it.


DRAFT OF TEXT PRESENTED TO PREMIERS
Erik Nielsen: This smacks a little like the Minister of Justice wanting us to pass a Human Rights Act without even reading it and then, once having read it, without debating it.
The Prime Minister has undertaken to provide us with that draft. For that I thank him. Once we have looked at that draft and confirmed that it is indeed the same as the one that was presented to the Premiers, we will then bring him our decision.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we will expect to hear that decision tomorrow during Question Period.


PETRO-CANADA ACQUISITION OF BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY-INVESTIGATION OF TAKEOVER
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Acting Minister who, I presume, is the Minister of State for Mines. Last fall, prior to Petro-Canada's takeover of BP Canada Limited, there was evidence of prior knowledge by a person or persons because of the exceptional interest in BP Canada's stock which moved from $26 to $36 in the few weeks prior to the takeover by Petro-Canada.
In response, the Ontario Securities Commission froze the funds and accounts of brokers who had traded in BP stock. As of April 7 of this year, some six months after the fact,
approximately $1 million has not been claimed even though all that is required for people to do so is to come forward and identify that the money belongs to them. This seems to indicate that somebody has something to hide.
Considering the fact that Petro-Canada, a Crown corporation with a federal charter, is involved in this, and that the possibility exists that someone associated with Petro-Canada, or their friends or relatives, may have leaked information or benefited from it, has the federal Government instituted an investigation of its own into this situation?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I must confess that I know nothing of the matter, but I shall take the question under advisement and get back to the Hon. Member.


OTTAWA BROKERAGE HOUSE ORDERS FOR CALL OPTIONS
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources might also bear in mind and investigate the situation where one of the largest trades was in the form of call options through a brokerage house here in Ottawa. In advance of the BP takeover, someone here in Ottawa placed an exceptionally large order for call options which have the largest leverage for the potential investor. That would indicate that someone was very lucky or had prior knowledge. Would the Minister commit that that specific situation will be investigated by the Government?


Judith A. Erola: Madam Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF THE PREMIER OF BERMUDA, MR. JOHN SWAN
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour of drawing the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of the Premier of Bermuda, Mr. John Swan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ZAIRE COMMISSIONER OF STATE FOR THE ECONOMY, FOR INDUSTRY, AND FOR EXTERNAL COMMERCE
Madam Speaker:: I would also like to draw the attention of Hon. Members to the presence in our gallery of Mr. Nyembo
April 18, 1983

Shabami, the Commissioner of State for the Economy, for Industry and for External Commerce of Zaire.


Some Hon, Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It follows a question that I asked the Minister of Supply and Services last week concerning the Canadair matter and the Task Force Report. I had asked the Minister of Supply and Services whether he would make a copy of the Task Force Report available so that the committee could deal with the matter. He indicated that he would not. I asked him if he would not mind thinking about that over the weekend, and in his answer he seemed to say that he did not believe he should think on the weekend since he did not think at all during the week anyway.
Would the Government release that Task Force Report that was referred to in those questions so that, when the matter comes before the committee of the House, as the Prime Minister indicated it would, all the information would be available for the parliamentary examination which even independent observers of this institution are saying should take place with respect to Canadair?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I did look fully into the question asked by the Hon. Member last Friday as well as the excellent answer given by the Minister of Supply and Services. I should like to confirm to the Hon. Member that the practice concerning Cabinet documents remains unchanged and the answer given law last Friday was excellent.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT RECONSIDER POSITION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I know that the Government is fully aware that it has removed from the ambit of the Freedom of Information Act the ability of the special commissioner, whenever he is appointed, or of the courts, to examine the question of the release of Cabinet documents. I am aware of that. That seems to be the substance of the answer. But there is no reason, no law, that prohibits the Government when it wishes to do so, and when it is proper and right that it do so from the point of view of Parliament getting to the truth of the issue, from releasing those documents. I ask the Prime Minister once more whether, in the true spirit of The Freedom of Information Act, through which all the information would be open, the Government would once again reconsider that answer?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member casts his mind to the Freedom of Information Act, he will recall there are certain exceptions, exceptions that are practised in all democratic countries. They have to do with documents that might be deleterious to foreign relations, to personal privacy, or to the cabinet system of Government. That is the exception I ask the Hon. Member to reflect upon when he is asking for the tabling and the making public of cabinet documents.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that most of the CHIP grant cheques are being delayed inordinately and, because of this, insulation companies are having to lay off literally hundreds, if not a few thousand employees across Canada, what is the Minister prepared to do to make sure that these CHIP grant cheques get out to the applicants so these lay-offs do not have to take place? We are suffering from a situation in the country today with over two million unemployed and, through Government incompetence, we do not need even a few hundred more.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I already have had a similar inquiry. I would be delighted to look into the reasons for the delay in consultation with the Ministers responsible, to see what might be done to speed up delivery of the cheques.



CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, in the absence of yet another Minister, the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. It has become apparent that the Canadian Home Ownership Stimulation Program has run out of money in many regions. As a meeting was held this morning in the CMHC offices to discuss this appalling situation, I would like the Minister to inform Canadians whether there will be moneys to cover the applications now being held by CMHC offices across Canada. As well, I would like to know whether there will be moneys to cover the applications that will continue to come in until the end of the program deadline of April 30, 1983, and whether the Minister knows that this housing stimulation program is a first rate way of stimulating the over-all economy?

April 18, 1983
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to learn about the support, although belated support, from the NDP for this Program because I remember Members of the New Democratic Party voted against this program when we put it forward. I must say to my friend, however, that unfortunately I did not attend that CMHC meeting this morning. The Hon. Member may have had friends there or he may have been present himself, but I was not there, and I cannot therefore, comment on that particular meeting.
As far as the budget is concerned, the Hon. Member will have to show patience for another 36 hours.



EMPLOYMENT


M. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the NEED Program. We know that the PQ Government has withdrawn from the Canada-Quebec Agreement on the NEED Program. I should like to know whether there have been any new developments regarding projects by municipalities, and whether those projects have been considered by the PQ Government. We know that some excellent projects were submitted by the municipalities and I would therefore like to know what is happening to these projects.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the Member for Abitibi that since March 23, when the Quebec Government sent an ultimatum to the Federal Government on the NEED Program, indicating that it did not intend to meet its December 23 commitment regarding this program-since then, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has approved 683 projects that will create 6,722 jobs, which represents $36.6 million.
As far as the municipal level is concerned, the Quebec Minister indicated at the time that the $50 million that were available for job creation would be spent on municipal projects. Madam Speaker, by the time the agreement was broken by the Quebec Government, we had received 400 projects from various Quebec municipalities, and as far as I know, none of the projects have been approved by the Quebec Government, and we, and especially Quebec municipalities, are still waiting for approval of these projects.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I may point out that in the private sector, we have approved 56 projects that will create 485 jobs, which demonstrates the effectiveness of this program, and especially, the interest shown by private companies in a program aimed at creating often permanent jobs.



STATEMENTS BY TWO MINISTERS

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Could he clarify two conflicting statements of policy, emanating on the one hand from the Minister of Agriculture and from the Minister of State in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board on the other hand. The Minister of State in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board called upon the grain producers of Canada to reduce their acreage by 5 per cent in the case of wheat and 15 per cent in the case of barley, while at the same time the Minister of Agriculture has been quoted as saying that it would be unprincipled and unchristian for the federal Government to tell farmers to cut grain production. Could the Prime Minister advise the House which Minister is accurately reflecting Government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have not had occasion to see either of those statements, but I will undertake to look into them and give the Hon. Member an answer.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A house divided.



REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, if in the event the Minister of Agriculture seems to conflict with the stated policy of the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and if in fact the Minister of Agriculture is in violent disagreement with the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, would the Prime Minister be asking the Minister of Agriculture to do the honourable thing and resign?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Farmers are on and off their tractors. They do not know what to do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is clearly hypothetical, Madam Speaker, including the suggestion.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Minister knows that the oilseed crushing industry is a very important industry, not only to Canada as a whole but specifically to western Canada. It is important in terms of being an economic generator and also interns of jobs. In the Western Transportation Initiatives that have now been brought down and are called the Pepin proposal, included is the long sought after freight rate parity for
April 18, 1983

Canola, which is rapeseed, and for linseed oil, which is flax. However, the proposal leaves out totally the question of sunflower seed. The sunflower seed industry is about a $35 million a year industry to Manitoba. It is a substantial industry also for Saskatchewan and Alberta. Is the Government looking at including sunflower into the total package so that we do have a true national oilseed crushing policy in this area? If so, in what manner, and what form will it take?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, that would require a long explanation. We have looked at this question and for three reasons we have not accepted the inclusion of other crops and other products, as suggested by Professor Gilson for Canola and linseed oil and meal. The first reason is the limitation of money. The second is, where do we stop, because there would be a great number of other products that people would want included. The third reason may be a bit philosophical, that it may not be the best way to start by making too many exceptions when you want to establish a new system.



PLEA FOR SUNFLOWER INDUSTRY

Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Transport will know that the first crop to be crushed on the Prairies in the 1940s was the sunflower crop. A brief presented to the Minister by the industry in Manitoba reports:
If in the final resolution to this transportation issue sunflower seed and its products are excluded, there is no question the sunflower crop is in danger of extinction.
Excluding a crop such as this means a substantial loss to the Prairie economy in all three Prairie Provinces. Surely the Minister of Transport can give the industry a more satisfactory answer, especially in view of the fact that the industry has given him figures to indicate that about $750,000 is what it would take to bring the industry basically up to parity with the rapeseed or the Canola industry and the linseed oil industry on the Prairies? The sunflower industry cannot be allowed to die. It is as simple as that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have had a similar representation from another group. The alfalfa people, for example, presented the same case to me. Needless to say, my hon. friend is aware that if payments were made to producers, there would be a correction of that over a period of time.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Cabinet, any Committee of Cabinet, any group directed by Cabinet, or
Oral Questions
any Minister of the Crown, investigated the marketing practices of Canadair? In particular, have they investigated its marketing practices in relationship to the Challenger and in relationship to Canadair's firefighting aircraft?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I expect it would be the business of the board of CDIC, which now holds the shares the Government had in Canadair, to look at past and present practices to see if they can be improved in any way. Therefore I assume they will know what has been going on and what is going on. I do not know if the Hon. Member would call that an investigation in the parliamentary sense, but it is certain that when they appear before Parliament to ask for greater funds the Hon. Member will be in a position to ask them what they have found out about those practices.



BRIBERY CONVICTION OF UNITED STATES SENATOR

Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of a conviction registered against United States Senator Hohman of Alaska in which he was convicted on December 24, 1981, of accepting a bribe and offering to share a $20,000 bribe from a Canadian Government-owned firm, Canadair Services Limited? If so, has he had that matter and other related matters investigated? If not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker. That is the first time I heard of this matter. Certainly, if it were a verifiable allegation practised by a Government Department or a Crown corporation, it would be falling under guidelines that we issued some years ago against bribes. Indeed it might even come, depending on the circumstances, abreast of the Criminal Code. I have not heard of this. I suppose it would depend on the veracity of the facts, and I will have it looked into.



FINANCE


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that we have had some very erratic fluctuations in the interest rate in the last year or so, has the Minister responsible for CMHC discussed with him at any time, and laid before him, a plan which might be included in any budget?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in the last year there has not been what the Hon. Member calls fluctuations. Fundamentally in the last year there has been a steady decline in interest rates. Today all major banks have announced that they are cutting down their prime rate again by half a point to about 11 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 18, 1983
Oral Questions


Mr. McDermid:: Tell that to people with 19 per cent mortgages.


Marc Lalonde: In effect, the rate today at 11 per cent is the lowest it has been since November, 1978. Frankly I hope this downward trend will be maintained in the months to come because it is a very encouraging sign for home owners, businesses, and everyone in the economy.



ROLE OF PRIVATE SECTOR

Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister cannot guarantee anybody that we will not be playing renewable roulette within the next ten months or so, would he reconsider his answer and, at the same time, at least go to private lenders and discuss with them whether they can come up with a plan if the Government cannot?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the suggestion of a plan which would provide some insurance is one that has been made by the Minister responsible for CMHC. As a matter of fact, he has worked on the subject with people in the private sector and examined the implications of such a proposal. We have been informed both from the private sector and experts in the field that there are a number of difficulties and that more studies are required. This is what the Minister has said outside the House quite frequently.
The private sector has been extensively involved, but I want to remind my hon. friend again that, if he is not satisfied with an 11 per cent prime rate, he can get today from one bank a 10.75 per cent mortgage for one year, and if he wants to have it a little longer he can go to a five-year rate at 13.25 per cent. Five-year mortgage rates are back on the market.
Again I hope, through the continuation of the monetary policy we have in Canada at the present time, and with the measures which will be contained in the budget, we will see a continuation of the decline in interest rates. Already our measures have been very successful in the last year in bringing down interest rates very significantly; as a matter of fact, cutting them from 19 per cent and 20 per cent down to 11 per cent and 10.75 per cent. It is pretty good in the space of nine months.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration may I direct my question to the Acting Minister and also to the Solicitor General, if part of it should apply to him. Would the Hon. Minister confirm whether on April 10 or 11 there was a transfer from Toronto to the Ottawa-Carleton
Detention Centre of 11 detainees under the Immigration Act, most of whom, if not all were of East Indian origin? What was the purpose of the move from Toronto to Ottawa? If there was to be a hearing in Ottawa, why was it not ascertained that such a hearing would not be held and then decided that the said detainees were to be returned to Toronto for a hearing on April 25? It this applies to the Solicitor General, but in any event to the Minister, would he explain to the House why those detainees were moved in leg-irons and handcuffs since they were only guilty of statutory law transgressions, if at all? If they were refugees coming up for hearings in Ottawa, why were they transferred in leg-irons and handcuffs?


Yvon Pinard: Order Paper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We know how long it takes to answer questions on the Order Paper.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have had no notice of this question. I have no knowledge of the alleged transfer of refugees, or alleged transfer of detainees. I will look into it immediately. If the Hon. Member has any more information about it, I would be glad to have it from him.



COST OF TRANSFER

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, might I ask either of the Ministers also to supply the approximate cost of this exercise in futility?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I will look into that as well.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, speaking of Order Paper questions, and since I cannot get any information there about Canadair, I would like to elicit, if I could, just one answer from either the Prime Minister, the Minister of Supply and Services, or the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, concerning the proportion of financial benefits from this massively funded Crown corporation that have gone to the United States. I am thinking of Bill Lear's company, also Federal Express, and so on. Can someone over there tell me just what percentage of the industrial, monetary or other benefits have gone to the United States-


Yvon Pinard: Order Paper.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -rather than to Quebec and Canada, which was the whole purpose of setting up this company and subsidizing it so massively?
April 18, 1983

[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I believe this question could usefully be considered by a Standing Committee of the House, if additional funds were to be granted to Canadair.

Order Paper Questions
Energy Board decision for withdrawal of the area for a national park and conservation.
I am sure the Members of the House will be interested to know that in Aklavik, with about 360 voters, over 183 people signed, in Arctic Red River, with only 52 voters, over 50 people signed, and in Fort McPherson, with 432 voters, 293 people signed the petition.



HOUSING


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is he giving serious consideration to extending the $3,000 grant for first-time home buyers to stimulate the very important housing industry which is just beginning to roll now, in order to keep that momentum going?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, that is another interesting suggestion from a Party that throughout the debate on this subject had claimed that this was a program it did not believe in, a program which according to the Party, would never work and which was contested as soon as it was presented in the House. I am very happy that on his deathbed, as it were, my Hon. colleague is now supporting this program. I am also very happy to receive his suggestion.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on Friday, April 15, meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.']
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 4,624.



Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Is the Minister of National Revenue aware that charitable organizations must pay sales tax on their own publications and (a) if so, is he planning to rescind this sales tax (b) if not, what measures is he planning to help the approximately 57,000 charities affected by this tax?
2.	How much revenue does the Minister expect to raise by taxing public education material?
3.	Was the Minister contacted by the Canadian Cancer Society regarding this matter and, if so, what was the Minister's response to their concerns?
 *


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) on Friday, April 15, meets the requirements of the Standing Order as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition prepared by the Mackenzie Delta Dene Regional Council. It has over 500 signatures, primarily from Aklavik, Arctic Red River and Fort McPherson. The petition opposes development on the north slope, in particular Gulfs application for a port at Stokes Point. It supports the Berger recommendations and the National


Pierre Bussières: 1.
Yes, since January 1, 1981, the sales tax exemption formerly provided in the Excise Tax Act for goods enumerated under tariff item 69605-1 has been repealed. A study is being conducted by the Department of Finance.
2.	Revenue figures are not maintained on a product by product basis. It is therefore impracticable to reasonably estimate the amount of revenue raised by taxing public education material.
3.	Yes, and the Minister informed the Society that the sales tax exemption formerly provided in the Excise Tax Act for the goods enumerated in Customs Tariff item 69605-1 was repealed effective January 1, 1981. Prior to that date several social service organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society were extended the duty and tax free benefits relating to this tariff item. The replacement provisions, i.e., Sections 12 and 13 of Part III of Schedule III to the Excise Tax Act, for many of the goods previously allowed sales tax exemption under tariff item 69605-1 are not available to social service organizations because such organizations are not among the institutions specifically named in the new exempting provisions as being entitled to the benefits. As a result, the Canadian Cancer Society was informed it was required to purchase or import such taxable printed matter tax paid.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

April 18, 1983
Supply


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to live up to the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980, and for its conscious disregard for the practices of Parliament and the Constitution of Canada, and urges the government to prorogue the current, unconstitutional Session of Parliament, convene a new Session, and outline its policies before Parliament in a Speech from the Throne.
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, before the House recessed for the luncheon break I was talking about the leadership that this Government has shown in fulfilling its commitments under the Throne Speech. I was, quite frankly, addressing one area where we have not been able to live up to our promise. That has to do with reducing the deficit and I was explaining why.
I was explaining that during tough times more money is needed for social assistance, more money is needed for job creation, and we were trying to make the effort to get industry back on track in the international marketplace. I was putting in perspective the reasons for the six and five program. I want to spend a few minutes talking about that program.
The first move under the six and five program was to limit federal employees-and this was done as an example-to wage increases of 6 per cent and 5 per cent over the next two years. When we brought this program in, it was not a popular move. When it was first introduced we heard howls of indignation from Members opposite.
Then we limited pension and Family Allowance increases to 6 and 5 per cent, although we did take care of the increase in the supplementary pension payments and the child tax credit so that those with the greatest need would not be subject to these constraints.
What we did basically was to call on all Canadians to help those most in need. What happened? We had many hoots and howls of indignation. We went one step further. The Government said that increased funding for new job creating programs would have to come from cutbacks in other Government programs. Therefore, we find increased job creation expenditures in the June, 1982 budget and the October statement which were funded by cutbacks in defence, foreign aid and
energy programs. We heard even more howls from Members opposite when those events occurred.
Now the Opposition appears to have changed its tune to some extent. The Provinces apparently believe in the six and five program because virtually every Province has put in place a similar form of restraint program. The private sector obviously believes in the six and five program because over 200 companies and 40 national associations have expressed support and introduced some form of restraint in their respective industries. It is well known that the public believes in the six and five program, as recent public opinion polls have shown. It goes without saying that now that the Opposition claims it has always believed in the six and five program, its statements have a bit of a hollow ring.
So much for the deficit issue. I would like to close by saying a few words about why this session has gone on for so long. I say this quite apart from the reasons I referred to this morning, namely the bells, the constitutional stalemate and the 70 to 80 speakers at second reading stage of a couple of Bills.
The answer is pretty simple when you consider that the equivalent of 25 days were spent in discussion of the income tax amendments, a debate that stretched from November, 1981 to March, 1983. The answer is pretty simple when you consider that we spent weeks and weeks discussing changes to the National Housing Act, changes that included the mortgage assistance program for home owners in need.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: You can tell I am getting close to the bone, Mr. Speaker, when they start to howl on the other side. The answer is pretty simple when you realize that time and again we had to introduce time allocation motions to limit debate on the Small Business Investments Grants Act, the supplementary borrowing authority and a host of other Bills, yet we frequently hear the question asked about what we are doing for small business.
The answer becomes pretty serious when you consider the consequences. Home owners who were at the point of being evicted had assistance delayed because Members opposite wanted debate, headlines and political points rather than action, getting this legislation into place, legislation that was needed. Preferential loans to small businesses and social and Unemployment Insurance payments were put at risk because those opposite wanted to play politics. Pensioners with life savings were denied interest income because Members opposite were too busy playing games.
The answers for delays, the answers for long sessions are pretty simple and pretty serious. I hope when Members opposite meet someone in the situations I just referred to- distressed home owners, Unemployment Insurance recipients, small-businessmen who needed those programs to be put in place-they are prepared to explain their obstruction and insensitivity.
April 18, 1983

I think it is fair to say that this Government has been hit, unfortunately, with the worst recession since the great Depression. Notwithstanding that, we have shown leadership, stability and sensitivity. If that means a long session because of this obstruction, then that is what it means; but that is what strong leadership is all about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member rising to ask a question?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary read very diligently from a prepared statement. I know he was somewhat forced into reading it, but I am sure he has some opinions of his own. He made a fairly great issue over the fact that the Government had provided assistance to farmers, small-businessmen and so on. How can he commend the action of the Government in the face of a very dramatic rash of bankruptcies in the farm community and business community as well as the personal bankruptcies that have occurred in this country? The Hon. Member was in the House this morning when I spoke and I read the statistics.
What are we to tell these people who have faced the severity of bankruptcy? Over 400 farmers declared bankruptcy in 1982. There is a suggestion to the effect that for every one who declares bankruptcy, there are probably ten others who go out of business voluntarily. Since the Parliamentary Secretary so vigorously defended the policies of his Government, can he give us some idea what we on this side should tell those who have faced such a disastrous calamity?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to hear from the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I, like many on this side of the House, regret that he is not a candidate for the leadership of his Party. I know he would be a strong candidate and one whose candidacy we would all welcome.
I come from Toronto. I am not an expert on farming, but I do note by looking at


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You are not an expert on much.


David P. Smith: Well, my father came from the Ottawa Valley and his family were farmers. I do note that in 1982 there was over $208 million loaned out under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
There is no easy answer to the question of bankruptcy. The answer obviously is that when you believe in a free market society, and we in this House do, the simple fact is that business goes in cycles. The entire Western world has been hit with a recession. Regrettably, bankruptcies accompany every recession. I suppose those Members on the other side of the House who do not particularly have the commitment to the private sector that we on this side of the House have would feel that Government should intervene more in society and bail everybody out all the time. We do not happen to believe in that kind of intervention. We have tried to provide programs that are available to some people who will, by virtue of them, perhaps be able to keep their heads above water during tough
Supply
times. That is a fact of life you are faced with when you have a free market society, and it is regrettable. But we have tried to create programs that will in fact provide some reasonable amount of relief, though it is not possible to bail everybody out all the time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, since the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is such a proponent of the free market economy, and I to take it that he is in opposition to the Canagrex Bill which his colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is proposing, which is really a massive intervention in the free market economy? Is the Parliamentary Secretary in opposition to that particular proposal?


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that Liberals are people who believe in social justice within a free enterprise fabric. What we try to do is strike a balance. I think that a program such as Canagrex, which is a combination of having Government help sell abroad the products that the private sector in Canada's agricultural community can produce, is an ideal combination that puts big Government to work on behalf of little guys who have initiative, who believe in the work ethic, and who want to have their products sold abroad, but because they are not big enough they are not really able to do so. I think that type of program is quite consistent with belief in the free enterprise system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he can define for us what in his estimation is a session and what in his estimation is a sitting, since this debate is all about the length of the session and the failure of the Government to bring in a new Speech from the Throne. There is a bit of confusion in my mind about that. As Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, how would he define a session or a sitting?


David P. Smith: Well, I think historically a sitting basically means a day. As I understand it, the reason for "sitting" becoming "session" from John Macdonald's motion in the Colonial Assembly in 1865 to the Act of Parliament in 1867 was that the Act was drafted by a professional draftsman who used the same words as used in the Bill of Rights in 1688 and 1699. I know my Hon. friend is quite familiar with that Act. I think if he traces the history of those two words, he will find that in fact there is a bit of inconsistency there.
A sitting as we now use it means a single day. A session more often than not has been equated to mean on a yearly basis. But I do not believe there is any hide-bound convention that suggests that it has to be that way.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, following up on my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I put it to my colleague across the aisle that surely he is not prepared to dismiss lightly, as indeed the Government Leader in the Senate was not prepared to dismiss lightly, the very strong objection that Senate Mcllraith, a former Liberal Cabinet Minister, raised to

April 18, 1983
Supply
the unprecedented length of this session. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary now if in all honesty he can justify the failure to bring in a Speech from the Throne in view of the unprecedented changes that have taken place since the last one in 1980, changes that have changed fundamentally the conditions with which the Government has to grapple. I would like to hear him justify very concisely, if he can, what appears to Senator Mcllraith to be an unforgivable breach of parliamentary custom and tradition going back to Confederation.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if my Hon. friend is suggesting that it is not desirable that three-year sessions become the norm, I fully agree with him. 1 think that that would not be a good practice were it to be turned into convention.
I think there are in fact very extenuating and unusual circumstances as to why this session has gone on for so long. These circumstances include the Constitution deadlock, the ringing of the bells incident, and a lengthy debate with 70 or 80 speakers from the Official Opposition alone on the borrowing authority Bill and the Income Tax Act, Acts which, to keep our financial House in order, simply had to be passed. We could not afford to prorogue and then start a new session and be obliged under the orders to have a lengthy debate on the Throne Speech when we had to get those financial Bills through.
So yes, it should not become a practice, but yes, there were extenuating circumstances in this particular instance.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) made much this morning and this afternoon of the Liberal Government keeping its promises and its commitments. I would like to deal with two such items.
First, I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the election campaign say very clearly that the increase in the price of gasoline at the pumps would not be as high as he said the Tories would charge, namely, less than 18 cents a gallon. Well, the increase in the price of gasoline is not 18 cents a gallon. Most people in Canada would have welcomed an 18 cents a gallon increase today. It has increased well over 90 cents a gallon and more than that in federal taxes.
Second, I heard both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) during the election campaign say with reference to capital gains that V-day would be moved from December 31, 1971 to December 31, 1973 at least. The Minister has made similar statements since. That promise has not been kept either. The Speech from the Throne said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must call to the Hon. Member's attention the limit on question period. If he hopes to get a response, the time period has now expired for questions.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I was just finishing off my question. That is why I was asking both questions at once. This is what it says: "All of these commitments will be kept, these pledges redeemed, the mandate fulfilled".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and answers has expired. May we continue with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be.


David P. Smith: Mr. Speaker, very briefly on the question of the price of gasoline, we can trot out figures and the other side can trot out figures and you can usually prove whatever you want to prove with statistics. I think in the final analysis whose figures you are going to believe really depends on trust. I happen to think that this side can point quite clearly to having negotiated the best possible deal with the Premier of Alberta. We heard so much about the Tories having a deal with the Premier of Alberta but we never heard the terms of it. If those terms existed, I would like to know what they were.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Answer the question. What did Trudeau say?


David P. Smith: Read the Halifax speech.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I heard him myself. Pretty hollow.


James Aloysius McGrath: Party at that time and that concern was pushed aside by the then Minister of Justice, now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). Section 5 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1981 states as follows:
There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
If that means that under the Constitution the House has to sit only one day a year, we are in deep trouble, Mr. Speaker. As the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) suggested, that would virtually destroy our concept of parliamentary democracy and responsible government. We would virtually be relegated to the status of a Supreme Soviet.
This speaks to our concern over omnibus Bills, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the ringing of the bells as one of the reasons for the unprecedented length of this session. He forgot to add the reason the bells rang for so long was that it was the only way this Party had to protect the right of Parliament to deal with specific items of legislation and not in an omnibus fashion. If that practice were not arrested the result could be that Parliament would be convened for one day to deal with a "welfare of Canada act" which would cover everything. We would pass that great omnibus Bill and ajourn to the next year. I believe that that is the way some so-called Parliaments function in totalitarian states. I do not believe that is the interpretation placed on this by the Government of Canada which framed the wording of the present Constitution. I believe that the wording, the thrust and the spirit of Section 20 of the old British North America Act is as valid today as it was when introduced.
We now have a session of unprecedented length, a session that is going into its fourth year. That has never happened before. If you examine the record of Parliament over the last 100 years or so, Mr. Speaker, you will find it has only been in times of minority Government that a session would extend a short time beyond a year. The situation we find ourselves in today is virtually without precedent.
It is interesting that this Parliament and this unprecedented session has had to sit by while the Government acted in an extra-legal fashion, in my humble opinion, in bringing in the VIA Rail integration of major rail passenger services in this country without an Act of Parliament. There still has been no legislation establishing VIA Rail. I suppose the Government will get around to dealing with that when it gets around to proroguing the session and bringing in a new Speech from the Throne.
It is not without interest either that, even though we find ourselves with the highest unemployment rate since the great Depression, there has been no legislation dealing with unemployment. We have the NEED Program, we have the Canada Community Development Program, we have the Student Employment Program, but it is interesting to note that even though the nomenclature of these programs changes every year, they all stem from the same program that was started without legislation at the commencement of the session. I refer to the Local Initiatives Program. The rules change every year because there is no statute law governing these make-work programs.
Supply
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is the arguments we have heard today from the Government House Leader and his Parliamentary Secretary are spurious, selfserving and cannot in any way justify the situation that exists.
I am a Member of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure which was set up to try to do something about our rules which have not been changed in any way since 1969 when the provisional rules that we are operating under became permanent with the invocation of closure. There is a substantial amount of goodwill within this Committee, Mr. Speaker. There is a degree of collegiality and non-partisanship that I have never witnessed in my 22 years in the House. Notwithstanding the work of the Committee-and we are now operating under recommendations from that Committee on a provisional, temporary basis and we have two or three reports before the House setting out further changes in the rules which have not been acted upon-it is my view that one of the reasons this Parliament has become the most angry, raucous Parliament in our history is that the Government has failed to bring in a new program to prorogue the session which, in fact, is Parliament's way of renewing itself. In other words, we start off the session with the Speech from the Throne. Some of the things in its are dropped along the way, somethings merge in legislative form which were not in the Speech from the Throne, but the Speech itself and the accompanying ceremony is Parliament's wway of getting its act together. It is an ongoing process of Parliament renewing itself with a new sense of priorities, because priorities change. Obviously the priorities of the country change, the priorities of the economy change and naturally the priorities of the Government have to change. The manifestation of this change in priorities is the Speech from the Throne opening a new session.
I think it is a valid theory that one of the reasons we find ourselves in the mess we are in today is the failure of the Government to prorogue Parliament, to bring in a new Speech with a new program outlining the Government's priorities, to deal with unemployment, with the housing crisis and the things we have had to deal with, many of them in an ad hoc way. I hope, and I say this in all sincerity, that the Government will take this argument seriously, because I do not believe we are going to accomplish very much in this session.
I do not believe there is a great deal more to be said for this session unless the Government is prepared to make a new start and, indeed, I believe it is too late for that, because a Government which has lost the confidence of the people of Canada, as this Government has, cannot really expect to regain the confidence of the House. Even though it may hold numerical strength, in terms of confidence votes, the fact of the matter is it does not enjoy the goodwill of the House, if you can express confidence in that way. Of course, that speaks to its inability to get its legislative program through.
Be that as it may, however, I still believe that the Government has a clear responsibility to prorogue this session, start a new session and outline its priorities, the budget coming

April 18, 1983
Supply
tomorrow notwithstanding. It should then outline its legislative program with respect to inflation, and with respect to some of the things relating to unemployment which have been dealt with in an ad hoc way.
I would like to go back, Mr. Speaker, to the one Throne Speech we have had during this session of Parliament. I go back, incidentally, to April 14, 1980, over three years ago. That speech dealt with a number of issues. It dealt with housing and, peripherally, problems with the fishing industry. We know of course what is happening in the fishing industry today. The Atlantic fishing industry is in a state of collapse, virtual bankrupt, waiting for the Government to act on the recommendation of the Kirby task force which was established over a year ago, and waiting for the Government to get on with the business of trying to restructure the industry to make it viable.
One of the issues dealt with in the Speech from the Throne three years ago was the issue of unemployment. I would like to read briefly from page 5 of Hansard for April 14, 1980, as follows:
One of the essential objectives of this Government is to put more people to work.
Halleluia!
Young people, women, natives, and the handicapped face special problems in finding jobs. To meet the needs of these groups, my Government will expand its employment program while using its resources more efficiently. There will be an increased effort to develop critical trade skills so as to better prepare today's labour force for tomorrow's jobs.
What is the record; what does it show? We had the promise, let us look at the performance. In a word, the performance is "dismal".
Since this recession started a year and a half or two years ago we have seen a direct loss of 550,000 jobs in this country. During the recession before that, back in the 1970s, we lost
500,000	jobs. It took us three or four years to regain those lost jobs. Regardless of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) promises tomorrow night, we can anticipate that the rate of recovery will be such that it will take at least that amount of time, if not longer, to recover these lost jobs. That does not say much for the prospects of the 1.6 million Canadians who are officially unemployed.
In addition to the 1.6 million people unemployed, of course, we have the discouraged workers, those who have given up looking for jobs and are not longer counted as unemployed. They are the so-called hidden unemployed. There is also the under-employed, those who are satisfied to get over the present crisis with part-time jobs. If you add all these numbers you have an unemployment rate of approximately 18.3 per cent, or over two million people. That is the performance following the promise made in the Speech from the Throne three years ago.
Surely, the failure of the Government to discharge that commitment it made three years ago would have at least been manifested in a new Speech from the Throne, a new beginning, a new sense of commitment. Even if the Government continues to fail in discharging that commitment, we would at least have the feeling here in the House and in the country that the Government was trying. We have not and do not have that
feeling during this session. We have the uneasy feeling that the Government is not trying.
In the year 1982 the level of employment in Canada was
359.000	below that of 1981. That was the first such year-overyear decline in a quarter of a century. In the previous six years, growth in employment averaged 275,000 jobs per year. On a sectoral basis, the one area which really offends and disturbs me as a Canadian is youth unemployment. I suppose it offends and disturbs all of us, especially at this particular time of year when young people are graduating from our universities and post-secondary institutions, coming onto the job market looking for summer in order to continue their education, with no prospects. Since the beginning of this session the level of employment among young people has dropped 401,000 or 14.8 per cent. We are now looking at a current unemployment rate among young people in the age group of 15 to 24 of 21.3 per cent.
In March of 1982 there were 492,000 unemployed young people. In March of this year the number of unemployed young people had risen to 621,000. All we have to do is look at the calendar, when we talk about 621,000 young people being unemployed, to know that that 600,000 will be joined by another half a million within a very short time, many of them coming into the permanent job market. Equally as important, many will be coming into the job market looking for work to help finance and sustain them as they continue their education.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a situation which should be addressed by this Government, not in terms of ad hoc programs-and they have their place-but in terms of programs which have some validity in law and which are above suspicion in terms of their application with no suggestion of pork-barrelling. We could all have faith, therefore, in the ability of such programs to attack the problem; specifically in this case to address the problem of helping young people find jobs to finance their education, to build careers, and to do all the things which are a part of the growth and lifestyle of this country.
I come from a Province which now has an official unemployment rate of 21 per cent. If you take into account the hidden unemployed, the discouraged workers, we are looking at a situation in which only three out of every four persons has a job. It could be even worse than that, but certainly one in four in my province today is unemployed. The situation in the Atlantic region is not much better. In Quebec, the number of discouraged workers, those who have given up looking for jobs because they believe no work is available, rose 93 per cent between 1981 and 1982. Last month, for example, Statistics Canada reported that there were 120,000 discouraged workers. For the same month one year ago Statistics Canada reported
92.000	discouraged workers. We see an increase in those who have given up of 34 per cent. What prospect do they have? What hope do they have?
If the Government were to prorogue this session after it brings in its budget, and the budget is criticially important, we would at least be offering some hope. Today we offer them
April 18, 1983

nothing but the dismal monthly unveiling of statistics which reflect gloom and doom in this country, and there is gloom and doom in the land, Mr. Speaker.
I could go on and speak about the long-term unemployed. That used to be an aberration in this country. It was something that used to be identified with the Atlantic Provinces, with the "have-not" Provinces. Long-term unemployment is today a national phenomenon. Let us take a look at what has happened. By "long-term unemployed", of course, we mean those people who have been unemployed for four months or more. Let us start with March of 1980. Of a total unemployment figure of 969,000, there were 375,000 long-term unemployed. That has grown consistently from March of 1980 to March of 1981, with 374,000 of 983,000, to March of 1982, with
505,000	of 1,200,000, to what it is today, with 907,000 people in this country who are long-term unemployed of an official unemployment figure of 1.6 million.
I say to the Government: End this session. Get on with the obligations to the people of this country. Bring in a new speech outlining the new priorities. Surely the Government has at least an obligation to the unemployed of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members wishing to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken? If not, the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons).


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) would have this House condemn the Government for its failure to live up to commitments made in the Throne speech. I refer to that part of the resolution particularly, because it must be literally mind-boggling for that Hon. Member or any Hon. Member representing the Conservative Party to make that kind of an allegation. They have gone around the country taking great credit for what they were allegedly able to do in so far as the consitutional initiative was concerned. I say to the Hon. Member for Simcoe North and others that at some point they ought to make up their minds. If they want to take credit for the constitutional initiative, they ought to realize that any success which that initiative had was achieved in this Chamber.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: On this side.


Roger Simmons: Therefore, either there has been a success or there has not been a success. One cannot argue out of both sides of one's mouth. That is what they are doing in this particular case.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We think we'll hear you being proven wrong by you right now.
Supply


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Saskatoon is in a lively mood today. He has much reason to be. I will come back to that.
I also find it to be a little inconsistent that the Hon. Member for Simcoe North would rise in his place today and make this particular resolution just three or four days after he had written a letter, with which we are all familiar now, in which he undertook on behalf of his colleagues in the Opposition to facilitate the passage of some legislation.
Once again I ask him, which is it that he wants? Does he want the legislation to die on the Order Paper or does he want to facilitate the passage of the legislation? With his knowledge of parliamentary reform and procedure, I am sure he is aware that if the session were to end today, for example, then all these pieces of legislation would die on the Order Paper and we would have to go back to square one, as it were, from a procedural standpoint. Therefore, does he want to facilitate passage of legislation or are these just words which are convenient for the moment? I suggest the words of this resolution are convenient for the present moment?


An Hon. Member:: Just words.


Roger Simmons: How does the Hon. Member square his advocacy that we ought to end this session forthwith, with the publicly known fact that tomorrow the Government proposes bringing in a budget? Does he not realize that implicit in his-


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is what frightens the country.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has been frightened by reality before.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have been frightened by Mr. Mac-Eachen many times.


Roger Simmons: She will be frightened again in June, at the leadership convention, by some more reality.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Oh, really? Tell me more.


Roger Simmons: Oh, I see that the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is awake, he who has the ability to say nonsense in the most compassionate terms. Nonsense, nevertheless, but he says it in the most compassionate way.


Donald W. Munro: You don't even know what compassion is.


Roger Simmons: In the most appealing way, he is able to convince people, as he convinced me during my days in Newfoundland, that he is a strong advocate of certain matters.
I can now see, Your Honour. I have been stalling all this while, waiting for my glasses to come back from the optometrist's.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is indicative of the Government.


Roger Simmons: Let me read those notes again.

April 18, 1983
Supply


Gordon Edward Taylor: Read it again. You've probably read it all wrong.


Roger Simmons: What I have said thus far, of course, has been straight from the heart. 1 did not need any glasses to see the inconsistency on the part of the Hon. Member for Simcoe North, because that is obvious to many people. I did not really need glasses to be reminded of what I heard from the Hon. Member for St. John's East during my period in the Newfoundland House. I heard him here in Ottawa as a very strong advocate, for example, of consumer matters, that kind of thing which is shown on television. He and I share exactly the same concern. What disullisioned me was that when his Party formed the Government, albeit briefly, there was no initiative from him or his Government to address the matter which he so much decried during his period in Opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: You didn't give us a chance, Roger.


Roger Simmons: The argument is always that they never had a chance. They will not say it in this House, but they say privately when speaking of their good friend, Mrs. Pigott that they never had a chance to do many other things. She had the patronage list all ready.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That didn't stop Arthur Erickson or Donald Macdonald or-


Roger Simmons: However, it did not proceed as far as they had hoped. Therefore, they must now officially be against patronage, because they were a little slow in getting on with the job at hand.
The record is clear that they are fairly slow at most things. I agree with the Hon. Member for St. John's East that they never had a chance, not the kind of chance they would need, because they would need years and years to do some of those things.


James Aloysius McGrath: How do you explain 30 per cent in the polls, Roger?


Roger Simmons: With regard to the particular issue of consumer matters upon which I touched in relation to the Hon. Member for St. John's East, I would have hoped that they might have seen as being the kind of priority that which he had seen in Opposition.
It is a well known game, an easy thing to say what could be done, what should be done or what would be done. However, it is a far different matter to put one's money where one's mouth is. That requires a bit of courage. In that particular respect, the courage was lacking or the priority was not there, because we still have the same kind of thing which the Hon. Member for St. John's East so long decried in Opposition. It could have been changed had he followed through with his stated convictions on the matter.
It is really mind-boggling to hear the Hon. Member for Simcoe North speaking of our failures, as he puts them, to live up to commitments. Has he not done the very simple exercise that I have done or have had done on my behalf? Has he not
done the very simple exercise of taking, statement by statement, the commitments and the undertakings in the Throne Speech of 1980, and comparing or relating them to Government actions since then?
I hold in my hand a document comprising about 28 or 30 pages. Very concisely and without a lot of verbage, it says, "Here was the promise, the commitment. Here is the action which flows from it". I could take the House, were there the time, through literally dozens of quotations from the Throne Speech of 1980, quotations relating to home mortgages and housing. I could remind the House of the program whereby the Government undertook to guarantee repayment of the amount of interest deferred in the case of homeowners whose gross debt service ratio exceeded 30 per cent. I could do likewise for commitments related to additional rental units. I could do likewise for other initiatives in the housing area, the home renovation plan, for example, the new initiative which flowed from our commitment in 1980. I could do likewise concerning initiatives in farming and small business and, particularly, the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which renews that program for another three years and increases the loan maximums available to farmers from $75,000 to $100,000.
However, by doing so I would make a very elementary mistake, the mistake of assuming that Tories would ever be confused by the facts, the simple mistake of believing that they would want to hear anything that would rebut the charge. They want to carry on in their own merry way stating the big lie over and over again to Canadians.
I invite them instead, to get their facts straight before making those charges, and realize for example that the commitment this Government made in the Throne Speech to raise the Guaranteed Income Supplement to the Old Age Security Pension by $35 a month as of July 1, 1980 was met on June 5, 1980 when we put legislation through the House to keep that commitment.
Have we heard in today's speeches any acknowledgement that perhaps some commitments have been kept? Are they so naive as to think that the public, from whatever segment, believes what they say about this Government?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Thirty per cent of them.


Roger Simmons: Are they so naive as to think that everybody out there believes everything they say?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Only 50 per cent.


Roger Simmons: She talks, Mr. Speaker, and she talks. She does not say anything but she talks. I say to my good friend from Kingston and the Islands that we have a system-


Donald W. Munro: You should have.


Roger Simmons: -for electing governments in this country. It is not a government by polls. Her own erstwhile leader said the



April 18, 1983

equivalent to that when he was the Prime Minister and the polls were not showing him in a very kind light at that particular time. How selective they are in the use of polls from time to time. I say to her to stop revelling in yesterday's realities or fantacies, as the case may be. One of these days when the Government's mandate is exhausted we will put it to the test.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Reluctantly.


Roger Simmons: With enthusiasm. We are waiting for the Tories to get their house in order.


David P. Smith: It will be a long wait.


Roger Simmons: We will wait until they get the number of factions in that Party reduced from 30 to the usual four or five. There is one faction that believes it should privatize Petro-Canada, another faction that believes perhaps it should not, and a faction that says perhaps it should study it some more. There is the faction that says "On to Jerusalem" and the faction that says "no, perhaps we should not go to Jerusalem". That Party went to Waterloo instead.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We did not go to Watergate anyway.


Roger Simmons: The Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) rises from the ashes again.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell us about Buchanan?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have no adverse comments to make about the Tory Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Buchanan. The Hon. Member may have some adverse comments. He invites me to talk about John Buchanan but I have nothing adverse whatsoever to say about him.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is Judd.


Roger Simmons: He saw in the Cape Breton affair the opportunity to provide jobs for the people in Nova Scotia using Government of Canada money. Does the Hon. Member now attack that man, one of his fellow Tories? The Member for Bow River may want me to become disparaging about a good Tory who serves one part of the country fairly well, but I will not do that. I will tell him, if he can stand to hear it, some of the facts of the legislation that we have been able to move through the House.


Donald W. Munro: Tell us about Judd.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some difficulty relating the most recent remarks of the Hon. Member to the subject matter of the resolution.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I cannot relate anything he has said to the motion.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Anything he says at any time.


Roger Simmons: Still they mumble, Mr. Speaker.
In the last few days even the Toronto "Mop and Pail", officially known as The Globe and Mail, found some nice
Supply
things to say about the Government. It identified in print, no less, some of the promises that have been kept. It said in passing, "the Tories have tried to block". The word is out about the Tories. Even the Toronto "Mop and Pail" has seen through what those Members over there are up to.
Our nation has been through a very trying economic time. It is not surprising that the Government in power has drawn a fair amount of the flack and tends to get a fair amount of the blame for the economic woes of the country. An intriguing thought to consider is, would things have been different if the Tories had been in power during that period?


David P. Smith: Yes. They would have been worse.


Roger Simmons: I say they would have been decidedly different had the Tories been in power.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We would not have sent all the rigs to the U.S.A., I can assure you.


Roger Simmons: We have seen a Government floundering and going in both directions at the same time. I mentioned their position on Petro-Canada as one example of the kind of decisiveness that that Government would have exercised. They are always on both sides of every issue.
There obviously would have been a disregard for the wellbeing of those on fixed incomes. I say that in view of the statements of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson), and others who want to cut back on the social expenditures of the Government. Their views are publicly on the record. However, they would not come so close as to outline details of what those cut-backs would be because that would put the lie to their argument. In order to make massive cut-backs in public expenditures they would have to effect those on fixed incomes. We have categorically said that we are not prepared to do that.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You did it.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Bow River wants to spread the lie that we did it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You are the one who is lying.


Roger Simmons: We did not. Those who need assistance receive it from the Government. We saw to it that the income supplement of those people who depend on it was adequately protected.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You cut the supplement on the OAS.


Roger Simmons: I ask the Hon. Member to contradict that with a straight face.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You cut the superannuates. Wake up.


Roger Simmons: In what other ways would things be different if the Tories were in power? I can say once again categorically

April 18, 1983
Supply
that there would be far less compassion for the people of Canada. Again, I base that on the evidence of what the Tories did to their own in broad daylight on national television in Winnipeg. I shudder to think what they would do to the taxpayers behind closed doors. I shudder to think what they would do to the unprotected Canadians behind the secrecy of a closed Cabinet door, if they will skiffer fellow Tories in broad daylight.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Keep pulling red herrings across the path.


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member for Bow River is talking about red herrings. He would neither recognize the specie nor the colour.
The motion also discusses "this Government's alleged disregard for the practice of Parliament". Is that not touching? Do not make me laugh. Of all the people who should be talking about disregard for Parliament! I have heard of the pot calling the kettle black. That saying applies here. Are we to forget so soon the parliamentary terrorism that took place in the House when the constitutional Bill was before the Chamber? Do we so soon forget that the parliamentary rules were the last things in the minds of Members of the Opposition at that time when they used physical force, threat and intimidation? Those were the instruments they used to hijack this Parliament in the full view of the nation.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We made you refer to the Supreme Court. You wanted to keep it out of the court.


Roger Simmons: If there is one thing about which Tories are religiously consistent, it is their hyprocrisy.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Tories are firm believers that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That is exactly what you are doing now.


Roger Simmons: Take the lie they repeat about the 18-cent tax on gasoline.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You put on 90 cents.


Roger Simmons: They conveniently forget that what the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) talked about in that budget was not an 18-cent increase. He said that no matter what the price was they would put an 18-cent tax on top of that. If the Tories want to talk about the amount of taxes on gasoline, why do they not point to what their Tory friends in Ontario are doing for example? They have a 20 per cent ad valorum tax on gasoline.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You put on 90 cents.


Roger Simmons: Yes, I am sure we put on Bill Davis' tax in Ontario. Come down to earth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You put on 90 cents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Never.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is rising to ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, for a minute I was worried that the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) had re-emerged with a new manifestation, had been born again. Gradually I was reassured as he emerged as the old reliable Member we have come to expect in this House in terms of his ability to get down to the facts. I do not say that to suggest that I have no respect for him as a person. I do. I am talking about him as a parliamentarian. I must say he stretches my imagination sometimes. Could the Hon. Member explain to the House why if the situation is as bad as he suggests it is with respect to the performance of this Party and its public image, his Party has been down consistently in the polls, to the point that today it enjoys only 30 per cent of the electorate, whereas the Tory Party has grown consistently in the polls, to the point today that it enjoys the support of 50 per cent of the electorate?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for St. John's East, for whom I have respect. I thank him for calling me reliable. He is right; but old, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: The Hon. Member asks how I explain. It is very simple. More people elected to show their preference for the Tories than the Liberals in their response is the polls.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are right. I cannot quarrel with that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-Air Transport- Mirabel file-Government position on cargo and improved access highways; the Hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper)-Labour Conditions-Number of young people emigrating. (b) Youth employment programs; (c) Number of jobs created; the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd)-Air Transport-Mirabel file.
April 18, 1983



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to live up to the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980, and for its conscious disregard for the practices of Parliament and the Constitution of Canada, and urges the Government to prorogue the current, unconstitutional Session of Parliament, convene a new Session, and outline its policies before Parliament in a Speech from the Throne.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested as I listened to the words of the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons). I listened with real feeling because of the reaction they evoked. He used such words as "we, the Government, will deal with people with compassion"-


Roger Simmons: True.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -and "we will look after those in need." Then at one point he said "the Government is not slow at handling patronage." He seems somehow to have combined those two thoughts, that is looking after people in need and the Government's decisiveness with regard to patronage. What we come up with is a list on the compassionate side of the Government dealing with people like Arthur Erikson; Donald Macdonald; Alastair Gillespie; Joel Bell; Maurice Strong; Don Jamieson; Michael Pitfield; Jim Coutts; Martin O'Connell; Peter Stollery; Jack Austin; Judd Buchanan; the list could go on and on and on.


James Aloysius McGrath: And the saints come marching in.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is the way in which this Member and the Liberal Government deal with compassion for those in need.


Donald W. Munro: Line up at the trough, boys.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I must say that is a shameful performance when one looks at the real need in this country, when one considers the hundreds of thousands, the millions of people out there who are desperately in need.
What does an Hon. Member on the Government side do? He justifies the fact that the Government never has to produce a Throne Speech in this House of Commons. It has been three years since the Government produced a Speech from the Throne, three years since it brought forward what had traditionally been an annual document in the parliamentary process. There was a time when even a Liberal Government would have felt it necessary to outline to the House and to the nation the nature of its legislative proposals for the current year. The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) does not seem to think that is necessary. I have to tell him that has been traditional in parliamentary democracies. Other parliamentary democracies and jurisdictions follow that procedure.
Supply
They still think that is the normal thing to do. Governments in such countries feel it is incumbent upon them to inform the people of their intentions. They feel it is right and proper. It is part of the process, for the edification of the Hon. Members opposite, of being accountable. Accountable is a word that has been removed from the lexicon of this Government.
I stress, Sir, that the practice of yearly presentations of governmental intentions is normal procedure for a responsible Government. But this Government in whatever it does is neither normal nor responsible. Abnormality and irresponsibility are the hallmarks that most characterize those who sit on the Government benches today. Along with that abnormality and irresponsibility there goes a degree of arrogance that is absolutey unmatched in its scope.
Can't you just hear these denizens of power, Sir, scornfully saying to the masses, "What do you mean, give you a Throne Speech every year? We gave you one three years ago. Be satisfied with that." The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cronies can carelessly dismiss the Canadian public, parliamentary tradition and governmental responsibility in a single breath or with a single gesture.
As in the long Parliament of Oliver Cromwell, this Prime Minister feels that a Throne Speech once a decade is sufficient. But having produced only one such document in three years, surely the least we can expect from this Government is that it make every effort to carry it out, to live up to the expectations it created.
That Throne Speech of April, 1980, makes for interesting reading. But I am not urging all Canadians to rush off and get a copy for tonight's bedtime reading, not unless they want to cry themselves to sleep. But when you read it, Mr. Speaker, you have to wonder at the ponderous and resonant phrases that echo through it. With what rapture and excitement it predicted Canada's entry into the decade of the 1980s. The Throne Speech of April, 1980, outlined a program of action designed to provide for greater security for the elderly and expanded opportunity for youth; equality for women and a national development policy that would provide jobs and stimulate growth. Then going on to extoll the Parliament's virtue the Throne Speech contained this sentence:
All these commitments will be kept, these pledges redeemed, the mandate fulfilled.
Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker.
Canadians have been deceived and misled by the Government and its spurious pledges. Here is the reality of that so-called program for action. The first part of it was greater security for the elderly. Today in Canada there are 650,000 elderly Canadians, people over the age of 65, who are living below the poverty line. That number will drastically increase, as we have a rapidly aging population. Those people are the forgotten generation by the Government.

April 18, 1983
Supply
The next part of this so-called program of action was expanded opportunities for youth. The Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) referred to the desperate plight of young people today. Approximately 660,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are out of work. They are the lost generation, lost from any care of concern that the Government would direct toward them.
The third part of the so-called program of action was equality for women. It is there in words. Although the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's did not recognize it, Clause 28 was inserted in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the combined efforts of the Opposition Parties, not by anything the Government did. It is there in words but it is not carried out in action. Today women in the country earn only half of what the average male earns-$7,600 per year compared with $14,981. Until there is economic equality, there is no such thing as real equality for women.
There was the fourth part of that program for action, a national development policy that would provide jobs and stimulate growth. Three years ago there were a million Canadians out of work. Today there are two million, and of that two million, as the Hon. Member for St. John's East said, a million are long-term unemployed having been without jobs for more than three and a half months. In the last year alone over half a million jobs have been lost from the labour force and our growth rate has dropped immeasurably.
Back in 1980 the Government intoned the following words, "all these commitments will be kept, these pledges redeemed, the mandate fulfilled". What a sick, cruel joke the Government of the day perpetrated on the Canadian public, just as the Government itself is a sick, cruel joke, particularly to the two million Canadians who are out of work and to whom the Prime Minister had the gall to say last week, the economy was performing very well. Who does he think he is kidding?
However, there is one statement in this Throne Speech which was prescient. It read:
-Canadians will accept sacrifice to meet the economic challenges of the 1980s, but they will not accept injustice.
Indeed, Canadians have had to accept sacrifices, the like of which they have never been called upon to accept before. In the past few years they have had to accept the sacrifice of losing jobs, of losing homes and of seeing families break up, all because of the inability of the Government to carry out the economic pledges it made to Canadians three years ago. Indeed, these two million Canadians who are out of work and these hundreds of thousands who have lost their homes, who have become the sacrificial lambs which the Government has seen fit to offer up on its altar of high interest rates and nationalization. Indeed, they have had to sacrifice.
What the Government said in the Throne Speech about calling upon Canadians to sacrifice has indeed been carried out, but not in the way the Government intended, and certainly
not in the way the people of the country anticipated when they heard the Throne Speech three years ago.
There is a certain sick, black humour to all this because the section to which I refer in the Throne Speech was headed up with the title the Government chose to give it, "Putting People First". It has put them first all right. The elderly were commandeered as the front-line troops in the fight against inflation. Young people were marched out by the hundreds of thousands to join the ranks of the unemployed. The concept of family was attacked by the Minister responsible for the status of women who made such unbelievable statements as: "What contribution is she" -a homemaker- "making to society if they are childless", or "Do you, a working woman, want to pay so that someone else can stay at home", and she called staying at home "a luxury". These are the things that have emanated from putting people first according to the Government, putting them first in a very different way than Members on this side of the House would regard putting people first.
There are a couple of specific commitments the Government made in those heady days of April 1980 when it was lusting for power. The Government promised-and the Prime Minister and his colleagues made a big thing of it during the election campaign-to carry out pension reform. The Throne Speech played up that theme with these words:
Work must begin immediately to design better methods of providing flexible, portable, and secure pensions both in the private and public sectors. To start this process, my Government will soon release a major study on the Canadian pension system.
That was in April 1980. We now know what the Government meant by soon. It took them two and a half years to release a study on pension reform, a paper which I might add was rewritten a number of times and downgraded in its urgency.
According to the Throne Speech the Government promised to start work immediately on improving the income retirement system in the country. Today, three years later, a parliamentary Committee has finally been set up to start that job, once again to study the process of pension reform, a process which many of us consider to be the greatest and most urgent social need of the 1980s. The Committee has begun its work. It is scheduled to present its recommendations at the end of 1983. When those recommendations are presented to the Government, I presume they will be subject to a thorough and intensive period of review by Cabinet. Subsequently there will have to be a series of federal-provincial meetings about them because pension reform is a shared jurisdiction. Then legislation will have to be drafted and debated, all of which takes time. The way the Government moves, it will take weeks and months of time. It would seem that in speaking of the urgency and the immediacy of pension reform in the last election campaign the Government was really looking to the next election campaign.
April 18, 1983

I assure the House that its lack of process in this vital human need will indeed become an election issue, not in the way the Government thinks and not in the way it predicted. Its procrastination on this vital issue, its delay and lack of interest-these things which have characterized the Government's approach to pension reform-will be major issues in the next election campaign.
What has happened in the interim, during these three years, is that thousands of Canadians have moved toward retirement, toward that period when they are unable to provide for their own needs. They do not have an adequate income because in the years when they might have been able to do that the opportunity was not there.
That is what happened during the three year period in relation to this very definite promise the Government made to work on pension reform immediately. Three years later, we see nothing but procrastination and delay. Only now is a parliamentary committee beginning to study this issue. This is an absolute disgrace for those people who will be locked into their retirement years without adequate income and without selfdignity. They have been robbed of it because of the inactivity of this Government.
Another pledge was made to Canadians in that great Throne Speech. Is it any wonder the Government is so hesitant to bring in another Throne Speech when it sees so much that is still in abeyance, not yet acted upon. In its role as a major employer in Canada, it said:
-my Government will play a leadership role by implementing affirmative action measures in the Public Service.
I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how lacking in progressing with affirmative actions this Government has been. We have had three years of delay, three years of not implementing any kind of analysis in the great majority of Government departments with regard to affirmative action. Only in three Departments has there been any analysis or plan of action drawn up. At the present time, there are no guidelines for the Government to implement affirmative action programs throughout the various Departments. What has been the result? Unfortunately, the statistics bear out the Government's lack of action in providing any kind of leadership in the way of affirmative action.
There was some slight improvement in the lot of women in the Public Service between 1975 and 1980, but it was minimal at the executive, senior, intermediate and junior levels of employment. Only at the lowest level, the administrative support level, did women increase in number. The number of women in the low paid job ghettoes increased. That is exactly what should not have occurred. Any kind of leadership role would have reversed that to bring women into the higher categories of the Public Service. That has not happened.
I said that one of the reasons the Government has been loath to bring in another Throne Speech is that it has been so inadequate in carrying out the pledges it made in the Throne Speech of April 1980. It is not enough that the Government think only about Throne Speeches. It ought to be thinking
Supply
about how to take itself out of this House and away from making a further mishmash of governing this country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are Hon. Members rising to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken?


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit my surprise that the Official Opposition could do no better than the motion it has placed before the House today. We hear a lot of discussion about allowing Opposition Parties to bring important matters forward. This is respected within our parliamentary rules and procedures. However, to have a convoluted motion brought forward by the Official Opposition on the first day of this week is more than I can appreciate. It does give us an opportunity, however, to correct the record with regard to many of the points the Opposition has attempted to make in the debate thus far.
Canadians across this country will recall the tactics employed by the Official Opposition in these last years. Points were made in the press and by Members on all sides of the House regarding the tactics employed during the bell ringing episode.
We are participating in a session which has included 492 sitting days, an average of 164 per annum, 16 fewer than the 180 provided for in the calendar year 1983 by the recommendation of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure.
Accomplishments heading the list include the patriation of the Constitution and the enshrinement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. We have passed 162 Bills, including 129 Government Bills, 19 Private Members' Public Bills and 14 private Bills. The subjects include the Bank Act revision, Old Age Security improvements, the Canada Post Corporation, the National Energy Program and the Young Offenders' Act. The Canada Ports Corporation was debated for over 12 years. We finally have the Bill.
The public sector spending restraints legislation which was passed affects virtually every identifiable group. All of these measures have had a positive effect on every identifiable group in Canadian society. There was the development of the parliamentary task force to investigate alternative energy. There is legislation dealing with the handicapped, employment opportunities, North-South relations, regulatory reform, Indian selfgovernment and pension reform. This is in addition to the work of the special and standing committees. There was the SubCommittee on Defence which studied the status of the reserves, and other important matters were dealt with with despatch. This has demonstrated leadership, about which the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) was so preoccupied and concerned.
I am really surprised not only at the lack of imagination of the Official Opposition in bringing before the House nothing more substantive than the motion before us, but by the Hon. Member's gall in bringing the subject of leadership to the floor of the House at this time. Considering the headlines in the last month or so, I thought that would be the last topic she would like to talk about during the course of the debate today.
Obviously the Official Opposition laboured considerably in trying to come up with something to be debated in the House.

April 18, 1983
Supply
This subject shows a lack of initiative, lack of creativity, lack of innovation, lack of imagination and lack of will. This convinces me that they are not only tired, but exhausted of all possible energies needed to bring forward something that would be of substantive contribution to the operation of Parliament.
The other day they had an Opposition motion, which could have contained a very important topic. The Opposition took up the whole day talking about what it would like to see done about tourism. I support tourism. There is no question but that it is a very important subject. In the Atlantic Provinces alone, tourism is among the top three revenue earners of that area. There is no question in anybody's mind-


An Hon. Member:: We are all for tourism.


Maurice James Harquail: Yes, all for tourism, and always have been. I think Canada has an excellent reputation for providing hospitality to all who come to this great country. With the problems the country is facing today, if the best the Opposition can do on an Opposition Day is bring in the subject of tourism to give a few Members an opportunity to talk about special projects in their own particular ridings, that to me shows a complete lack of understanding of the role and responsibilities of the Opposition.


An Hon. Member:: They are desperate.


Maurice James Harquail: Yes. That has been said before and I think it proves the point. It is a desperate Party. Last week it was tourism, this week they want to talk about the Speech from the Throne. All winter the Opposition did not cease calling for a budget. Now Hon. Members contradict themselves by proposing a delay of the budget so they can get on with a Speech from the Throne. It has been said many times that they cannot have it both ways. At some point they must have a discussion with their Acting Leader, and a meeting with their House Leader, to try at least to get their act together and decide what they want to proceed with first.
First, they hounded for months about the need for a budget. With present conditions of the country and the economy, no one could disagree that we must have a budget. Everybody knows that the Government is now prepared. Tomorrow evening we will have the budget.
The 16 days of bell-ringing-16 days of tying up, hijacking, hostage-taking, call it what you will-delaying in fact the business of this House, flies in the face of democracy and in the face of the very principles of this House. These people who hold up so highly the importance of protecting the rights of the people and the importance of this institution by delaying the proceedings of the House for 16 days, were denying the Canadian people legislation. We could have had two Speeches from the Throne during that 16-day period and really tried to accomplish something.
I am convinced Mr. Speaker, as are all Canadians who follow the political scene, and are concerned with the future of the country of the total confusion that exists within the Official Opposition. We know the pains its Members are now
going through to provide the country with a leader for that Party. They have totally turned away from the responsibilities and the duties they have to the day-to-day workings of this House, by not producing substantive motions on Opposition Days. That, I think, has to be of concern to everyone.
Another element to be considered is that perhaps there are hidden tactics within their motion today. They have asked for a budget. We are to have a budget delivered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) tomorrow night. They are asking for a Speech from the Throne at the same time. Perhaps it is to give some of their hopeful leadership candidates that eight extra days to roam the country looking for delegates. One does not really know. One cannot see any logic so one cannot conclude what exactly it is they want or what they are attempting to do.
Tomorrow evening the Minister of Finance will present his budget. This will be the fourth budget in this session, coupled with two economic statements. This means the Government has reported to the House on the state of the economy on a semi-annual basis.
Similarly, at the beginning of each trimester, the Government House Leader outlined in writing the legislative intentions of the Government. He has also adopted the practice of making this outline public. This has not produced much cooperation from the Official Opposition. The response every time has not been to express their opposition in an effective manner by voting, but by talking on and on when they really do not have any idea what they want to say. Rather, as I mentioned earlier, they ring the bells and assault and insult the Chair. That has to be the most unacceptable act in the proceedings of this House. No Hon. Member should tolerate that, and yet that is what we had to suffer through.
On the Bank Act revisions, for instance they took 14 hours and 22 minutes on Second Reading, 50 hours and 15 minutes in committee, 18 hours and 12 minutes at Report Stage and 6 hours and 10 minutes at Third Reading. They then used more than 90 hours on a Bill that had been before the House and the public for over five years. Is that an indication of their spirit of co-operation?
There are many other examples of this type of needless delay by a Party whose Members talk of getting on with the job of getting things done, of doing things for Canadians and trying to help them, yet march into the House and deliberately filibuster and delay effective legislation.
There have been many examples of this kind. The Opposition has been so unco-operative it has been necessary to use other rules, not because we like to have to use them, but because this has been forced upon Members of Parliament. By its actions, the Opposition has held the Canadian people as hostages, people who have vested in them a certain trust. That has to be a sad commentary on what the Opposition is trying to do.
All Canadians are currently very much aware of the action that was taken as a result of the Speech from the Throne, the legislation that has been accomplished over these many history-making days. These accomplishments include responding to the individual needs by promoting greater security for
April 18, 1983

the elderly, expanding opportunities for the young, equality for women, the achievement of a secure energy supply at a fair price for all Canadians, the promotion of a national development policy that would provide jobs, stimulate growth, build on regional strength, increase Canadian ownership and control of our economy, strengthen national institutions while at the same time making them more responsive to provincial and regional goals, and ensure that Canada plays a vigorous part in the world beyond our borders. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has repeatedly made the point that we cannot operate as an island unto ourselves. We are a very important part of the world scene in all respects.
While this session has been the longest in Canadian history, it has been the most productive. There have been 137 Government Bills introduced in Parliament and, as I mentioned earlier, over 100 have received Royal Assent. The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) mentioned earlier the decisive action the Government has taken with respect to housing. We are all witnessing and enjoying the results of increased housing starts. That is playing a very major role in turning things around.
The inflation rate is down to the area of 6 per cent. We know that the Minister of Commerce and Development in the Ontario legislature made that statement a few weeks ago when he joined with the Canadian Government in telling Canadians how pleased he was that we were able to achieve this through co-operative measures. The federal Government's transfers to provinces and regions of the country are quite substantial.
This afternoon the Minister of Finance did not miss the opportunity to bring good news, in answer to a question during Question Period, about the low interest rates, now around 10 per cent, the prime rate at banks, the reduced interest on one-year mortgages and an attractive figure for five-year mortgages.
Definite action was taken on the commitment to small businessmen and farmers by amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Small Businesses Loans Act which received Royal Assent, and by the extention of the termination date for loans to be guaranteed by nine months, from June 30, 1982 to March 31, 1983. We saw action taken with respect to raising the deposit insurance limit from $20,000 to $60,000. Action has also been taken on the Special Farm Financial Assistance Program.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's spoke about action to protect the elderly citizens with respect to the Guaranteed Income Supplement. A special committee will study our pension system in a very detailed way, and a green paper is expected to be released early in 1983. The Special Parliamentary Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the 80s was appointed in May 1980 and reported in October 1981. Imaginative action was taken with respect to the Canada Community Services Projects and Canada Community Development Programs in the summer of 1980, and in January of 1982 there was an additional allocation of funds. As well
Supply
there is the summer employment program for youth which will be announced in the very near future.
These are all important programs to assist during the winter months, Mr. Speaker. University students will soon be in the market looking for employment and these programs will play a major role in assisting them in a difficult situation.
We have also seen an increase in the ILAP, announced jointly by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) in January 1981.
There is a range of other programs I could touch on with respect to women in non-traditional occupations, women's employment programs, affirmative action programs, a program for employment disadvantaged, for our native people, for our youth-every sector of society has been remembered and has benefited from the direct results that accrue to them from action taken by the Government arising out of the Speech from the Throne.
I began my remarks this afternoon by taking exception to the lack of creativity and imagination on the part of the Official Opposition in what has been brought forward for consideration today. They touched upon a subject of great importance to all Canadians. Once they find their way back after choosing a leader there may be some direction over there, but for the moment it leaves us in a very bad position in the House of Commons to have to consider a motion such as the one before us this afternoon.
While they talk about doom and gloom and preach the negative side of all of this, I can witness this afternoon the benefits that have been accruing to Canadians in every region of the country, certainly in the Atlantic region. I know from experience in my own Province, in the northern part of New Brunswick, that because of transfer payments from the federal Government we have been able to achieve much in terms of the general development agreement and various sub-agreements for agriculture, tourism and so on.
I would conclude by attempting something I know you will not allow, Mr. Speaker, in my remarks this afternoon. This brochure-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. In addition to the rule against displays, which the Hon. Member knew was going to be applied, unfortunately his time has expired. The Chair will now have to recognize Hon. Members for questions, answers and comments.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member if he can try his hand at distinguishing between sittings and sessions of this House. It is a matter of some concern that the term session has been dropped from the Constitution and has been replaced by the word sitting. This suggests, as the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) mentioned in his question to the Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's, that this could lead us into the unfortunate situation of having a sitting one day and having a

April 18, 1983
Supply
global bill presented to us and then sending us home for another year. I wonder whether the Hon. Member is prepared to comment on the difference between a sitting and a session, and whether the House has not perhaps gone beyond the normal parliamentary session within the terms of the previous Constitution.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I would be among the first to yield to the Hon. Member. He has been here several years and is experienced in Government. He appreciates the rules of the House and what is contained in the Constitution which we have made law in this country. I believe he is familiar with the Act and the rules as they apply to the very question he has placed before us this afternoon. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to that. He is a senior Member of the Opposition, so far be it from me to lecture him on the interpretation of sittings and sessions.
It is of no benefit to the country and of no benefit to this institution to be wasting the time of Parliament bringing in silly motions such as the one we are debating this afternoon. It is a delaying tactic. We witnessed that filibuster with respect to the bell ringing incident and the assault on the Chair. If this is all that occupies the minds of Hon. Members opposite, I will not delay the House any further.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Member, if he finds the motion so silly, why he wasted the time of the House for 20 minutes speaking on it?


Maurice James Harquail: This is the very essence of this important place, that we are here to do a job. I was elected to represent a very important part of this country. I am proud to be here representing the riding of Restigouche which I was referring to as my time expired. The Hon. Member knows that there is a certain onus of responsibility on the Opposition as well as on the Government in any democratic system. That is true in Canada. We accept our role and I would only hope that Hon. Members opposite would make our work a little more interesting by appointing Hon. Members to put sufficient time and effort into coming up with some thought-provoking motions which we could really deal with in the time which is allotted to us in the House.


@Acting Speaker: Questions and answers.


Mr. Clarke:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's comments and I appreciate very much his concern over the leadership of this Party. I wonder if he has given any thought whatsoever to the total lack of leadership on his side of the House?


Maurice James Harquail: Fifteen years ago last Friday we applauded one of the best leaders, one of the most dynamic and competent Prime Ministers the country will see for many years to come. The Hon. Member has given me an excellent opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to say something I wanted to say during the course of my remarks, but which I refrained from doing. The very fact things we have been able to achieve, arising out of the Speech from the Throne, have been achieved as a result of
the dynamic leadership of the Prime Minister. We are very proud of this fact. I am very pleased, and must thank my hon. friend from British Columbia, for giving me this excellent opportunity to make the statement that there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the Prime Minister has made the case for himself through his intelligence and his ability to achieve these things.
What I would like to put to the Hon. Member on the other side of the House, though, with respect to comments which have been made this afternoon, is the fact that his party, which plays the role of Official Opposition, and of which he seems to be proud to be a Member, has held three conventions in the last two years and has yet to produce a policy to indicate to the Canadian people where it stands on any issue. Despite the fact that his party has not been able to hold on to a leader, despite the fact that it, after nine months had to give up the Government, and despite the fact that it was not able to govern when given the opportunity, the Hon. Member has the audacity to rise this afternoon to put a question to me about leadership. I believe he should go back and do his homework, pick a leader and come back and try to put straight to the Canadian people what his Party would be able to do, before he puts a question to us with respect to our leader. I find it not only passing strange but a sad moment in Canadian history, that that Party, which is the Official Opposition of the Parliament of Canada in this House of Commons, has had in recent years three major policy conventions, and not one Canadian is able to identify what policies within the Party or what it stands for.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the Hon. Member opposite has not given any concern to the matter of leadership of his own Party. His Government has had some three years to demonstrate some ability to solve problems rather than to create them. I would like to ask the Hon. Member from New Brunswick if he is happy with the fact, if it should come to pass, of his leader leading his Party into the next election, whenever it might be?


Maurice James Harquail: That is something, Mr. Speaker, with which we are not faced at the moment. The Official Opposition seems to hold down a pretty good corner on posing hypothetical questions. There is no doubt in my mind that we will be ready for an election at any time it may be called by the Prime Minister, as it is his sole prerogative to do. That is the system. That is the time-honoured historical, respected position, there for us all to live by, and I accept it. I must say, however, Mr. Speaker, with respect to unity in Canada, there is one thing on which we are united. On that night in Winnipeg when their leader was removed from office in such a despicable way it was sad to watch, and it is sad to bring to mind this afternoon that a group of men and women doing such a thing in public. Yet now, a few short days since that activity, one member of that party poses questions as to what we on this side think of what another person might do. Let me tell him one thing in concluding my answer to the question. As we have been able to demonstrate in the past, when we are faced with a decision we
April 18, 1983

will make that decision with despatch. We will rise to the occasion with despatch, with action similar to that which we have been demonstrating on all of the issues we have been faced with, in a true democratic manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to watch representatives of the two old line parties in the House of Commons talk about the leadership crisis which faces the country. Unfortunately, Hon. Members of both Parties talked about individuals, whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was more hated or whether the combination of leadership hopefuls in the Tory Party represent any particular direction, and so on. What they missed out on was something much more important. It is not a matter of personality or Gallup polls. It is not a matter of how a Party deposes or imposes a leader what is really important is that this country does not have any economic leadership at all. When a motion is put before us by the Conservative Party I believe that is what the debate should be about. A Throne Speech is supposed to set the direction of the legislation, the budget, and other matters which will come before the House of Commons for debate, for discussion and in some cases for passage into legislation. What has happened in the three years and three or four days since we have had a Throne Speech is that this Liberal Government has wandered through our economic and political history.


Donald W. Munro: Staggering is the word.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes, perhaps the Hon. Member to my right is correct. Perhaps "staggered" is a much better word for describing the way this Government has led this country. Canadians, regardless of where they live in this country, do not have any trust or faith in the ability of this Government. They have no knowledge or idea of where this Government intends to take Canada.
The Throne Speech to which the Member referred, the speech which was made over three years ago, talked about strengthening the foreign Investment Review Agency. It talked about decreasing the deficit. It talked about decreasing unemployment. It talked about affirmative action programs. It talked about pension reform. It talked about a number of things, Mr. Speaker, and yet Government has not acted. It has had three years to fulfil its own self-imposed mandate. It has had three years to deliver the legislation, to deliver budgets, to deliver action in this House of Commons which would put forth the programs it promised. This Throne Speech was not something which was imposed upon the Government. This Throne Speech of April 14, 1980, was a speech written by the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and his aides. It was a direction which this Government promised the country, a promise which it broke, Mr. Speaker. Pensioners were promised pension reform, they did not get it. Women, the handicapped and the natives were promised affirmative action. They did not get it. Those who were unemployed were promised jobs. Those who were concerned about the deficit were promised that it would
Supply
be reduced. Member after member of the Liberal Party has risen this afternoon to defend the Government's record on these issues, saying that it was the Opposition that filibustered or that the economic times have changed. They had a number of excuses, a litany of excuses as to why the Government has failed. Those charges by Government Members are simply not substantiated.
In many of the areas of the Throne Speech, the Government has not even introduced legislation or put forward any proposals. It has come back and said "the Opposition would not let us do it". To say that the Opposition somehow prevented the Government from passing legislation is simply not true. The Government did not even have the legislation to present to us or any plans with regard to affirmative action to keep the promises it had made.
Therefore, I would argue that since the Government cannot bring forward actions on the Throne Speech which it promised three year's ago, that Throne Speech is somehow invalid. It is up to the Government to come forward with a new program, a new platform as to what it wishes to present to the House of Commons. Right now we know that the Throne Speech which started this session is really not in play. It does not contain the proposals which the Government will work on.
We know, for example, concerning the Foreign Investment Review Agency, that it has gone in the exact opposite direction. During Question Period the Liberals have admitted that with regard to unemployment they really will not do very much. Therefore, they will not keep the promises they made in the Throne Speech.
Canadians inside and outside the House of Commons are really suffering from that lack of leadership by the Government. I would join others in the House in saying that it is time for a Throne Speech. It is time for the Government to give us an indication as to what direction it wishes to follow. It is time for Canadians to know whether the Government has a plan, any goals for the country, or any objectives so that Canadians in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, B.C. or the Northwest and Yukon Territories can know whether there are any regional development plans or whether the Government is concerned about their issues. Canadians deserve that.
However, what Canadians do not deserve is another Throne Speech which is as false as the Throne Speech we heard three years ago. We need a Throne Speech, we need the legislation which results from a Throne Speech, and we need Government action through budgets and through other economic measures which will meet the needs of Canadians. We want a Throne Speech which will be followed by the Government. We want one which will clearly establish where the Government wants to take the country, and we want ensuing legislation to follow the same direction.
I attended a conference in Flin Flon, Manitoba, held by the Flin Flon Crisis Group. It was basically for women and others concerned about the plight of women in our society. I spoke of

April 18, 1983
Supply
Government programs and the Government's failure to take affirmative action.
I also spoke of another trend in our modern society. The fact that the Throne Speech is so full of empty promises reminds me of the story I recited to that group. I said that what we must beware of today is the modern equivalent of the false prophets, because there are a number of them in this country. The federal Liberal Government certainly has a number of false prophets.
I would like to refer to some of the techniques used by these false prophets. One technique, of course, is to announce that there will be a new Government program or a change in Government programs. The literature is distributed across the ;ountry, with Cabinet Ministers making speeches here and there. However, the Government never actually introduces the :hanges or new programs. In other words, it simply takes the publicity and runs. There is no action.
Another technique of these false prophets is to advertise a program throughout the country, again distributing fancy brochures, such as those which have been distributed concerning the Crow rate. The Government does everything to make people feel that there are programs for small business, for women, for pensioners and others in the country. However, the Government never explains to small businessmen, fishermen and farmers that they do not qualify for the programs. In other words, the Government does not come clean as to what its programs are about.
A third technique is for the Government to announce a program, advertise a program and actually introduce it. It is passed, and people do qualify for it. However, when they apply for it, they find that there are only limited funds available.
Those are three of the techniques used by the Government's false prophets. However, like many false prophets, all they do is turn off those who are listening to those words almost in a worshipful sense.
We need a new Throne Speech. Canadians need new legislation. They need leadership in the country. We are in very serious economic times. It is hurting the social fabric of our families. It is hurting women, children and those people who wish to be working. It is hurting those who wish to keep their farms away from the Royal Bank, those who wish to be able to keep their businesses going. They need a new Throne Speech. After three years, Canadians deserve a Throne Speech and leadership. What they do not want and what they would absolutely reject is another series of pronouncements by false prophets, promising and promising but never delivering, never providing the services, and never giving any leadership or showing any concern over the plight of Canadians. We want such a Throne Speech, but we want to ensure that it is not simply a bunch of political propaganda financed by taxpayers and with no follow-up. Give us the leadership, but ensure that it is not simply political crap.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Was the Hon. Member for Churchill telling the House that the Government had failed miserably in its attempts to carry out the commitments made in the Speech
from the Throne given in the other place? Is he saying that the present Government has shown a singular lack of leadership in resolving the problems of ordinary Canadians? Is he asking the Liberal Party to resign its position in Government and to face the electorate, or is he at least calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister so that the rank and file of the Liberal Party of Canada, those who are so embarrassed by their Party can be given an opportunity to elect a new House Leader so that there may be some new direction for the country?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, of course I agree with the concerns raised by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra. In terms of what I was asking, I was of course following the wording of the Conservative Opposition motion which, unfortunately, does not call for the resignation of the Government. I wish it did. However, if the Hon. Member has asked me whether or not the Government has provided leadership, I must of course say no. If he has asked me whether it has kept its promises, I must say no. If the Hon. Member has asked me whether it is providing leadership, I must say no. If he has asked me whether it should resign, I must say yes.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) could not have foreseen this in 1979 when he and his colleagues so easily supported the Members opposite?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, we have spent most of this debate talking about the fact that the Throne Speech is three years old. The Tories' grudge is much older than that. On February 18, 1980, the people of Canada turned the Conservative Government out.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: They were misled.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The Hon. Member says that they were misled. Let me explain again what happened for those who have a kind of revisionist sense of history.
The former Minister of Finance introduced a budget. After the Liberals moved a non-confidence motion, we in this part of the House of Commons proposed our own amendment explaining why we could not support the budget. The Conservative Government of that day decided that it would not amend its budget and would not discuss and work with its allies in the House of Commons, the Social Credit Party, and let the vote take place. It was defeated in that vote. Two months later it was defeated, not by the Liberals or the NDP but by the people of Canada. The people of Canada rejected that budget, they rejected the Government and they rejected the leader of that Party.
That Party is in the process of ejecting that same leader now. I see no reason for us to be condemned for doing three years earlier what they are now doing.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Churchill needs a lesson in numbers, I am afraid. He talks about the lack of the Government in 1979 to collect the votes of a Party
April 18, 1983

which had five seats in the House when the Government lost by six votes.
The people of Canada rejected the Conservative Party in the 1980 election because they were taken in by the very type of statements made during the election campaign that the group opposite, which is a very small group today, made in its Throne Speech of 1980. After all, that is the issue with which we are concerned today, the failure of the Government to act on the promises it made in the Throne Speech, as well as the ones it made in the election campaign that resulted in the unfortunate resignation of the Government that we on this side formed at that time.
1 might also remind the Hon. Member for Churchill that he has the wrong perspective on the process that is going on now in this Party. This Party is in the process of reaffirming the leader of this Party whom we have enjoyed for the last seven years.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will all find out sometime in mid June whether the Conservative Party is reaffirming its previous leader, since the new leader is the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), of course. However, we have noticed that there seems to be a fair number of other Conservatives travelling throughout the country at this time saying that perhaps the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) is not the person to lead their Party. Many Canadians feel that he is not the person to lead the Party. They certainly had the opinion in February, 1980 that he was not the person to lead the country.
It is up to the Conservatives to pick their leader, but I, and I am sure our Party, will not give a blank cheque to whomever the Conservative leader is, just as we would never give a blank cheque to whomever leads the Liberal Party. We have our policies and we are proud of them. We wish to work in the House and throughout the country to promote our policies. The debate which is occurring in the House of Commons right now concerns the very fact that when the Liberals make a throne speech and announce their policies they do not follow through with them. They do not keep their promises. The most noticeable result has been that they have lost the faith of ordinary Canadians.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising to see the Official Opposition presenting a motion of this kind today, the same Opposition that complains and gets upset about the hardship Canadians are suffering because of this Government. They are asking for action, but today, they are wasting the time of the House by trying to put the Government on the defensive.
Here is part of the motion that was moved today by the Official Opposition, and I quote:
That this House condemns the Government for its failure to live up to the commitments made in the Speech from the Throne on April 14, 1980.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues opposite and the representatives of the New Democratic Party have just said that they agree that this Government has not lived up to a single commitment, and Members on the Government side, like myself, we say that we have fully lived up to our commitments. So it depends a little on what side of the House one happens to be. In any case, Mr. Speaker, it cannot be denied, and I could name fifty or so commitments the Government has made and met, namely, various programs the Government has introduced and implemented. Therefore, I would be tempted to ... A lot has been said about leadership, and the Progressive Conservatives are very busy preparing their next convention. They are terribly excited at the thought that the candidates for the leadership are going to bring about miraculous changes. They are still the same people-


Mr. Jarvis:: Very quiet!


Henri Tousignant: Very quiet indeed! They are still the same people, Mr. Speaker. I could give a brief analysis of the leadership candidates. However, I think I shall refrain, since that is not the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, speaking of leadership, I feel that demanding the resignation of a man like the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and providing as an alternative people who are not very experienced and who do not seem to have the desired ability, I think these are very rash statements on the part of the Official Opposition, and perhaps I should also include the New Democratic Party, which is always defending widows and orphans. The New Democratic Party is for and against almost everything. Sometimes they express their shock at the deficit, and the next day, they demand all kinds of costly measures which will necessarily increase the deficit. These people know they will never be in power, so it is easy for them to say just about anything.
Some of the Government's commitments, and I shall name only a few, were included in the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, in the Speech from the Throne, and I quote:
My Government will act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure will be avoided.
What did we do, Mr. Speaker?
In his November 1981 budget, the Minister of Finance announced the creation of a guarantee plan under which the Government will guarantee, subject to a maximum of $3,000 and other prescribed limits, the repayment of deferred interest to owners whose gross debt service ratios exceed 30 per cent. That was a commitment on the part of the Government and it has been fulfilled.
The Government also undertook to introduce improvements under the mortgage renewal program. The plan was extended from November 12, 1982 to December 31, 1983, and homeowners who spend more than 30 per cent of their gross income

the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program enables the unemployed over 46 years of age and living in designated areas to find another job, because the Government is paying a wage subsidy to employers who are willing to hire those people.
1 would also like to discuss another program, namely the Community Employment Program which enables workers who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits to obtain another productive job on a temporary basis. The Bill to provide for the payment of benefits to laid-off employees and to amend the Canada Labour Code which was given Royal assent on March 31, 1982, made available in last resort in designated industries some benefits to workers aged 54 to 65, who were laid off as a result of too fierce a competition from abroad, of an industrial reorganization or because of certain problems related to a non-cyclical market.
The National Training Act which controls the present training programs and has them focused on skills particularly in demand on the national level, promotes the adjustment of businesses and workers to technological development, and then intensifies training courses available to those who are getting ready to enter the labour market.
The following programs are aimed at some special manpower groups. The Affirmative Action Program, for example, stimulates the private sector into developing a practical attitude towards women, native people and the disabled. Special provisions for native training are making financial aid available to enable native men and women to get some additional training.
There is also another program aimed at women getting involved in non-traditional occupations. The purpose of this program is to help women who want to hold non-traditional occupations which were previously reserved for men by paying wage subsidies to employers who are willing to give them the required training.
I would like to point out the Women's Employment Program designed to extend the professional scope of the working women by encouraging them to attend skill training courses or to hold occupations which were generally denied to them in the
past.
1 will now refer to the Program for the Employment-Disadvantaged, the purpose of which is to find permanent jobs in the private sector for the physically and mentally handicapped and for the chronically unemployed.
Mr. Speaker, we could give a lengthy list of all programs launched by this Government.
I could mention others. The Government intends to work more closely with voluntary and local organizations towards the implementation of a community service program. What has the government been doing? It is looking into its dealings
Supply
with voluntary organizations, as well as into the subsidies it is paying to them.
I see that I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker; I could mention a great many other programs. In the Speech from the Throne, the government indicated that as major employer in this country, it would lead the way in its approach to the Public Service. It suggested that all discrimination based on sex should be eliminated. What have we done, Mr. Speaker? In 1981, within the Personnel Policy Branch of the Treasury Board, a Developmental Personnel Policies and Activities Division was created to make sure that the government fulfilled its promises of implementing within the Civil Service affirmative action and equality-of-opportunity policies. The Division must ensure that women, natives and handicapped people have equal opportunities. It is also responsible for the quality of worklife within the Civil Service. It tends to support the efforts of its own Affirmative Action section, the Public Service Commission, and the Affirmative Action sections of other departments.
The Government had other commitments: it said it would amend the Criminal Code to solve for instance the problem of violent crimes against women, and together with provincial and territorial governments, it would try to improve the social services and care provided to women who are the victims of violent acts.
What have we done, Mr. Speaker? Bill C-127, to amend the Criminal Code, was adopted by the House on August 4, 1982. We have replaced rape with sexual assaults of various degrees. We have done away with the need to have a plaintiffs claim substantiated. We have done away with the spouse's immunity. The Criminal Code has been amended so that its provisions apply to people of both sexes.
Here is a good one that concerns energy, Mr. Speaker. Since the Progressive Conservative Government was defeated by the Liberals, the Official Opposition has been complaining that we misled the population because we promised not to increase oil prices. That is a good one! Let's be clear about what happened at the time, Mr. Speaker. The Progressive Conservatives promised that they would implement an 18 cents a gallon excise tax on oil and increase prices gradually up to 85 per cent of oil prices. The Liberals promised not to impose this 18 cents a gallon tax and to maintain prices at 75 per cent of world prices. This is exactly what happened. The price of oil must go up just like the price of bread and butter. Moreover, it would obviously have increased much more if the Progressive Conservatives had remained in power. They clearly said that they wanted domestic prices to 85 per cent of world prices in addition to imposing an excise tax of 18 cents a gallon. And now they spread the rumour that the Liberals did not keep their promise. I can assure the House that oil prices would be much higher if the Progressive Conservative Government was still in power.

April 18, 1983
Supply
I can see that the time is going fast, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say this in closing. If there is one thing this Government can be blamed for, it can only be for having given too much and for keeping its promises too well. At a given time, everyone waits anxiously for a Speech from the Throne. Throughout Canada, people are waiting impatiently for a Speech from the Throne as though no one will have to work any longer afterwards. The throne speech will be a miracle and no one in Canada will have to work in the future. Well, Mr. Speaker, if this Government can be blamed for something, it is for having given too much. We now ask all Canadians to do their share and if they do, we shall put our economy back on track.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the various Members who spoke in the House this afternoon, particularly to the previous speaker who I know is most interested in seeing that Canada, which we both serve with pleasure, moves on and takes its rightful place within the community of great industrialized nations with which we have previously shared company. As the Hon. Member is aware, that is fast disappearing and slipping through our fingers, primarily due to the inaction and lack of motivation on the part of his Government.
I want to address myself to the comments of two Members in particular. The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) tried to indicate to the House and to the nation that we in the Conservative Party were the masters of our own doing. As much as Members of the New Democratic Party may try to abdicate their responsibilities, they cannot erase from the history books and annals of Canadian Parliament that indeed they supported the Liberal Party when they brought on the defeat of the Conservative Government. They contributed to and in fact were the cause of the election held on February 18, 1980.
It little matters what has transpired since with reference to NDP support of the Liberal Party. Members of that Party continue to trade their votes for support of Liberal programs with which they can identify, such as the National Energy Program, that is such a disaster. There is talk of nationalization of Canada's economy with higher Government deficits, more regulation and increased inflation. I draw that to the attention of the Hon. Member, this House and the nation. They cannot get away with that.
I listened to the Hon. Member for Restigouche (Mr. Har-quail), who is from my Province of New Brunswick. I am sorry he has found it necessary to step out for a few minutes to take a well deserved break from his exhausting duties in this House. He made several comments with which I cannot help but take issue. One was that the best the Opposition seems to be able to do is dwell on items that are really not pertinent to our society, to our system and to our nation. He referred to a motion put by the Opposition a few days ago. His words were something to the effect that the best they can do is talk about tourism.
I am sure the Hon. Member is not aware of this or he would not have talked about it in such demeaning terms, but tourism happens to be the second largest industry in Canada. It is the second largest employer in this country. Coming from a part of a Province that is experiencing unduly high unemployment, I would think that the Hon. Member for Restigouche would be vitally concerned with any industry that created as much employment as the tourist industry. I wonder just how interested he is in what the Government does or the lack of what it does in the area of creating employment.
The Hon. Member for Restigouche referred to the need for a budget and the fact that we will have a new budget tomorrow evening. He indicated that the Government has had four budgets as well as two economic statements over the past three years. He referred to the fact that we on this side have had three policy conferences or some other general meetings over the past number of years, which indicates to him that we have had one every six months. I do not know where he gets his arithmetic from, but it is probably indicative of the arithmetic used on that side of the House when preparing budget statements. If we have had three policy conferences, it is interesting that the Government found it necessary to come in with six budget statements during a period of time when this country moved from the state of being bad to absolutely despicable, absolutely terrible.
The Hon. Member for Restigouche talked about inflation being down to 6 per cent. I know he would not have wanted to mislead this nation and that he would thank me for bringing to his attention and that of the country the fact that the inflation rate is not 6 per cent. I am sure that all Hon. Members of this House share with him the wish that it was 6 per cent. However, the rate of inflation is now 7.5 per cent. That is much more respectable than the 12 or 13 per cent of a few short months ago, but it is still not 6 per cent. Interestingly enough, the fact that inflation is now down to 7.5 per cent has not increased the confidence of investors in this nation. In fact, it seems to have had a non-effect. Investors in this country are not at all encouraged.
The Hon. Member for Restigouche referred to assistance acts. What have these assistance acts done to small businesses? Last year 80,000 businesses in this country closed their doors and laid off their employees. Small businesses are the greatest employers in Canada in terms of job creation. Not only have
80,000	businesses closed their doors, the rate of small businesses that went bankrupt last year exceeds or is of the order of 1,000 per month. That is a deplorable condition. The Hon. Member for Restigouche should be aware of these facts before standing up in this House and indicating to his constituents and others what his Government is doing. He said he was elected to do a job and that he is accepting his role.
The Hon. Member for Restigouche put forth an interesting position. He comes from a region of New Brunswick where unemployment is rampant, running away, due primarily to the mismanagement of the economy by this Government. During the time that he spoke, not once did he refer to the closure of
April 18, 1983

Canadian Forces Base Chatham, which is in an adjoining riding. Not once did he refer to the loss of hundreds, indeed thousands of jobs in that region due to this Government's inaction on the closure of CFB Chatham. That is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the Hon. Member for Resti-gouche. I take him to task, as I know the people in his region and Province will, over that.
He referred to his leader. I notice he did not waver when the question was put to him as to whether he intends to support his leader in the upcoming election. He acted like a bulldog, took the issue to heart, wrestled with it and left no doubt in the minds of Members opposite and his constituents. He will stay with his leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), whom he described as the best leader this country has had in the last number of years, certainly the most dynamic. I will be interested in seeing how he goes into the next election, supporting in such vocal and endearing terms a man for whom he has expressed to the nation he has such great admiration. I look forward to watching that gentleman's participation and his support as time goes on.
I want to address myself to another item that is pertinent to the debate today. In reply to a question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) suggested to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), who had made a query about the National Energy Program, that he should look at the speech made by the Prime Minister in Halifax in 1980. I have a copy of the speech which the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made to the Halifax Board of Trade in Halifax, Nova Scotia on January 25, 1980. I brought this matter to the attention of the House before, and I will do so again. He said at that time and I quote:
I am announcing today, as part of our program, that a Liberal Government will take immediate action to ensure the full cooperation of all parties in the construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the Maritimes. The -pipeline will have reversible capacity so that Maritimers will have the opportunity, both to use western natural gas now and to send off-shore gas to central Canada later. Like the railroad in the 1880s, energy pipelines in the 1980s have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation.
In the Speech from the Throne, it was stated:
My Government equally favours the earliest possible construction of a natural gas pipeline to Quebec City and the Maritime Provinces and awaits with interest the report of the National Energy Board on this project.
The Speech from the Throne was delivered on April 14, 1980. The speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) delivered to the Halifax Board of Trade was on January 25, 1980, just some three months earlier.
We are all aware of what the National Energy Board has said in its subsequent report on the construction and status of the pipeline. Here, for the Parliamentary Secretary's reference should he care to take a look at it, is the speech that he suggested the Hon. Member for Bow River have a look at. I invite him to look at this.
Let us look at what happened to the natural gas pipeline project for the Maritime Provinces. Let us see what took place concerning that pipeline and how the Prime Minister's promises were fulfilled.
Supply
I asked a question of the then Minister of Energy, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), who is going to deliver this great document tomorrow, about that promise. This was on May 25, 1982, a short time ago. I asked the Minister what he intended to do about the Prime Minister's promise that the natural gas pipeline would be like a railroad into the 1980s, an energy pipeline that would have the potential to be a steel link uniting the nation.
At that time the Minister of Energy responded by saying that they originally anticipated and expected to have natural gas flowing into the Maritimes by 1982 or 1983. Now there is only a bleak possibility that that will happen, though the Minister indicated that much would depend on the findings off the East Coast. I said at that time that it is a great tragedy for Atlantic Canadians who are facing the bleak prospect of at least another two years before there is the opportunity to deliver natural gas to this region.
In a further response on the Late Show, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister told me that "the natural gas transmission system to the east coast is one of the top priorities of the federal Government". He went on to say that TQ & M, the pipeline contractors, began work on the gas pipeline extension to Quebec City some time ago. However, the company has encountered some difficulties which have resulted in construction delays. The delays have been phenomenal.
A report was released on May 21, 1982, just a day or two before, which indicated that the federal Government and business officials admit that the plan to bring western Canadian natural gas to the Maritimes is near collapse because of skyrocketing cost estimates, labour slowdowns and other factors. Yet the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary continued to state that indeed it is a priority of the Government.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession a release made by the then Minister of Energy on June 2, 1982, just a few weeks after I made that speech in the House. That release states that the Minister's update of the National Energy Program on Monday night would provide subsidies to the prime contractor of the natural gas pipeline. He said that the Government would meet the full cost of engineering and survey work to be carried out in the next two and a half years and that a $45 million interest-free loan would be repaid when the Maritime portion is completed.
As of April 18, 1983, TQ & M has not yet signed an agreement to receive this loan. We now find ourselves at a time when the delivery of natural gas into the Maritime region has been promised by 1984 or 1985 at the latest. The agreements have not been signed. That is another example of a reneged promise. It is obvious that the National Energy Program as released in 1980 and the National Energy Program update of 1982 are miserable failures. It all ties in to the Speech from the Throne of April 14, 1980, when these and many other promises were made.
There is no question that this Government should recognize its responsibilities to the people of this nation. It should recognize that it has contributed nothing but defeat by default to this country and to the people who elected it to serve them

April 18, 1983
Adjournment Debate
in their best interests. We should as a responsible Parliament insist that this House indeed do prorogue. We should insist upon a new session. We should insist that this Government outline a renewed program of policies for the people of Canada to ensure that we get back on the track and on with the job of making Canada once again great. Under this administration, the reverse has taken place. It is indeed a terrible shame for the people that this Government purports to represent, and purports to make policies on behalf of, that the Government allows this session to exist and run on when indeed it has such a dismal record of failures behind it.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question in French to the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett). In view of the turmoil or, if you prefer, the excitement resulting from the preparations for their convention, and on the basis that in the very near future, they might form the Government, does it not simply confirm a lack of imagination on their part? Fully aware of the fact that they are bankrupt of ideas necessary for a Speech from the Throne, they are now asking this Government to come up with one with a view to developing their suggestions from it should they be elected at the next election, which tends to confirm their total lack of imagination; their only intention for asking this Government to present a new Speech from the Throne is their desire to use it for their next platform.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, in looking at the clock it is quite obvious that the Hon. Member does not expect a response. Indeed, all I can tell him is that his expectations will prove to be correct and indeed we will be forming the next Government when the next election is called.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Section (11) of Standing Order 62, proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the matter I want to address tonight is that of youth unemployment which
is fast becoming a very serious crisis in the country. It is a crisis not only in the sense of what is happening today but in terms of the impact it will have on our future, our potential and where the whole country will be going in the near future.
Last week I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what the Government was going to do about unemployment in the area of engineering. Looking at what was happening in the field of engineering since 1981, we find that unemployment has risen by about 500 per cent in this select group of people. Our concern was that on top of the 500 per cent unemployed, there is an additional 7,000 university graduates in the field of engineering who will be coming on the job market in 1983, within the next 60 to 90 days.
The Prime Minister's response was that we should sit back and wait for the budget which was going to solve our problems. I can only assume it is going to change things like the National Energy Program, which will in turn help create jobs for engineers.
Our young Canadian people are facing a very serious problem. Unemployment among the young today is running around 21 per cent. The unadjusted figures show it as 23 per cent, or a total of 650,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 who do not have jobs.
There is another group called the underemployed. At the moment 727,000 young Canadians are employed part time. Our information indicates that roughly half of those young Canadians would like full-time employment. Essentially, what that amounts to is that one-half of that 700,000-odd students are underemployed. That gives a total of about 350,000 young Canadians who are under-employed, part-time employed, looking for full-time jobs.
There is another problem which is creating a very serious situation. Very soon about 600,000 young Canadians will be looking for summer or part-time employment. In addition,
500,000	young Canadians will be looking for their first fulltime jobs. That is half a million young Canadians looking for their first jobs.
I should like to break down those figures based on information obtained from Statistics Canada. The universities will graduate over 80,000 B.As, 10,000 to 13,000 M.As and just under 2,000 Ph.Ds. Add to that the undergraduates and those with diplomas and it means about 114,000 young Canadians coming out of universities will be looking for full-time employment this season. Another 70,000 from the community colleges will be looking for jobs.
The latest information I can obtain is from a study done in 1978 by Statistics Canada on people coming out of school into the labour force. It showed that 113,000 young people would graduate from high school. I think the same would be true
April 18, 1983

today. Those coming out of high school who have not graduated but who will be looking for full-time employment will be about 200,000. The total number of young people leaving university, college and high school will be about half a million, and they will be looking for their first full-time job in 1983.
When the figures are totalled, we find that about 1.5 million young Canadians will be seeking their first full-time jobs. Of course, as the Prime Minister suggested, all of them will be waiting for the famous budget tomorrow night that is going to solve their problems. They are not going to be fooled by adjusting unemployment figures. They know that they are looking for jobs and if they do not find them, they will be numbered among the unemployed.
This Government will have to allow the private sector to move and to work, because it will have to create a great deal of those jobs and potential opportunities for our young Canadians. I presume that is what the Prime Minister was talking about, and that was his intention when he referred to waiting for the budget for this last week. I presume that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) is going to undo the damage which has been caused by the budget he inherited and the budgets which have come before. They have caused no end of problems, in fact have created a situation in which the number of unemployed young people in Canada is now approaching in the neighbourhood of 1.5 million. All of these people who are looking for jobs represent the future potential for Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the situation that exists. It is a serious problem, one which this Government must address very quickly.


Joseph Roger Rémi Bujold: Mr. Speaker, with the Member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper), I believe that the Government is necessarily concerned about youth unemployment, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) have indicated this quite clearly. That is why this year, the Government has decided to inject $50 million more in the Summer Canada Program. We would like about 72,000 young people to have jobs within this Program during the summer season, but it will of course be impossible to meet all requests, and that is why we are appealing to the private sector to do its share.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration opened a Student Employment Center today in Toronto, and he said that with the co-operation of the private sector, we would probably be able to find jobs for 329,000 students during the summer. It is vital to have the private sector co-operate with the Federal Government in providing summer jobs for students that will enable them to continue their studies in the fall.
This year we have added another section to the Summer Canada Program to provide a training program for students over a period of three years, during which they would be able
Adjournment Debate
to work in a company to improve their skills, so that when they finish their schooling, they will be able to enter the labour market more readily. Very briefly, I would like to point out that the Government is concerned about youth unemployment in general. As far as training is concerned, in 1982-1983, 19,232 young people will have benefited from this Program which is helping them to improve their skills and subsequently enter the labour market and be able to take jobs which normally would not have been available to them.
Perhaps I may also mention the NEED Program, Mr. Speaker. We have been able to provide employment for large numbers of young people who normally would have been unable to find employment. Mr. Speaker, I think this indicates the Government is entirely aware of the unemployment problem among young people, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said, we obviously hope, with all Members on the other side of the House, that tomorrow evening's budget will contain measures that will also be beneficial to the young people of Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT-MIRABEL FILE
Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have all the patience needed to wait for the day the notorious Mirabel affair is brought to a successful issue. On October 15, 1979, when as an Opposition Member I made my maiden speech, I asked the then Minister of Transport about the status of Mirabel. On November 5, 1979, for a second time, I put forward to the same minister some proposals concerning Mirabel. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for us, they were sent back to the Opposition benches. On April 21, 1980, I brought up the subject again. I asked for information on the transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel, having in mind the economic well-being of the residents of Argenteuil-Papineau and especially the profitability of Mirabel Airport. On December 2, 1980, I made further representations to the Minister of Transport with a view to ensuring Mirabel's economic viability. On February 18, 1981, I again turned to the Minister for information on the matter. On March 23, I was speaking once more for Mirabel's viability. On April 23, 1981,1 appealed for a new policy on fuel costs. On October 26, 1981, I again asked the Minister for details on his flight transfer policy. On February 16, 1982, I asked the Minister if he indeed had the political will to make Mirabel viable. On May 14, 1982, I asked him once more whether we would have a decision soon. On May 20, 1982, I asked the same question. On July 16, 1982, I asked what the Government's intentions were concerning Mirabel's viability. On August 2, 1982, I touched once more on the subject, this time successfully, Mr. Speaker, for on August 6, 1982, at a press conference held in Montreal, the Minister of Transport made a few announcements. He said among other things that the Flying Tiger Corporation, the biggest cargo airline in the world, would be licensed to operate a cargo service between Mirabel and

April 18, 1983
Adjournment Debate
Chicago, along with certain other measures I shall not mention here. But there was a very important one concerning aviation fuel which will be available duty free for international and transborder flights on August 6th.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the same question. People in Argenteuil-Papineau are fed up with this but, Mr. Speaker, I am just as stubborn as certain officials who have recommended all sorts of far fetched solutions for the development of Canada's largest airport. In the meantime, the provincial Government is making fun of us. The PQ Government is happy that Mirabel is a fiasco, because they are helping with public funds certain groups that are committed to Mirabel's failure.
Mr. Speaker, once more I raise this issue, and I am convinced that my colleague from Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, is also fed up with answering my questions. He certainly would be if in his own constituency he were to face the same tragedy as my constituents around Mirabel, the people north of Montreal who were promised something like the equivalent of the James Bay project as far as airports go. Federal officials, like former Minister de Belleval who was all for Mirabel, have now disappeared in the landscape. I am sure my colleague from Parkdale-High Park will agree with me that it is time for a decision to be made. People have been patient, they have believed and now, instead of Fighting for the development of Mirabel, local Members of Parliament are forced as I am to fight for the status quo. Mr. Speaker, I am asking for an answer, and I hope that this time it will be a positive one.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for the aggressive manner in which he represents his constituents. I want to assure him that while the provincial Government may be making fun of his problem, the federal Government is not.
As he knows, last August when the Minister announced the roles for the airports in the Montreal area he also announced a series of specific measures to stimulate traffic at Mirabel. All the measures which were within the power of the Department of Transport to implement have been implemented. These include the open cargo transit rights for foreign non-U.S. carriers and the reduction of landing fees for international and transborder cargo for all cargo planes. They include the right to carriers serving both Mirabel and Toronto to carry connecting passengers between Mirabel and Toronto and the elimination of landing fees for positioning movements between Mirabel and Dorval. As well, there is the creation of a private sector task force called the Levasseur Committee to take a fresh look at Mirabel. Its report will be released soon. Discussions with the Quebec Government to improve bus services have been implemented and they are expected to result in improvements in the near future.
One measure not implemented so far, regrettably, is the one dealing with bonded fuel. This measure has turned out to be more difficult to implement than anticipated and involves the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Departments of Finance and Revenue. Each of these departments has to determine the impact of this measure on its existing programs.
I want to reassure the Hon. Member that this is being done. In fact, as indicated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) in his answer, a meeting between Ministers was recently held and a resolution of this question is expected very soon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.18 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, April 19, 1983